Programmatic Strategies for Real-Time Strategy Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search-based systems have shown to be effective for planning in zero-sum games. However, search-based approaches have important disadvantages. First, the decisions of search algorithms are mostly non-interpretable, which is problematic in domains where predictability and trust are desired such as commercial games. Second, the computational complexity of search-based algorithms might limit their applicability, especially in contexts where resources are shared among other tasks such as graphic rendering. In this work we introduce a system for synthesizing programmatic strategies for a real-time strategy (RTS) game. In contrast with search algorithms, programmatic strategies are more amenable to explanations and tend to be efficient, once the program is synthesized. Our system uses a novel algorithm for simplifying domain-specific languages (DSLs) and a local search algorithm that synthesizes programs with self play. We performed a user study where we enlisted four professional programmers to develop programmatic strategies for mRTS, a minimalist RTS game. Our results show that the programs synthesized by our approach can outperform search algorithms and be competitive with programs written by the programmers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".