artificial and computational intelligence in games (dagstuhl
Post on 03-Jan-2017
Embed Size (px)
Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 12191
Artificial and Computational Intelligence in GamesEdited bySimon M. Lucas1, Michael Mateas2, Mike Preuss3, Pieter Spronck4,and Julian Togelius5
1 University of Essex, GB, firstname.lastname@example.org University of California Santa Cruz, US, email@example.com TU Dortmund, DE, firstname.lastname@example.org Tilburg University, NL, email@example.com TU Dortmund, DE, firstname.lastname@example.org
AbstractThis report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 12191 Artificial andComputational Intelligence in Games. The aim for the seminar was to bring together creativeexperts in an intensive meeting with the common goals of gaining a deeper understanding ofvarious aspects of artificial and computational intelligence in games, to help identify the mainchallenges in game AI research and the most promising venues to deal with them. This wasaccomplished mainly by means of workgroups on 14 different topics (ranging from search, learning,and modeling to architectures, narratives, and evaluation), and plenary discussions on the resultsof the workgroups. This report presents the conclusions that each of the workgroups reached.We also added short descriptions of the few talks that were unrelated to any of the workgroups.
Seminar 6.11. May, 2012 www.dagstuhl.de/121911998 ACM Subject Classification I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems.Keywords and phrases Artificial Intelligence, Computational Intelligence, Computer GamesDigital Object Identifier 10.4230/DagRep.2.5.43Edited in cooperation with Nicola Hochstrate
1 Executive Summary
Simon M. LucasMichael MateasMike PreussPieter SpronckJulian Togelius
License Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Unported license Simon M. Lucas, Michael Mateas, Mike Preuss, Pieter Spronck, and Julian Togelius
The video game industry is the largest of the entertainment industries and growing rapidly.The foundations of this industry are techniques from computer science. New developmentswithin video games pose fresh challenges to computer scientists. Around the world, thenumber of dedicated study programs producing the workforce of the game industry isincreasing steadily, as is the number of computer science academics dedicating their careersto solving problems and developing algorithms related to video games. Such problems oftenrequire domain knowledge from various research domains, such as psychology and the arts,leading to an inherently interdisciplinary research field.
Except where otherwise noted, content of this report is licensedunder a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Unported license
Artificial and Computational Intelligence in Games, Dagstuhl Reports, Vol. 2, Issue 5, pp. 4370Editors: Simon M. Lucas, Michael Mateas, Mike Preuss, Pieter Spronck, and Julian Togelius.
Dagstuhl ReportsSchloss Dagstuhl Leibniz-Zentrum fr Informatik, Dagstuhl Publishing, Germany
44 12191 Artificial and Computational Intelligence in Games
Artificial intelligence (AI) and computational intelligence (CI), in one form or another,can be found at the heart of almost any video game, controlling the non-player characters(NPCs) as well as many aspects of the game world. They are also used throughout the gamedesign and development process. Academic research within these domains in games aims tosolve problems and enable innovation, pertaining to game design, game development, andgameplay. A main focus is on solving algorithmic problems to make game mechanisms moreintelligent and efficient, thus making games more immersive, interesting, and entertaining.In the context of serious and educational games, such improvements enable these games tofulfill their societal objectives better.
Artificial intelligence seeks to simulate intelligent behavior in any possible way with humanintelligence as a paradigm. Computational intelligence is an umbrella term for nature-inspiredcomputational methods for optimization, learning and controlling. The main methods areevolutionary algorithms, artificial neural networks, fuzzy logic, swarm intelligence, andartificial immune systems. Nowadays, the borders between both disciplines are blurred, andstate-of-the-art solutions use hybrid techniques combining elements of symbolical AI systems,CI algorithms and methods from statistical machine learning.
The aim for the Dagstuhl Seminar on Artificial and Computational Intelligence in Gameswas to bring together creative experts in an intensive meeting with the common goals ofgaining a deeper understanding of various aspects of games, and of further improving games.It was meant to enforce the communication of different communities and the collaborationwith the games industry. The exchange of different views and competencies was to helpidentify the main challenges in game AI research and the most promising venues to deal withthem. This could lead to a common vision of what kind of games could be made possible inthe future.
