Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 65 references

The Many Challenges of Human-Like Agents in Virtual Game Environments

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hybrid CNN-RNN model trained on map images and match statistics tells human players from game bots with an F1 score of 0.92, up from 0.58 for a feature-based baseline.

desk verdict Useful believability survey, but the F1=0.92 detection result is unsupported because the classification unit is undefined and the reported metrics conflict. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20011 v3 pith:BDN54HVE submitted 2025-05-26 cs.AI cs.HCcs.MM

Maciej Swiechowski , Dominik Slezak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.HCcs.MM
keywords Human-LikeAIBelievableAgentsBotDetectionVideoGameConvolutionalNeuralNetworkRecurrentBehavioralTracesTacticalTroops:AnthraciteShift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that human-likeness in game agents is an empirical property that can be measured from gameplay data, at least in games with a sufficiently expressive action space. It makes the case in two ways: a survey that distills thirteen recurring challenges in building believable game AI, and an experiment in the tactical game Tactical Troops: Anthracite Shift where a hybrid convolutional-recurrent network is trained to label players as human or bot. On five-fold cross-validation the full network reaches an F1 score of 0.92, up from 0.58 for an earlier model built from twenty numerical features, with the recurrent component contributing most of the signal and the convolutional component adding precision. The paper closes by proposing an open hypothesis: the harder a game makes it to build human-like AI, the easier it should be to build a method that tells humans and that AI apart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid deep network, fed with multimodal inputs over time. A convolutional subnetwork extracts spatial features from six two-dimensional map layers per game state, while a recurrent subnetwork processes a vector of per-player numerical features; the two streams are combined and the whole input is repeated over the last 250 states so the model can exploit both positioning and temporal dynamics. The ablation table shows the two branches are not redundant: the recurrent branch alone gives F1 0.88 but lower precision, and adding the convolutional branch raises precision sharply while nudging F1 to 0.92. The paper's conceptual machinery is the list of thirteen challenges, which explains why human-likeness is hard to build and why certain bot tells, such as superhuman precision, unrealistic reaction times, and repeated mistakes, make detection feasible.

What would settle it

Re-run the network with the sample unit set to an individual player and with all states from one match kept inside the same cross-validation fold, then compare per-player precision and recall. If the F1 of 0.92 cannot be reproduced under that protocol, or if the model only detects matches that contain at least one human, the claim that individual humans are distinguished from bots is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery reported here is that a deep network combining convolutional and recurrent layers can distinguish human players from AI-controlled players in Tactical Troops: Anthracite Shift using only logged game states. The network sees six spatial map layers that encode obstacles, rooftops, teleporters, control points, and the health of friendly and enemy units, alongside ten per-player scalar features such as turn number, damage dealt and received, friendly-fire ratio, grenade use, and status changes; these inputs are processed as sequences of up to 250 consecutive states so that temporal dynamics matter. The full model achieves a macro-F1 of 0.92, with human-class precision 0.87 and recall 0.81, compared with 0.58 for the earlier model; the recurrent branch alone scores 0.88 and the convolutional branch alone 0.59. The authors interpret this as evidence that believability has measurable behavioral signatures and that a detector can be built more easily in games where creating human-like agents is harder.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that each training sample is labeled for an individual player rather than for a whole match, and that samples from the same match are never split between training and test folds; if either assumption fails, an F1 of 0.92 would not show that individual humans are being distinguished from bots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Human-likeness in an expressive game can be scored automatically from logged gameplay, without human judges, because the learned detector reaches F1 0.92 on held-out gameplay states.
  • The same architecture can serve as a quality-assurance loop: weak bots are flagged as non-human, then the bot is improved until the detector mistakes it for a human, and the detector is retrained on the new bot.
  • Bot detection in games and virtual environments that prohibit automated players can run on spatial and temporal traces alone, using the six map layers and numeric feature streams described here.
  • Believability scores will not transfer across games: the paper argues that a bot's detectability depends on the environment's expressiveness and on how the bot was built, so comparing human-likeness numbers between games is not meaningful.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves open: running the same detector across games with different action-space expressiveness should reproduce the inverse correlation, with near-chance performance in minimal games like rock-paper-scissors and higher scores in open-ended worlds.
  • The reported result is probably tied to this specific bot: a bot deliberately built to respect the paper's thirteen challenges, such as imperfect aiming, bounded reaction time, and non-repeated mistakes, could force the detector's F1 down, implying a natural adversarial loop between bot designers and detector builders.
  • The data contains only a few thousand matches with at least one human player among more than ninety thousand matches, so the human-class metrics rest on a small minority of the data; per-player labels and match-level cross-validation splits would settle whether the model separates individuals or merely detects the presence of a human in a match.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper has two parts: a survey of thirteen challenges in creating human-like AI in games, and an empirical study in the tactical game Tactical Troops: Anthracite Shift. The empirical study trains a deep network combining convolutional and recurrent components on match logs to distinguish human players from bots, reporting a macro-F1 of 0.92, a substantial improvement over an earlier XGBoost model (F1=0.58). The authors frame the result as evidence that their architecture significantly outperforms the earlier approach and propose an inverse relationship between the difficulty of creating human-like agents and the ease of detecting them.

