Game Level Blending using a Learned Level Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game level blending via machine learning, the process of combining features of game levels to create unique and novel game levels using Procedural Content Generation via Machine Learning (PCGML) techniques, has gained increasing popularity in recent years. However, many existing techniques rely on human-annotated level representations, which limits game level blending to a limited number of annotated games. Even with annotated games, researchers often need to author an additional shared representation to make blending possible. In this paper, we present a novel approach to game level blending that employs Clustering-based Tile Embeddings (CTE), a learned level representation technique that can serve as a level representation for unannotated games and a unified level representation across games without the need for human annotation. CTE represents game level tiles as a continuous vector representation, unifying their visual, contextual, and behavioral information. We apply this approach to two classic Nintendo games, Lode Runner and The Legend of Zelda. We run an evaluation comparing the CTE representation to a common, human-annotated representation in the blending task and find that CTE has comparable or better performance without the need for human annotation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".