Cognitive Shadowing for Learning Opponents in a Strategy Game Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While non-player opponents in commercial video games often rely on simple artificial intelligence techniques, machine learning techniques that capture human strategies could make them more engaging. Cognitive Shadow is a prototype tool that combines several artificial intelligence techniques to continuously model human decision-making patterns during tasks that require categorical decision-making. The present study aims to assess the potential of Cognitive Shadow to create learning opponents that will counter the player's decisions in a strategy game, making it more challenging and engaging. The game developed to this end is a more complex version of rock-paper-scissors, set within the context of a wizards’ duel. Each participant (Player 1) took part in three game sessions of 12 battles (each including five rounds), only being told that they would face a non-player opponent. During Session 1, Cognitive Shadow was in learning mode, thus the non-player opponent (Player 2) chose its plays at random. During Session 2, Cognitive Shadow was active and helped counter participants’ decisions without their knowledge. Before Session 3, participants were informed that their opponent was using machine learning to anticipate and counter their strategy. The results showed that Player 2 was more effective with the help of Cognitive Shadow, having won significantly more battles in Sessions 2 and 3 than in Session 1. In addition, the level of engagement reported by human players increased significantly in Session 3. These results indicate that cognitive shadowing can be used in a strategy game to increase engagement when players are aware of the learning behavior.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".