Metaheuristic Entry Points for Harnessing Human Computation in Mainstream Games

  • Peter Jamieson
  • Lindsay Grace
  • Jack Hall
  • Aditya Wibowo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8029)

Abstract

In this work, we describe a promising approach to harnessing human computation in mainstream video games. Our hypothesis is that one of the best approaches to seamlessly incorporating harnessing withing these games is by examining existing game mechanics and matching them to meta-heuristic algorithms. In particular, we believe that the best choices for early exploration of this problem are nature inspired meta-heuristic algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems. In this paper, we will describe the problem in more detail and describe two proof of concept games that demonstrate the viability of this approach. The first game is designed to be incorporated in Real-time Strategy games within the resource gathering aspects of these games, and the algorithm and problem that are used is related to Ant Colony Optimization and the Traveling Salesman Problem. The second game explores a racing game where the problem and algorithm are embedded in the numerical characteristics of the racer such as speed, agility, and jump power. These characteristics represent current solutions to different traveling salesman problems, and the solutions are modified through training and mating of racers; this is analogous to mutations and crossbreeding in genetic algorithms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blum, C., Roli, A.: Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Comput. Surv. 35, 268–308 (2003), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/937503.937505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cusack, C., Largent, J., Alfuth, R., Klask, K.: Online games as social-computational systems for solving np-complete problems. In: Meaningful Play (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Das, S., Suganthan, P.: Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for CEC 2011 competition on testing evolutionary algorithms on real world optimization problems. Tech. rep. (2010), http://web.mysites.ntu.edu.sg/epnsugan/PublicSite/SharedDocuments/CEC2011-RWP/Tech-Rep.pdf
  4. 4.
    Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., Colorni, A.: Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 26(1), 29–41 (1996), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=484436&tag=1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Falstein, N.: Natural Funativity. Gamasutra.com (2004), http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041110/falstein_pfv.html
  7. 7.
    FoldIt: (2008) http://fold.it/portal/
  8. 8.
    Glover, F.: Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Comput. Oper. Res. 13, 533–549 (1986), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=15310.15311 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (January 1989), http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0201157675
  10. 10.
    Internet Eyes: (2009), http://interneteyes.co.uk/
  11. 11.
    Khatib, F., Cooper, S., Tyka, M.D., Xu, K., Makedon, I., Popovic, Z., Baker, D., Players, F.: Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2011), http://www.ts-si.org/files/doi101073pnas1115898108.pdf
  12. 12.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J.R., Simon, H.A.: Tower of Hanoi - Problem Isomorphs and Solution Processes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 22(4), 290 (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macchiarella, P.: Trends in Digital Gaming: Free-to-Play, Social, and Mobile Games. Tech. rep. (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Steiglitz, K.: Optimization Algorithms and Complexity. Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pham, D., Ghanbarzadeh, A., Koç, E., Otri, S., Rahim, S., Zaidi, M.: The bees algorithm, a novel tool for complex optimisation problems. In: Virtual International Conference on Intelligent Production Machines and Systems, pp. 454–459 (2006), http://www.bees-algorithm.com/modules/2/4.pdf
  17. 17.
    Quinn, A.J., Bederson, B.B.: Human computation: a survey and taxonomy of a growing field. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1403–1412 (2011), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979148
  18. 18.
    Simon, H.A., Hayes, J.R.: Understanding Process - Problem Isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology 8(2), 165–190 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Wolpert, D.H., Macready, W.G.: No Free Lunch Theorems for Search, REPORT SFI-TR-95-02-010. Tech. rep. (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, X.S.: Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. Luniver Press (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, J., Johnson, T., Wang, H.: Isomorphic Representations Lead to the Discovery of Different Forms of a Common Strategy with Different Degrees of Generality. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1998), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=93CB1A5E27B562C8B7BD109A1BF3A241?doi=10.1.1.139.9596&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Jamieson
    • 1
  • Lindsay Grace
    • 1
  • Jack Hall
    • 1
  • Aditya Wibowo
    • 1
  1. 1.Miami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations