BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for researchDiscover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Matthew Stephenson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
This paper presents a general approach for measuring distances between board games within the Ludii general game system. These distances are calculated using a previously published set of general board game concepts, each of which represents a common game idea or shared property. Our results compare and contrast two different measures of distance, highlighting the subjective nature of such metrics and discussing the different ways that they can be interpreted.
This paper introduces an information-theoretic method for selecting a subset of problems which gives the most information about a group of problem-solving algorithms. This method was tested on the games in the General Video Game AI (GVGAI) framework, allowing us to identify a smaller set of games that still gives a large amount of information about the abilities of different game-playing agents. This approach can be used to make agent testing more efficient. We can achieve almost as good discriminatory accuracy when testing on only a handful of games as when testing on more than a hundred games, something which is often computationally infeasible. Furthermore, this method can be extended to study the dimensions of the effective variance in game design between these games, allowing us to identify which games differentiate between agents in the most complementary ways.
While current General Game Playing (GGP) systems facilitate useful research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for game-playing, they are often somewhat specialised and computationally inefficient. In this paper, we describe the "ludemic" general game system Ludii, which has the potential to provide an efficient tool for AI researchers as well as game designers, historians, educators and practitioners in related fields. Ludii defines games as structures of ludemes -- high-level, easily understandable game concepts -- which allows for concise and human-understandable game descriptions. We formally describe Ludii and outline its main benefits: generality, extensibility, understandability and efficiency. Experimentally, Ludii outperforms one of the most efficient Game Description Language (GDL) reasoners, based on a propositional network, in all games available in the Tiltyard GGP repository. Moreover, Ludii is also competitive in terms of performance with the more recently proposed Regular Boardgames (RBG) system, and has various advantages in qualitative aspects such as generality.
Expert Iteration (ExIt) is an effective framework for learning game-playing policies from self-play. ExIt involves training a policy to mimic the search behaviour of a tree search algorithm - such as Monte-Carlo tree search - and using the trained policy to guide it. The policy and the tree search can then iteratively improve each other, through experience gathered in self-play between instances of the guided tree search algorithm. This paper outlines three different approaches for manipulating the distribution of data collected from self-play, and the procedure that samples batches for learning updates from the collected data. Firstly, samples in batches are weighted based on the durations of the episodes in which they were originally experienced. Secondly, Prioritized Experience Replay is applied within the ExIt framework, to prioritise sampling experience from which we expect to obtain valuable training signals. Thirdly, a trained exploratory policy is used to diversify the trajectories experienced in self-play. This paper summarises the effects of these manipulations on training performance evaluated in fourteen different board games. We find major improvements in early training performance in some games, and minor improvements averaged over fourteen games.
The physics-based simulation game Angry Birds has been heavily researched by the AI community over the past five years, and has been the subject of a popular AI competition that is currently held annually as part of a leading AI conference. Developing intelligent agents that can play this game effectively has been an incredibly complex and challenging problem for traditional AI techniques to solve, even though the game is simple enough that any human player could learn and master it within a short time. In this paper we analyse how hard the problem really is, presenting several proofs for the computational complexity of Angry Birds. By using a combination of several gadgets within this game's environment, we are able to demonstrate that the decision problem of solving general levels for different versions of Angry Birds is either NP-hard, PSPACE-hard, PSPACE-complete or EXPTIME-hard. Proof of NP-hardness is by reduction from 3-SAT, whilst proof of PSPACE-hardness is by reduction from True Quantified Boolean Formula (TQBF). Proof of EXPTIME-hardness is by reduction from G2, a known EXPTIME-complete problem similar to that used for many previous games such as Chess, Go and Checkers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a single-player game has been proven EXPTIME-hard. This is achieved by using stochastic game engine dynamics to effectively model the real world, or in our case the physics simulator, as the opponent against which we are playing. These proofs can also be extended to other physics-based games with similar mechanics.