The Seminar was held from Sunday, May 6, 2012, until Friday, May 11, 2012. Over40 researchers came together at Schlo Dagstuhl, many of them highly-respected and well-known researchers in their field, but also several talented young researchers and even a fewrepresentatives from the AI specialists of the game industry. In contrast to what is commonfor such gatherings, very little time was spent on plenary talks. Instead, the focus was onworkgroups which discussed particular topics. However, several plenary sessions were held inwhich the workgroups reported on their results, and new topics for discussion were broughtup. To allow researchers to present their recent work, a poster session was held during thesecond day of the Seminar, and the posters remained up until the end.
The topics of the workgroups, in alphabetical order, were the following:AI Architectures for Commercial GamesAI Clearing HouseAI for Modern Board GamesComputational NarrativesEvaluating Game ResearchGame AI for Mobile DevicesGeneral Game PlayingLearning in GamesPathfindingPlayer ModelingProcedural Content GenerationSearchSocial Simulation GamesVideo Game Description Languages
Simon M. Lucas, Michael Mateas, Mike Preuss, Pieter Spronck, and Julian Togelius 45
In the remainder of this report, abstracts for all the workgroups, describing their discussionsand results, are given. Several researchers wrote a short report on their poster, which areincluded too. We aim to bring a full reports of all the workgroups in the form of proceedingslater.
As organizers we are really pleased with how the Seminar turned out. It proved to bethe stimulating and inspirational environment that we had hoped for. We found that most,if not all participants agreed with us on that. A lot of this success is due to the excellentfacilities provided by the people of Schlo Dagstuhl. We are highly grateful for having hadthe opportunity to be their guests for the Seminar. We definitely hope to return in thefuture.
Simon M. LucasMichael MateasMike PreussPieter SpronckJulian Togelius
46 12191 Artificial and Computational Intelligence in Games
2 Table of Contents
Executive SummarySimon M. Lucas, Michael Mateas, Mike Preuss, Pieter Spronck, and Julian Togelius 43
Overview of WorkgroupsPathfinding in GamesAdi Botea, Christian Bauckhage, Bruno Bouzy, Michael Buro, and Dana Nau . . . 48
Search in Real-Time Video GamesPeter Cowling, Michael Buro, Bruno Bouzy, Dana Nau, Martin Butz, PhilipHingston, Adi Botea, Moshe Sipper, Hector Muoz-Avila, and Michal Bida . . . . . 49
AI and CI Games for Mobile DevicesPhilip F. Hingston, Clare Bates Congdon, and Graham Kendall . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Generalized Video Game PlayingJohn Levine, Clare Bates Congdon, Michal Bida, Marc Ebner, Graham Kendall,Simon Lucas, Risto Miikkulainen, Tom Schaul, and Tommy Thompson . . . . . . . 52
Artificial Intelligence Architectures for GamesDaniele Loiacono, Michal Bida, and Alex Champandard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Believable Agents and Social SimulationsMichael Mateas, Elizabeth Andr, Ruth Aylett, Mirjam P. Eladhari, Richard Evans,Ana Paiva, Mike Preuss, and Michael Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Learning and Game AIHector Muoz-Avila, Michal Bida, Graham Kendall, Christian Bauckhage, andClare Bates Congdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
AI for Modern Board GamesPieter Spronck, Peter Cowling, Alex Champandard, Pier Luca Lanzi, and Ana Paiva 58
Player ModelingPieter Spronck, Georgios Yannakakis, Christian Bauckhage, Elisabeth Andr, DanieleLoiacono, and Gnter Rudolph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Evaluating AI in Games ResearchKenneth O. Stanley, Michal Bida, Paolo Burelli, Risto Miikkulainen, and GeorgiosN. Yannakakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The AIGameResearch.org AI Game ClearinghouseKenneth O. Stanley, Alex J. Champandard, Clare B. Congdon, Philip F. Hingston,Graham Kendall, Pier Luca Lanzi, Daniele Loiacono, and Risto Miikkulainen . . . 62
Video Game Description LanguageTommy Thompson, Simon Lucas, Tom Schaul, John Levine, Marc Ebner, andJulian Togelius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Procedural Content GenerationJulian Togelius, Alex J. Champandard, Pier Luca Lanzi, Michael Mateas, AnaPaiva, Mike Preuss and Kenneth O. Stanley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Computational NarrativeR. Michael Young,