Significance. If the reported F1=0.92 is valid and the classification task is what the paper claims, the method would be a useful contribution to bot-detection and human-likeness evaluation in game environments. The survey, based on a literature search of 54 papers, organizes common challenges in a useful way and may serve as a reference for researchers. However, the empirical result is the load-bearing claim, and its current presentation has several ambiguities that prevent the reader from interpreting the number. The paper does offer a concrete falsifiable hypothesis and a planned public competition, which are strengths.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, data description] The classification unit is undefined. The text states that the dataset comprises 93,195 logs from 89,667 AI-vs-AI matches, 2,190 AI-vs-Human matches, and 1,338 Human-vs-Human matches. Since the classes are {Human, Bot}, an AI-vs-Human match contains both a human and a bot and cannot be assigned a single ground-truth label of either class. The paper must state whether each log is classified at match level or player level, and how the 2,190 mixed matches are labeled (e.g., as 'contains at least one human'). If the label is match-level human presence, then F1=0.92 does not support the conclusion that the model distinguishes individual human players from bots; it only detects whether a human participated in the match.
  2. [Section 4.1, comparison with XGBoost] The claim that the deep learning model 'clearly indicates ... significantly outperformed' the XGBoost model is confounded by data size and feature set. The XGBoost model was trained on 800 matches with 20 summary features, while the deep model was trained on 93,195 logs with multimodal sequence inputs. The F1 increase from 0.58 to 0.92 could be due to the larger training set and richer features rather than the architectural choice. A controlled comparison using the same training data and comparable feature sets, or at least a discussion of this limitation, is needed before making the stronger claim.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (1)-(4) and Table 1] The reported numbers are internally inconsistent under the stated metric definition. With Precision(H)=0.87 and Recall(H)=0.81, Eq. (2) gives F1(H)=0.84. The reported Macro-F1 of 0.92 therefore requires F1(Bot)≈1.0, a per-class score that is not reported. Given the large majority of AI-vs-AI matches, a model that classifies almost all matches as bot would achieve high bot-class F1 while performing more poorly on humans. The authors should report per-class precision, recall, and F1 for both classes, together with the confusion matrix and fold-wise variance, so that the macro-F1 is interpretable.
  4. [Section 4.1, 5-fold cross-validation] The construction of the cross-validation folds is not described. If individual players contribute multiple matches, a random split of logs can place logs from the same player into both training and test folds, leading to optimistic performance due to player-identity leakage. The paper should specify whether logs are grouped by player (or at least by match) before splitting, and how the 2,190 mixed matches are distributed across folds.
  5. [Section 4, model description] The neural network architecture is described only textually; essential details for reproducibility are omitted. The paper does not specify the output layer, loss function, optimizer, training epochs, batch size, number of layers, or activation functions, and Fig. 2 is referenced but not included in the text provided. Without these details, the reported F1 cannot be independently replicated or assessed for robustness to implementation choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The notation in Eq. (1) uses 'Macro|F1', which is unconventional, and the text says 'TN_X, TN_X, TN_X' where it should list true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. Please correct the typography and the variable names.
  2. [Section 2, 'Avoiding Superhuman Behavior'] The phrase 'possess a certain level of skill' contains a spelling error: 'posses' should be 'possess'.
  3. [Section 5] The hypothesis about the inverse relationship between challenge of creation and ease of detection is stated as an open hypothesis, but the paper does not discuss how it might be empirically tested using the existing data or the planned competition. A brief operationalization would make the hypothesis more useful.
  4. [Introduction] The survey methodology is described briefly, but the final number of papers (54) is mentioned after the selection step. A short note on inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., reading abstracts and introductions) would strengthen the survey's transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classifier result is an empirical measurement, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is primarily empirical. Section 4 trains a CNN+RNN classifier on game-state logs and reports 5-fold cross-validated F1, precision, and recall; these are measured outcomes rather than parameters fitted to the target claim. No equation in the paper defines one quantity in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The XGBoost baseline F1=0.58 is taken from the authors' prior work [49], but it is used as an external comparison point, not as a premise that mathematically forces the new model's F1=0.92, and the new F1 is independently computed on the current data. The citation to [49] for the AI player's methodology describes the test object (the bot) rather than importing a conclusion that entails the result. The concluding inverse-correlation hypothesis is explicitly open and is not used to generate any reported number. Concerns about whether the classification unit is a match or a player, the arithmetic consistency of the reported macro-F1, and the different training-set sizes between the DNN and XGBoost are correctness and interpretation risks, not circularity under the specified criteria. Accordingly, no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central result is an empirical classifier, so the main ledger items are the hand-chosen input representations and the domain assumptions about the game's expressiveness and the representative bot.

