Advertisement

Physics Simulation Games

  • Jochen RenzEmail author
  • Xiaoyu Ge
Reference work entry

Abstract

Building Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can successfully interact with the physical world in a comprehensive and human-like way is a big challenge. Physics simulation games, i.e., video games where the game world simulates real-world physics, offer a simplified and controlled environment for developing and testing Artificial Intelligence. It allows AI researchers to integrate different areas of AI, such as computer vision, machine learning, knowledge representation and reasoning, or automated planning in a realistic setting and to solve various problems that occur in the real world without having to consider all of its complexity at once. This chapter first outlines the main categories of physics simulation games, some of which have become increasingly popular in recent years with the widespread availability of handheld touchscreen devices. It then discusses the motivation and rationale for conducting Artificial Intelligence research on these games and highlights the main research goals. Some of the underlying AI problems and recent advances are discussed and exemplified using a popular physics simulation game. Finally, an overview of current research in related areas is given.

Keywords

Angry Birds game General game playing (GGP) Physics mixed reality games Puzzle games Research problems Simulation games Physics simulation games Artificial intelligence Procedure content generation (PCG) Serious game 

Recommended Reading

  1. N. Abdo, C. Stachniss, L. Spinello, W. Burgard, Robot, organize my shelves! Tidying up objects by predicting user preferences, in Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2015), Seattle, 2015Google Scholar
  2. A. Aldoma, F. Tombari, M. Vincze, Supervised learning of hidden and non-hidden 0-order affordances and detection in real scenes. in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, (St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, 2012), pp. 1732–1739 Google Scholar
  3. D. Ashlock, Automatic generation of game elements via evolution. in Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), IEEE Symposium on, IEEE, (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2010), pp. 289–296Google Scholar
  4. B. Banerjee, P. Stone, General game learning using knowledge transfer, in IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, 6–12 January 2007, pp. 672–677 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. P.W. Battaglia, J.B. Hamrick, J.B. Tenenbaum, Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110(45), 18,327–18,332 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. M.G. Bellemare, Y. Naddaf, J. Veness, M. Bowling, The arcade learning environment: an evaluation platform for general agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 47(1), 253–279 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. S. Belongie, J. Malik, J. Puzicha, Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(4), 509–522 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. R. Brachman, H. Levesque, Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Branson, C. Wah, F. Schroff, B. Babenko, P. Welinder, P. Perona, S. Belongie, Visual recognition with humans in the loop. in Computer Vision–ECCV 2010, Springer, (Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2010), pp. 438–451Google Scholar
  10. T. Brovicka, R. Spetlik, K. Rymes, Datalab Birds Angry Birds AI (2014), http://aibirds.org/2014-papers/datalab-birds.pdf
  11. F. Calimeri, M. Fink, S. Germano, G. Ianni, C. Redl, A. Wimmer, Angryhex: an artificial player for angry birds based on declarative knowledge bases. in Proceedings of the Workshop Popularize Artificial Intelligence co-located with the 13th Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI * IA 2013), Turin, 5 Dec 2013, pp. 29–35Google Scholar
  12. L. Cardamone, D. Loiacono, P.L. Lanzi, Interactive evolution for the procedural generation of tracks in a high-end racing game. in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, ACM, (Dublin, Ireland, 2011), pp. 395–402Google Scholar
  13. M. Cavazza, S. Hartley, J.L. Lugrin, M. Le Bras, Qualitative physics in virtual environments. in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM, ( Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 2004), pp. 54–61Google Scholar
  14. T. Cerexhe, D. Rajaratnam, A. Saffidine, M. Thielscher, A systematic solution to the (de-)composition problem in general game playing, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (IOS Press, Prague, 2014)Google Scholar
  15. H.I. Christensen, H.H. Nagel, Cognitive Vision Systems (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. A.G. Cohn, J. Renz, Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning, in Handbook of Knowledge Representation, vol. 3 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008), pp. 551–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. A.G. Cohn, D.R. Magee, A. Galata, D.C. Hogg, S.M. Hazarika, Towards an architecture for cognitive vision using qualitative spatio-temporal representations and abduction. in Spatial Cognition III, Springer, (Berlin Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 232–248Google Scholar
  18. B.D. Coller, M.J. Scott, Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engineering. Comput. Educ. 53(3), 900–912 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Cook, S. Colton, Multi-faceted evolution of simple arcade games. in 2011 I.E. Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, CIG 2011, Seoul, 31 Aug – 3 Sep, 2011, pp. 289–296Google Scholar
