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
Unrealistic parser-based dialogue systems limit player agency. Large language model (LLM) characters can enhance agency but lack structure and measurable objectives. In this article, we propose a framework for structured interactions that tracks player progress through specific objectives, while also improving character LLM responses. This approach frames interactions as puzzles with states representing goal-based milestones. We employ an LLM to analyze dialogue history and enforce state transitions for state awareness and to enable specific actions like tailored LLM prompts and multimodal content changes. This results in a robust dialogue state tracking system for goal-based interactions. Using our method, a designer can craft transition rules as abstract goals that allow players to invent their own solutions rather than discovering the designer's intent. We demonstrate this with a hostage scenario game, where the player negotiates with a hostage-taker adversary. The game's effectiveness is assessed through qualitative gameplay analysis and a quantitative evaluation of our state tracking method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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