free parameters (3)
  • Sequence length of 250 game states per input = 250
    Chosen by hand for the RNN and CNN input; affects what temporal context the model sees, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Six input map layers = 6
    Design choice for the spatial component; the paper does not justify why these six layers are sufficient.
  • Numerical feature set per player = 10 x 2 (eight listed in text)
    The feature set is chosen by hand; the paper lists eight items while claiming ten, indicating an incomplete specification.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The recorded game states (map renderings, numeric features) contain sufficient signal to learn a human-vs-bot classifier.
    The entire empirical study depends on this; it is asserted without a prior analysis of feature informativeness.
  • domain assumption The bot implemented in [49] is representative of AI agents in this game, so the classifier's performance says something about human-like AI in general.
    The study uses only one bot implementation from the authors' own prior work; the conclusion generalizes beyond this specific bot without evidence.
  • standard math Standard supervised learning assumptions (i.i.d. samples, valid cross-validation, no leakage) hold.
    The F1 score is interpreted as an estimate of generalization; this requires that train/validation splits respect match boundaries, which is not stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Many Challenges of Human-Like Agents in Virtual Game Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDN54HVE

@misc{pith2026250520011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Many Challenges of Human-Like Agents in Virtual Game Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDN54HVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20011}
}
read the original abstract

Human-like agents are an increasingly important topic in games and beyond. Believable non-player characters enhance the gaming experience by improving immersion and providing entertainment. They also offer players the opportunity to engage with AI entities that can function as opponents, teachers, or cooperating partners. Additionally, in games where bots are prohibited -- and even more so in non-game environments -- there is a need for methods capable of identifying whether digital interactions occur with bots or humans. This leads to two fundamental research questions: (1) how to model and implement human-like AI, and (2) how to measure its degree of human likeness. This article offers two contributions. The first one is a survey of the most significant challenges in implementing human-like AI in games (or any virtual environment featuring simulated agents, although this article specifically focuses on games). Thirteen such challenges, both conceptual and technical, are discussed in detail. The second is an empirical study performed in a tactical video game that addresses the research question: "Is it possible to distinguish human players from bots (AI agents) based on empirical data?" A machine-learning approach using a custom deep recurrent convolutional neural network is presented. We hypothesize that the more challenging it is to create human-like AI for a given game, the easier it becomes to develop a method for distinguishing humans from AI-driven players.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Movement range in Tactical Troops: Anthracite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A map of obstacles. One of the six input layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Neural Network architecture for the problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Maciej Świechowski, Daniel Lewiński, and Rafał Tyl. 2021. Combining Utility AI and MCTS Towards Creating Intelligent Agents in Video Games, with the Use Case of Tactical Troops: Anthracite Shift. In 2021 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI50451.2021. 9660170

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Maria Arinbjarnar and Daniel Kudenko. 2012. Actor Bots. In Believable Bots: Can Computers Play Like People? , Philip Hingston (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_3 2012

  3. [2]

    Christian Arzate Cruz and Jorge Adolfo Ramirez Uresti. 2018. HRLB ˆ2: A Reinforcement Learning Based Framework for Believable Bots. Applied Sciences 8, 12 (2018), 2453

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Christine Bailey, Jiaming You, Gavan Acton, Adam Rankin, and Michael Katchabaw. 2012. Believability Through Psychosocial Behaviour: Creating Bots That Are More Engaging and Entertaining . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 29–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_2 2012

