The task of keyhole (unobtrusive) plan recognition is central to adaptive game AI. "Tech trees" or "build trees" are the core of real-time strategy (RTS) game strategic (long term) planning. This paper presents a generic and simple Bayesian model for RTS build tree prediction from noisy observations, which parameters are learned from replays (game logs). This unsupervised machine learning approach involves minimal work for the game developers as it leverage players' data (com- mon in RTS). We applied it to StarCraft1 and showed that it yields high quality and robust predictions, that can feed an adaptive AI.
This work was encouraged by the reading of weber Data Mining Approach to Strategy Prediction and the fact that they provided their dataset. They tried and evaluated several machine learning algorithms on replays that were labeled with strategies (supervised learning). There are related works in the domains of opponent modeling @cite_6 @cite_18 @cite_11 . The main methods used to these ends are case-based reasoning (CBR) and planning or plan recognition @cite_0 @cite_10 @cite_3 @cite_5 @cite_15 . There are precedent works of Bayesian plan recognition @cite_9 , even in games with @cite_13 using dynamic Bayesian networks to recognize a user's plan in a multi-player dungeon adventure. Also, Chung05 describe a Monte-Carlo plan selection algorithm applied to Open RTS.
@cite_13 @cite_18 @cite_9 @cite_6 @cite_3 @cite_0 @cite_5 @cite_15 @cite_10 @cite_11
2083705347 2144445939 1565097357 2080430334
This paper presents a Bayesian model to predict the opening (first strategy) of opponents in real-time strategy (RTS) games. Our model is general enough to be applied to any RTS game with the canonical gameplay of gathering resources to extend a technology tree and produce military units and we applied it to StarCraft1. This model can also predict the possible technology trees of the opponent, but we will focus on openings here. The parameters of this model are learned from replays (game logs), labeled with openings. We present a semi-supervised method of labeling replays with the expectation-maximization algorithm and key features, then we use these labels to learn our parameters and benchmark our method with cross-validation. Uses of such a model range from a commentary assistant (for competitive games) to a core component of a dynamic RTS bot AI, as it will be part of our StarCraft AI competition entry bot. We present a data mining approach to opponent modeling in strategy games. Expert gameplay is learned by applying machine learning techniques to large collections of game logs. This approach enables domain independent algorithms to acquire domain knowledge and perform opponent modeling. Machine learning algorithms are applied to the task of detecting an opponent's strategy before it is executed and predicting when an opponent will perform strategic actions. Our approach involves encoding game logs as a feature vector representation, where each feature describes when a unit or building type is first produced. We compare our representation to a state lattice representation in perfect and imperfect information environments and the results show that our representation has higher predictive capabilities and is more tolerant of noise. We also discuss how to incorporate our data mining approach into a full game playing agent. While several researchers have applied case-based reasoning techniques to games, only Ponsen and Spronck (2004) have addressed the challenging problem of learning to win real-time games. Focusing on Wargus, they report good results for a genetic algorithm that searches in plan space, and for a weighting algorithm (dynamic scripting) that biases subplan retrieval. However, both approaches assume a static opponent, and were not designed to transfer their learned knowledge to opponents with substantially different strategies. We introduce a plan retrieval algorithm that, by using three key sources of domain knowledge, removes the assumption of a static opponent. Our experiments show that its implementation in the Case-based Tactician (CaT) significantly outperforms the best among a set of genetically evolved plans when tested against random Wargus opponents. CaT communicates with Wargus through TIELT, a testbed for integrating and evaluating decision systems with simulators. This is the first application of TIELT. We describe this application, our lessons learned, and our motivations for future work. Graphical models (e.g., Bayesian and constraint networks, influence diagrams, and Markov decision processes) have become a central paradigm for knowledge representation and reasoning in both artificial intelligence and computer science in general. These models are used to perform many reasoning tasks, such as scheduling, planning and learning, diagnosis and prediction, design, hardware and software verification, and bioinformatics. These problems can be stated as the formal tasks of constraint satisfaction and satisfiability, combinatorial optimization, and probabilistic inference. It is well known that the tasks are computationally hard, but research during the past three decades has yielded a variety of principles and techniques that significantly advanced the state of the art. In this book we provide comprehensive coverage of the primary exact algorithms for reasoning with such models. The main feature exploited by the algorithms is the model's graph. We present inference-based, message-passing schemes (e.g., variable-elimination) and search-based, conditioning schemes (e.g., cycle-cutset conditioning and AND OR search). Each class possesses distinguished characteristics and in particular has different time vs. space behavior. We emphasize the dependence of both schemes on few graph parameters such as the treewidth, cycle-cutset, and (the pseudo-tree) height. We believe the principles outlined here would serve well in moving forward to approximation and anytime-based schemes. The target audience of this book is researchers and students in the artificial intelligence and machine learning area, and beyond. Table of Contents: Preface Introduction What are Graphical Models Inference: Bucket Elimination for Deterministic Networks Inference: Bucket Elimination for Probabilistic Networks Tree-Clustering Schemes AND OR Search Spaces and Algorithms for Graphical Models Combining Search and Inference: Trading Space for Time Conclusion Bibliography Author's Biography