MIMIC: Integrating Diverse Personality Traits for Better Game Testing Using Large Language Model
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
Modern video games pose significant challenges for traditional automated testing algorithms, yet intensive testing is crucial to ensure game quality. To address these challenges, researchers designed gaming agents using Reinforcement Learning, Imitation Learning, or Large Language Models. However, these agents often neglect the diverse strategies employed by human players due to their different personalities, resulting in repetitive solutions in similar situations. Without mimicking varied gaming strategies, these agents struggle to trigger diverse in-game interactions or uncover edge cases.In this paper, we present MIMIC, a novel framework that integrates diverse personality traits into gaming agents, enabling them to adopt different gaming strategies for similar situations. By mimicking different playstyles, MIMIC can achieve higher test coverage and richer in-game interactions across different games. It also outperforms state-of-the-art agents in Minecraft by achieving a higher task completion rate and providing more diverse solutions. These results highlight MIMIC’s significant potential for effective game testing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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