MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206122739 · doi:10.1109/cog52621.2021.9619054

Skeleton-based multi-agent opponent search

2021· article· en· W4206122739 on OpenAlexafffund
Wael Al Enezi, Clark Verbrugge

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAdversaryExploitPosition (finance)Artificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many games, players may run away and hide from NPC enemies that have previously observed them, either to avoid combat or as part of pursuing a stealth-based solution. Rational NPC response then requires searching for the hidden player, which for maximal realism should build on the last known location, and consider the relative likelihood of a player hiding or reaching each searched location. Unfortunately, search behavior is not usually systematic, and in practice is either limited to randomized goals within a small region, or exploits global information on the player position that should be unknown. In this work, we introduce a real-time method for directing a multi-agent search utilizing the environment's topology. This approach allows for more natural and wider-scoped search behavior. Experimental results show that this method scales to relatively large game maps, and performs better than or close to a naïve team of agents fully aware of the player's position.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207