  20. K.J.W. Craik, The Nature of Explanation. CUP Archive (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar
  21. M. Davis, America’s Army pc Game Vision and Realization (US Army and the Moves Institute, San Francisco, 2004)Google Scholar
  22. E. Davis, Physical reasoning. Found. Artif. Intell. 3, 597–620 (2008a)Google Scholar
  23. E. Davis, Pouring liquids: a study in commonsense physical reasoning. Artif. Intell. 172(12), 1540–1578 (2008b)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. E. Davis, How does a box work? A study in the qualitative dynamics of solid objects. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 299–345 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. E. Davis, G. Marcus, The scope and limits of simulation in automated reasoning. Artif. Intell. (to appear) (2013)Google Scholar
  26. E. Davis, G. Marcus, A. Chen, Reasoning from radically incomplete information: the case of containers, in Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems ACS, vol. 273 (2013), p. 288Google Scholar
  27. J. De Kleer, J.S. Brown, A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artif. Intell. 24(1), 7–83 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. P. Dollar, C. Wojek, B. Schiele, P. Perona, Pedestrian detection: an evaluation of the state of the art. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34(4), 743–761 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Dormans, Adventures in level design: generating missions and spaces for action adventure games. in Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games, ACM, (Monterey, California, 2010), p. 1Google Scholar
  30. E.Giunchiglia, V. Lifschitz, An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. in Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Tenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 98, IAAI 98, Madison, 26–30 July 1998, pp. 623–630Google Scholar
  31. B. Eckstein, J.L. Lugrin, D. Wiebusch, M. Latoschik, Pears – physics extension and representation through semantics. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games PP(99), 1–1 (2015)Google Scholar
  32. C.A. Erignac, Interactive semi-qualitative simulation for virtual environments. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2001Google Scholar
  33. B. Falkenhainer, K.D. Forbus, D. Gentner, The Structure-Mapping Engine. Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Philadelphia, Pennsylvani, USA, 1986Google Scholar
  34. L. Ferreira, C. Toledo, A search-based approach for generating angry birds levels. in 2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), IEEE. Dortmund, Germany, 2014, pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  35. R.E. Fikes, N.J. Nilsson, Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif. Intell. 2(3), 189–208 (1972)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. H. Finnsson, Y. Björnsson, Simulation-based approach to general game playing, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, 13–17 July 2008 (AAAI Press, 2008), pp. 259–264Google Scholar
  37. K.D. Forbus, Qualitative process theory. Artif. Intell. 24(1), 85–168 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. K.D. Forbus, P. Nielsen, B. Faltings, Qualitative spatial reasoning: the clock project. Artif. Intell. Annecy, France, 51(1), 417–471 (1991)Google Scholar
  39. K.D. Forbus, J.M. Usher, A. Lovett, K. Lockwood, J. Wetzel, CogSketch: open-domain sketch understanding for cognitive science research and for education, in SBM (2008), Annecy, France, pp. 159–166Google Scholar
  40. D.A. Forsyth, J. Ponce, Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 2002)Google Scholar
  41. S. Friedman, K.D. Forbus, Learning naive physics models and misconceptions, in Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2009)Google Scholar
  42. S. Friedman, K.D. Forbus, Learning naive physics models and misconceptions. in Proceedings 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2009Google Scholar
  43. X. Ge, J. Renz, Representation and reasoning about general solid rectangles. in IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, 3–9 Aug 2013Google Scholar
  44. X. Ge, J. Renz, Tracking perceptually indistinguishable objects using spatial reasoning. in PRICAI 2014: Trends in Artificial Intelligence – Proceedings of the 13th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Gold Coast, 1–5 Dec 2014, pp. 600–613Google Scholar
  45. X. Ge, S. Gould, J. Renz, S. Abeyasinghe, J. Keys, A. Wang, P. Zhang, Angry Birds Game Playing Software Version 1.3: Basic Game Playing Software. URL (2014a), http://www.aibirds.org
  46. X. Ge, J. Renz, P. Zhang, Visual detection of unknown objects in video games using qualitative stability analysis,” in Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, 99, 1 (2014b)Google Scholar
  47. F. Geier, T. Keller, R. Mattmller, Past, present, and future: an optimal online algorithm for single-player gdl-ii games, in, Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Prague, Czech Republic, (IOS Press, 2014), pp. 357–362Google Scholar
  48. M. Genesereth, Y. Bjrnsson, The international general game playing competition. AI Mag. 34(2), 107–111 (2013)Google Scholar
  49. M. Genesereth, N. Love, B. Pell, General game playing: overview of the AAAI competition. AI Mag. 26(2), 62 (2005)Google Scholar
  50. M. Ghallab, D. Nau, P. Traverso, Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. San Francisco, California, USA, (Elsevier, 2004)Google Scholar
