Forecasting Future Behavior: Agents in Board Game Strategy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings on machine learning agent behavior prediction in a board game application developed by a group of students. The goal of this research is to create a model facilitating collaboration between a user and an AI to play together in the board game using a Human-in-the-Loop architecture. By injecting explainability, the aim is to enhance communication and understanding between the user and the AI agent. Featuring a competitive Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on the Proximal Policy Optimization model, this research explores methods to make AI decisions transparent for enhanced player understanding. Two predictive models, a Decision Tree (DT) and a Deep Learning (DL) classifier, were developed and compared. The results show that the DT model is effective for short-term predictions but limited in broader applications, while the DL classifier shows potential for long-term prediction without requiring direct access to the game's AI. This study contributes to understanding human-AI interaction in gaming and offers insights into AI decision-making processes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it