MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416014001 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v21i1.36826

From Unstable to Playable: Stabilizing Angry Birds Levels via Object Segmentation

2025· article· W4416014001 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdi Farrokhimaleki, Richard Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSegmentationObject (grammar)Stability (learning theory)Image segmentationScale-space segmentationRange (aeronautics)Segmentation-based object categorization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procedural Content Generation (PCG) techniques enable automatic creation of diverse and complex environments. While PCG facilitates more efficient content creation, ensuring consistently high-quality, industry-standard content remains a significant challenge. In this research, we propose a method to identify and repair unstable levels generated by existing PCG models. We use Angry Birds as a case study, demonstrating our method on game levels produced by established PCG approaches. Our method leverages object segmentation and visual analysis of level images to detect structural gaps and perform targeted repairs. We evaluate multiple object segmentation models and select the most effective one as the basis for our repair pipeline. Experimental results show that our method improves the stability and playability of AI-generated levels. Although our evaluation is specific to Angry Birds, our image-based approach is designed to be applicable to a wide range of 2D games with similar level structures.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207