An Evaluation of Models for Predicting Opponent Position in First-Person Shooter Games (Counter...
-
Upload
jeffery-fisher -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of An Evaluation of Models for Predicting Opponent Position in First-Person Shooter Games (Counter...
An Evaluation of Models for Predicting Opponent Position in
First-Person Shooter Games (Counter Strike)
Based on a paper of same title byStephen Hladky and Vadim Bulitko,
IEEE(2008)
Presented By: Agrawal Rahul Kale Sagar Maheshwari Mradul
Under The Guidance of:
Prof. Pushpak Bhattacharya
Objective
• AI-controlled humanoid characters– Skillful– Believable human-like
• Solution Hidden Semi Markov Model[2] Particle Filter[3]
Introduction
• Agents• Real Time Settings• Game State Representation & Actions• Act under Uncertainty
Motivation
• Cheating Inhumanly accurate aim Easier economy in strategy games Simplified physics in car racing Omniscience in games where the game state is partially
revealed to human players
Contribution
• Application & Evaluation of Models– Predict opponent position
• Learning– Game logs– Some observational game information that is
available to humans
Problem Formulation
• Goal of PredictorA = (a1 , a2 , ..., an ), ai Є R2
where n is the no. of opponents
• Inputs– presence/absence of opponents – number of opponents alive– game clock
• Predictor performance– Prediction accuracy error (PAE) metric
shortest path distance between predictor’s prediction and opponents true position.
– Human similarity error (HSE) metricshortest path distance between a
predictor’s prediction and human expert’s prediction.
• Objective to minimize HSE & PAE• Both are antagonistic.
Related Work
• Bioshock– Vision cones
• Quake II– Soar Cognitive Architecture
• Isla– Occupancy maps
• Southy[5] used HSMM– Predict unit’s trajectory using “black-box” motion
model.– Drawback
All units moved at a constant speed. Model was designed for units traveling along optimal
path. Each unit was tracked from single origin to single
destination.
• Use of particle filter– Used to track opponent’s movement
Model Overview
• Dynamic discrete state estimation problem• Find probability distribution when opponent is
not visible• Two models
– Hidden Semi Markov Model– Particle Filter
Hidden Semi Markov Model• The difference between HMM and HSMM (used here)
• Allows transition from one state to other in dmax steps.
• Duration function (Geometric Distribution)
– P(d | st = h) h H, ∀ ∈– where H is set of states– st is state at time t– d is number of time units model is in state st
• We ignore self transitions
Forward Algorithm for HSMM
• We discretize the game map in a 2-D grid G• We set set of states in HSMM H as G• Use this algorithm to predict the position of
the opponent
Particle Filter
• Approximates value of s by a set of weighted particles
• Each particle represents a point in the grid G• And it has a weight whose some over G adds
to 1.
Building the models• Experienced human players have an
accumulated knowledge of games• We use input from their game logs to train
models using their movements and trajectories• We use frames, world coordinates, and view
cones to set the probabilities in HSMM• We just need initial weights in Particle Filter
Updating the models• The observation function
• Above update is used in both models
– Wt is set of visibility cubes
– X(g) is Wt without considering z-coordinate– Cv(p) is visibility cube of point p
Updating the models(cont.)
• The Particle Filter weight update
• HSMM model update– If an opponent is observed at a location s,
then we make corresponding forward probability 1 for that state and 0 for others
• Model is removed if opponent dies
Experimental Setup
• Use of game logs:– A database of 190 championship level game
logs was collected.– 140 game logs were used for training and
rest 50 for testing.– Frames were recorded after every 0.45
seconds.
Experimental Setup
• Collecting Human Data:– Human experts were used for providing
data for prediction.– The experts were able to watch the game.– At certain frames, experts were required to
click on the map, declaring his best guesses.
An example frame from game log
Empirical Evaluation
• Measuring PAE and HSE:
– Here F(At,Bt) is the mean error per prediction between two coordinate vectors At and Bt for frame t.
– nt is no. of opponents alive.
– π is a permutation over Bt.
Empirical Evaluation
• Measuring PAE and HSE:– For PAE, At are positions provided by
predictor and Bt are true positions.
– For HSE, Bt are positions predicted by human experts.
Experimental ParametersParameter Values
Opposing Team T or CT
Model Type HSMM, PF(500), PF(1000)
Grid Cell Dimension 250,300,350,400
Dimension of cubes 100 units
dmax 10
View cone angle 90 degree
Experimental Results
• Two classes of predictors are used for each model type.
• “Avg.” class represents average performance over all the predictors.
• “Best” class consists of all non-dominated predictors.
PAE vs HSE Graph
Predictor Performance
Conclusion
• HSMM gives better results than particle filter for this problem.
• The best HSMM predictors have better accuracy than experiences human players.
• The mistakes they do make are more human like.
References[1] S. Hladky and V. Bulitko, “An evaluation model for predicting opponent positions in FPS video games”, IEEE, 2005.
[2] K. Murphy, “Hidden semi-Markov models”, University of California, Berkley, Tech. Rep., 2002
[3] C. Darken and B. G. Anderegg, “Particle Filters and Simulcara for More Realistic Opponent Tracking”, AI Game Programming Wisdom 4. Charles River Media, 2008, pp. 419-427.
[4] L. R. Rabiner, A tutorial on Hidden Markov Model and Selected Applications in Speech Recognition, Proceedings of IEEE, Vol 77, No. 2, 1989.
[5] F. Southy, W. Loh and D. Wilkinson, “Inferencing complex agent motions from partial trajectory observations”, in IJCAI, Hyderabad, 2007. pp 2631-2637.