Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of game AI is largely industry driven, lacking an agreed upon formalism for AI representation. Ad-hoc scripting languages, simple finite state machines, behaviour trees, and planners are employed, but not in a fashion adhering to any standard. As a result, reuse is sparse between games and formal analysis techniques are undeveloped. As research for a Ph.D. thesis, we propose to show that a layered Statechart-based AI is a suitable formalism for Game AI, enabling the use of model-driven development techniques such as reuse and high-level analysis including model-checking. The fundamentally modular nature of this approach leads naturally to reuse as a fundamental component of the design process. Supported by a clearly defined formalism, useful behavioural analyses become possible, such as testing reactions to various inputs at design time. We also explore transformations at the modelling level to enable procedural generation, allowing rapid deployment of varying AIs. Additionally, such a model allows for the generation of efficient code that can be directly inserted into games. Tool support for reuse, generation, and analysis will be developed, then employed in creating an industrial scale AI, proving that this formalism is appropriate for industrial use.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".