  5. [4]

    Anton Bogdanovych, Tomas Trescak, and Simeon Simoff. 2015. Formalising Believability and Building Believable Virtual Agents. In Artificial Life and Computational Intelligence: First Australasian Conference, ACALCI 2015, February 5-7, 2015. Proceedings 1 . Springer, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 142–156

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Anton Bogdanovych, Tomas Trescak, and Simeon Simoff. 2016. What Makes Virtual Agents Believable? Connection Science 28, 1 (2016), 83–108

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    On the Vertical Distribution of Values of $L$-functions in the Selberg Class

    Bobby D. Bryant and Risto Miikkulainen. 2006. Evolving Stochastic Controller Networks for Intelligent Game Agents. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2006.1688419

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    Murray Campbell, A Joseph Hoane Jr, and Feng-hsiung Hsu. 2002. Deep Blue. Artificial Intelligence 134, 1-2 (2002), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004- 3702(01)00129-1

    doi:10.1016/s0004- 2002

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Marc Cavazza. 2000. Al in Computer Games: Survey and Perspectives. Virtual Reality 5 (2000), 223–235

    2000

  2. [9]

    Peter I Cowling, Edward J Powley, and Daniel Whitehouse. 2012. Information Set Monte Carlo Tree Search. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4, 2 (2012), 120–143

    2012

  3. [10]

    Peter I Cowling, Colin D Ward, and Edward J Powley. 2012. Ensemble Determinization in Monte Carlo Tree Search for the Imperfect Information Card Game Magic: The Gathering. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4, 4 (2012), 241–257

    2012

  4. [11]

    Jacques Ehrmann, Cathy Lewis, and Phil Lewis. 1968. Homo Ludens Revisited. Yale French Studies 41 (1968), 31–57

    1968

  5. [12]

    Salma Elsayed and David J King. 2017. Affect and Believability in Game Characters: A Review of the Use of Affective Computing in Games. In GAME- ON’2017, 18th annual Conference on Simulation and AI in Computer Games . EUROSIS, 90–97

    2017

  6. [13]

    David Gamez, Zafeirios Fountas, and Andreas K Fidjeland. 2012. A Neurally Controlled Computer Game Avatar with Humanlike Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 5, 1 (2012), 1–14

    2012

  7. [14]

    Sylvain Gelly, Levente Kocsis, Marc Schoenauer, Michèle Sebag, David Silver, Csaba Szepesvári, and Olivier Teytaud. 2012. The Grand Challenge of Computer Go: Monte Carlo Tree Search and Extensions.Communications ACM 55, 3 (March 2012), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1145/2093548.2093574

    2012

  8. [15]

    Michael Georgeff, Barney Pell, Martha Pollack, Milind Tambe, and Michael Wooldridge. 1999. The Belief-Desire-Intention Model of Agency. In Intelligent Agents V: Agents Theories, Architectures, and Languages: 5th International Workshop, ATAL’98 Paris, France, July 4–7, 1998 Pro...

    1999

  9. [16]

    Simon Hecker, Dengxin Dai, Alexander Liniger, Martin Hahner, and Luc Van Gool

  10. [17]

    Matteo Hessel, Joseph Modayil, Hado Van Hasselt, Tom Schaul, Georg Ostrovski, Will Dabney, Dan Horgan, Bilal Piot, Mohammad Azar, and David Silver

  11. [18]

    Philip Hingston. 2009. A Turing Test for Computer Game Bots.IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 1, 3 (2009), 169–186

    2009

  12. [19]

    Carroll E Izard. 2013. Human Emotions. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  13. [20]

    Magnus Johansson. 2013. Do non player characters dream of electric sheep?: A thesis about players, npcs, immersion and believability . Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University

    2013

  14. [21]

    Igor V Karpov, Jacob Schrum, and Risto Miikkulainen. 2012. Believable Bot Navigation via Playback of Human Traces. In Believable Bots: Can Computers Play Like People? Springer, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_6

    2012 doi

  15. [22]

    Ahmed Khalifa, Aaron Isaksen, Julian Togelius, and Andy Nealen. 2016. Modifying MCTS for Human-Like General Video Game Playing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (New York, New York, USA)(IJCAI’16). AAAI Press, 2514–2520

    2016

  16. [23]

