An Analysis of Model-Based Heuristic Search Techniques for StarCraft Combat Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-Time Strategy games have become a popular test-bed for modern AI system due to their real-time computational constraints, complex multi-unit control problems, and imperfect information. One of the most important aspects of any RTS AI system is the efficient control of units in complex combat scenarios, also known as micromanagement. Recently, a model-based heuristic search technique called Portfolio Greedy Search (PGS) has shown promisingpaper we present the first integration of PGS into the StarCraft game engine, and compare its performance to the current state-of-the-art deep reinforcement learning method in several benchmark combat scenarios. We then perform theperformance for providing real-time decision making in RTS combat scenarios, but has so far only been tested in SparCraft: an RTS combat simulator. In this same experiments within the SparCraft simulator in order to investigate any differences between PGS performance in the simulator and in the actual game. Lastly, we investigate how varying parameters of the SparCraft simulator affect the performance of PGS in the StarCraft game engine. We demonstrate that the performance of PGS relies heavily on the accuracy of the underlying model, outperforming other techniques only for scenarios where the SparCraft simulation model more accurately matches the StarCraft game engine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".