MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Achieving fairness in team-based FPS games: A skill-based matchmaking solution

2024· article· en· W4392370758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Computational Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOutcome (game theory)Process (computing)Fairness measureMeasure (data warehouse)Degree (music)Human–computer interactionData miningProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matchmaking is a critical part of online games which is often related to player satisfaction. To pursue a fair user experience, matchmaking mechanisms typically try to put players with similar skill levels into the same game. The traditional process relies heavily on the outcome of the game instead of the in-game performance of players. This paper proposes a new rating system to represent the skill level of both players and teams, along with a new definition to measure the degree of fairness of a matchmaking result. Three clustering methods (K-means, AGG and BKPP) are investigated to perform the matchmaking and the results are evaluated based on the newly-proposed definitions. The matchmaking results generated by the AGG method appear to reach the best degree of fairness. All source codes related to the project are available at https://github.com/WrtTZ/Achieving-Fairness-in-Team-Based-FPS-Games-A-Skill-Based-Matchmaking-Solution.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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