    Leslie Kurke. 1999. Ancient Greek Board Games and How to Play Them.Classical philology 94, 3 (1999), 247–267

    1999

  17. [24]

    John Laird. 2002. Research in Human-Level AI using Computer Games. Commun. ACM 45 (01 2002), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/502269.502290

    2002

  18. [25]

    John Laird and Michael VanLent. 2001. Human-Level AI’s Killer Application: Interactive Computer Games. AI Magazine 22, 2 (Jun. 2001), 15–26. https: //doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v22i2.1558

    2001 doi

  19. [26]

    Michael Sangyeob Lee and Carrie Heeter. 2012. What do you mean by believable characters?: The effect of character rating and hostility on the perception of character believability. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds 4, 1 (2012), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.4.1.81_1

    2012 doi

  20. [27]

    Lars Lidén. 2003. Artificial Stupidity: The Art of Intentional Mistakes. AI Game Programming Wisdom 2, 5 (2003), 41–48

    2003

  21. [28]

    Daniel Livingstone. 2006. Turing’s Test and Believable AI in Games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 4, 1 (2006), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1111293.1111303

    2006

  22. [29]

    Jacek Mańdziuk and Przemysław Szałaj. 2012. Creating a Personality System for RTS Bots . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 231–264. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_10

    2012 doi

  23. [30]

    Nuno Marques, Francisco Melo, Samuel Mascarenhas, Joao Dias, Rui Prada, and Ana Paiva. 2013. Towards Agents with Human-Like Decisions Under Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 35. 2978– 2983

    2013

  24. [31]

    John McCarthy. 1990. Chess as the Drosophila of AI. In Computers, Chess, and Cognition, T. Anthony Marsland and Jonathan Schaeffer (Eds.). Springer, 227–237

    1990

  25. [32]

    Stephanie Milani, Arthur Juliani, Ida Momennejad, Raluca Georgescu, Jaroslaw Rzepecki, Alison Shaw, Gavin Costello, Fei Fang, Sam Devlin, and Katja Hofmann

  26. [33]

    Ian Millington. 2019. AI for Games. CRC Press

    2019

  27. [34]

    Sánchez-Ruiz-Granados, and Federico Peinado

    Maximiliano Miranda, Antonio A. Sánchez-Ruiz-Granados, and Federico Peinado

  28. [35]

    James H Moor. 1976. An Analysis of the Turing Test. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition30, 4 (1976), 249–257

    1976

  29. [36]

    Takahiro Morita and Hiroshi Hosobe. 2023. Video Game Agents with Human-like Behavior using the Deep Q-Network and Biological Constraints. In Proceedings of ICAART 2023 , Ana Paula Rocha, Luc Steels, and Jaap van den Herik (Eds.), Vol. 3. 525–531. https://doi.org/10.5220/001169...

    2023 doi

  30. [37]

    Negin Nejati, Pat Langley, and Tolga Konik. 2006. Learning Hierarchical Task Networks by Observation. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, William W. Cohen and Andrew W. Moore (Eds.). 665–672

    2006

  31. [38]

    OpenAI, Christopher Berner, Greg Brockman, Brooke Chan, Vicki Cheung, Przemysław Dębiak, Christy Dennison, David Farhi, Quirin Fischer, Shariq Hashme, Chris Hesse, et al. 2019. Dota 2 with Large Scale Deep Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:1912.06680 https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06680

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Steven Rabin. 2013. Game AI Pro: Collected Wisdom of Game AI Professionals . CRC Press. ISBN=978-1466565968

    2013

  33. [40]

    Adam Rankin, Gavan Acton, and Michael Katchabaw. 2010. A Scalable Approach to Believable Non Player Characters in Modern Video Games. In Proceedings of 11-th International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation , Alladin Ayesh (Ed.), Vol. 2010. 8

    2010

  34. [41]

    Arthur L Samuel. 1959. Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development 3, 3 (1959), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.33.0210

    1959 doi

  35. [42]

    Jonathan Schaeffer, Neil Burch, Yngvi Bjornsson, Akihiro Kishimoto, Martin Muller, Robert Lake, Paul Lu, and Steve Sutphen. 2007. Checkers is Solved. science 317, 5844 (2007), 1518–1522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144079

    2007 doi

  36. [43]

    Karpov, and Risto Miikkulainen

    Jacob Schrum, Igor V. Karpov, and Risto Miikkulainen. 2012.Human-Like Combat Behaviour via Multiobjective Neuroevolution . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_5

    2012 doi

  37. [44]

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al . 2016. Mastering the Game of Go with Deep Neural Networks and Tree Search. Nature 529, 7587 (201...

