Eric B. Baum 1 NEC Research Institute, 4 Independence Way, Princeton NJ 08540 eric@research.NJ.NEC.COM Abstract The point of game tree search is to insulate oneself from errors in the evaluation function. The standard approach is to grow a full width tree as deep as time allows, and then value the tree as if the leaf evaluations were exact. This has been effective in many games because of the computational efficiency of the alpha-beta algorithm. A Bayesian would suggest instead to train a model of one's uncertainty. This model adds extra information in addition to the standard evaluation function. Within such a formal model, there is an optimal tree growth procedure and an optimal method of valueing the tree. We describe how to optimally value the tree, and how to approximate on line the optimal tree to search.
Planning in real-time offers several benefits over the more typical techniques of implementing Non-Player Character (NPC) behavior with scripts or finite state machines. NPCs that plan their actions dynamically are better equipped to handle unexpected situations. The modular nature of the goals and actions that make up the plan facilitates reuse, sharing, and maintenance of behavioral building blocks. These benefits, however, come at the cost of CPU cycles. In order to simultaneously plan for several NPCs in real-time, while continuing to share the processor with the physics, animation, and rendering systems, careful consideration must taken with the supporting architecture. The architecture must support distributed processing and caching of costly calculations. These considerations have impacts that stretch beyond the architecture of the planner, and affect the agent architecture as a whole. This paper describes lessons learned while implementing real-time planning for NPCs for F.E.A.R., a AAA first person shooter shipping for PC in 2005.
Min, Wookhee (North Carolina State University) | Baikadi, Alok (University of Pittsburgh) | Mott, Bradford (North Carolina State University) | Rowe, Jonathan (North Carolina State University) | Liu, Barry (North Carolina State University) | Ha, Eun Young (IBM) | Lester, James (North Carolina State University)
Recent years have seen a growing interest in player modeling, which supports the creation of player-adaptive digital games. A central problem of player modeling is goal recognition, which aims to recognize players’ intentions from observable gameplay behaviors. Player goal recognition offers the promise of enabling games to dynamically adjust challenge levels, perform procedural content generation, and create believable NPC interactions. A growing body of work is investigating a wide range of machine learning-based goal recognition models. In this paper, we introduce GOALIE, a multidimensional framework for evaluating player goal recognition models. The framework integrates multiple metrics for player goal recognition models, including two novel metrics, n-early convergence rate and standardized convergence point . We demonstrate the application of the GOALIE framework with the evaluation of several player goal recognition models, including Markov logic network-based, deep feedforward neural network-based, and long short-term memory network-based goal recognizers on two different educational games. The results suggest that GOALIE effectively captures goal recognition behaviors that are key to next-generation player modeling.
We propose that a planner should be provided with an explicit model of its own planning mechanism, and show that linking a planner's expectations about the performance of its plans to such a model, by means of explicit justification structures, enables the planner to determine which aspects of its planning are responsible for observed performance failures.
In conjunction with the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's Hall of Champions exhibit, the Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence held a panel discussion entitled "AI Game-Playing Techniques: Are They Useful for Anything Other Than Games?" This article summarizes the panelists' comments about whether ideas and techniques from AI game playing are useful elsewhere and what kinds of game might be suitable as "challenge problems" for future research.