BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

James Goodman

James Goodman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMultiagent Systems

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Visualising Multiplayer Game Spaces

We compare four different `game-spaces' in terms of their usefulness in characterising multi-player tabletop games, with a particular interest in any underlying change to a game's characteristics as the number of players changes. In each case we take a 16-dimensional feature space, and reduce it to a 2-dimensional visualizable landscape. We find that a space obtained from optimization of parameters in Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is the most directly interpretable to characterise our set of games in terms of the relative importance of imperfect information, adversarial opponents and reward sparsity. These results do not correlate with a space defined using attributes of the game-tree. This dimensionality reduction does not show any general effect as the number of players. We therefore consider the question using the original features to classify the games into two sets; those for which the characteristics of the game changes significantly as the number of players changes, and those for which there is no such effect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Does it matter how well I know what you're thinking? Opponent Modelling in an RTS game

Opponent Modelling tries to predict the future actions of opponents, and is required to perform well in multi-player games. There is a deep literature on learning an opponent model, but much less on how accurate such models must be to be useful. We investigate the sensitivity of Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) and a Rolling Horizon Evolutionary Algorithm (RHEA) to the accuracy of their modelling of the opponent in a simple Real-Time Strategy game. We find that in this domain RHEA is much more sensitive to the accuracy of an opponent model than MCTS. MCTS generally does better even with an inaccurate model, while this will degrade RHEA's performance. We show that faced with an unknown opponent and a low computational budget it is better not to use any explicit model with RHEA, and to model the opponent's actions within the tree as part of the MCTS algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Weighting NTBEA for Game AI Optimisation

The N-Tuple Bandit Evolutionary Algorithm (NTBEA) has proven very effective in optimising algorithm parameters in Game AI. A potential weakness is the use of a simple average of all component Tuples in the model. This study investigates a refinement to the N-Tuple model used in NTBEA by weighting these component Tuples by their level of information and specificity of match. We introduce weighting functions to the model to obtain Weighted- NTBEA and test this on four benchmark functions and two game environments. These tests show that vanilla NTBEA is the most reliable and performant of the algorithms tested. Furthermore we show that given an iteration budget it is better to execute several independent NTBEA runs, and use part of the budget to find the best recommendation from these runs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access