    2016 doi

  38. [45]

    David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lucas Baker, Matthew Lai, Adrian Bolton, et al. 2017. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature 550, 7676 (2017), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24270

    2017 doi

  39. [46]

    Bhuman Soni and Philip Hingston. 2008. Bots Trained to Play Like a Human are More Fun. In 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) . IEEE, 363–369. https: //doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2008.4633818

    2008

  40. [47]

    Maciej Świechowski. 2020. Game AI Competitions: Motivation for the Imitation Game-Playing Competition. In 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS) , Maria Ganzha, Leszek Maciaszek, and Marcin Paprzycki (Eds.), Vol. 21. IEEE, 155–160

    2020

  41. [48]

    Maciej Świechowski, Konrad Godlewski, Bartosz Sawicki, and Jacek Mańdziuk

  42. [50]

    Fabien Tencé, Cédric Buche, Pierre De Loor, and Olivier Marc. 2010. The Challenge of Believability in Video Games: Definitions, Agents Models and Imitation Learning. In Proceedings of GAMEON-ASIA’2010, Wenji Mao and Lode Vermeersch (Eds.). 38–45

    2010

  43. [51]

    Julian Togelius, Georgios N Yannakakis, Sergey Karakovskiy, and Noor Shaker

  44. [52]

    Oriol Vinyals, Igor Babuschkin, Wojciech M Czarnecki, Michaël Mathieu, Andrew Dudzik, Junyoung Chung, David H Choi, Richard Powell, Timo Ewalds, Petko Georgiev, et al . 2019. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575, 7782 (2019), 3...

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Artificial Intelligence Review 56 (2023), 2497–2562

    Monte Carlo Tree Search: A Review of Recent Modifications and Applications. Artificial Intelligence Review 56 (2023), 2497–2562. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10462-022-10228-y

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Henrik Warpefelt, Magnus Johansson, and Harko Verhagen. 2013. Analyzing the Believability of Game Character Behavior Using the Game Agent Matrix. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2013 Conference

    2013

  47. [55]

    Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah. 2016. Can Machines Think? A Report on Turing Test Experiments at the Royal Society. Journal of experimental & Theoretical artificial Intelligence 28, 6 (2016), 989–1007

    2016

  48. [56]

    Astrid Weiss and Manfred Tscheligi. 2012. Rethinking the Human–Agent Relationship: Which Social Cues Do Interactive Agents Really Need to Have? Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-642-32323-2_1

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Minerva Wu, Je Seok Lee, and Constance Steinkuehler. 2021. Understanding Tilt in Esports: A study on Young League of Legends Players. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , Yoshifumi Kitamura (Ed.). ACM New York, 1–9. https://doi.org/...

    2021

  50. [58]

    Lotfi A Zadeh. 2008. Toward human level machine intelligence-is it achievable? the need for a paradigm shift. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 3, 3 (2008), 11–22

    2008

  51. [59]

    Di Wang, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-Hwee Tan, and Gee-Wah Ng. 2009. Creating Human-like Autonomous Players in Real-time First Person Shooter Computer Games. In Proceedings of Twenty-First IAAI Conference , Karen Haigh and Nestor Rychtyckyj (Eds.). 173–178

    2009

  52. [65]

    Laura Zuchowska, Krzysztof Kutt, and Grzegorz J Nalepa. 2021. Bartle Taxonomy- based Game for Affective and Personality Computing Research. In Twelfth International Workshop Modelling and Reasoning in Context @ IJCAI, Jörg Cassens, Rebekah Wegener, and Anders Kofod-Petersen (E...

    2021

  53. [2012]

    Springer Publishing Company, 215–230

    Assessing Believability. Springer Publishing Company, 215–230

  54. [2017]

    Pac-Man or Pac-Bot? Exploring Subjective Perception of Players’ Humanity in Ms. Pac-Man. In Conference of the Spanish Association for Videogames Sciences . 1–12. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:45425351

  55. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol

    Rainbow: Combining Improvements in Deep Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 32. 3215–3222

  56. [2020]

    In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Learning Accurate and Human-Like Driving Using Semantic Maps and Attention. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2346–2353

    2020

  57. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Navigates Like Me: Understanding How People Evaluate Human-Like AI in Video Games. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.