  51. J.J. Gibson, W. Bricken, S. Uselton, S.S. Fisher, A. Kay, T. Oren, G. Salomon, K. Kreitmann, A. Don, B. Laurel, et al., The ecological approach to visual perception. SIGGRAPH’90 Show Daily. 24, 165–170 (1990)Google Scholar
  52. K. Grauman, B. Leibe, Visual Object Recognition, vol. 11 (Morgan & Clay-pool Publishers, San Rafael, 2011)Google Scholar
  53. E.J. Hastings, R.K. Guha, K.O. Stanley, Automatic content generation in the galactic arms race video game. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 1(4), 245–263 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. P.J. Hayes et al., The Naive Physics Manifesto (Université de Genève, Institut pour les études sémantiques et cognitives, Genève, 1978)Google Scholar
  55. M. Hendrikx, S. Meijer, J. Van Der Velden, A. Iosup, Procedural content generation for games: a survey. ACM Trans. Multimed. Comput. Commun. Appl. (TOMCCAP) 9(1), 1 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. T. Hermans, J.M. Rehg, A. Bobick, Affordance prediction via learned object attributes. in International Conference on Robotics and Automation: Workshop on Semantic Perception, Mapping, and Exploration, (IEEE. Shanghai, China, 2011)Google Scholar
  57. J.L. Hidalgo, E. Camahort F., Abad, M.J. Vicent, Procedural graphics model and behavior generation. in Computational Science–ICCS 2008, Springer, (Kraków, Poland, 2008), pp. 106–115Google Scholar
  58. A. Iosup, Poggi: generating puzzle instances for online games on grid infrastructures. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 23(2), 158–171 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. B. Johnston, M.A. Williams, A generic framework for approximate simulation in commonsense reasoning systems, in Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, Papers from the 2007 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-07-05, Stanford, 26–28 March 2007. (AAAI, 2007), pp. 71–76Google Scholar
  60. B. Johnston, M.A. Williams, Comirit: commonsense reasoning by integrating simulation and logic, in Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference (IOS Press, 2008), pp. 200–211Google Scholar
  61. J.P. Kelly, A. Botea, S. Koenig, Offline planning with hierarchical task networks in video games. in AIIDE, (AAAI Press. Stanford, California, USA, 2008)Google Scholar
  62. R. Khardon, Learning to take actions. in Machine Learning, (AAAI Press, Portland, Oregon, 1996), pp. 787–792Google Scholar
  63. M. Kirci, N.R. Sturtevant, J. Schaeffer, A GGP feature learning algorithm. KI 25(1), 35–42 (2011)Google Scholar
  64. H.S. Koppula, R. Gupta, A. Saxena, Learning human activities and object affordances from rgb-d videos. Int. J. Rob. Res. 32(8), 951–970 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. R. Kowalski, M. Sergot, A logic-based calculus of events. in Foundations of Knowledge Base Management, (Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 1989), pp. 23–55Google Scholar
  66. G. Kuhlmann, P. Stone, Automatic heuristic construction in a complete general game player, in Proceedings, The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Boston, 16–20 July 2006 (AAAI Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2006), pp. 1457–1462Google Scholar
  67. B. Kuipers, Qualitative reasoning: modeling and simulation with incomplete knowledge. Automatica 25(4), 571–585 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. L. Kunze, M.E. Dolha, M. Beetz, Logic programming with simulation-based temporal projection for everyday robot object manipulation, in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, IEEE, San Francisco, California, USA (2011), pp. 3172–3178Google Scholar
  69. L.Von Ahn, M. Kedia, M. Blum, Verbosity: a game for collecting common-sense facts. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, (Montréal, Québec, Canada, 2006), pp. 75–78Google Scholar
  70. Y.J. Lee, K. Grauman, Object-graphs for context-aware visual category discovery. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34(2), 346–358 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. J. Lee, M. Trigueros, J. Tagüeña, R.A. Barrio, Spectrum: an educational computer game. Phys. Educ. 28(4), 215 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. F. Levy, J. Quantz, Representing beliefs in a situated event calculus. in ECAI, (John Wiley. Brighton, UK, 1998), pp. 547–551Google Scholar
  73. B. Li, M.O. Riedl, An offline planning approach to game plotline adaptation. in AIIDE, (Curran Associates. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2010)Google Scholar
  74. C. Li, A. Kowdle, A. Saxena, T. Chen, Towards holistic scene understanding: feedback enabled cascaded classification models. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2010, pp. 1351–1359Google Scholar
  75. H. Lieberman, D. Smith, A. Teeters, Common consensus: a web-based game for collecting commonsense goals. in: ACM Workshop on Common Sense for Intelligent Interfaces, (ACM. New York, USA, 2007)Google Scholar
  76. C.U. Lim, R. Baumgarten, S. Colton, Evolving behaviour trees for the commercial game defcon, in Applications of Evolutionary Computation (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. D.G. Lowe, Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. in The Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, vol 2 IEEE, (Kerkyra, Corfu, Greece, 1999), pp. 1150–1157Google Scholar
  78. J.L. Lugrin, M. Cavazza, Making sense of virtual environments: action representation, grounding and common sense. in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM, (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2007), pp. 225–234Google Scholar
  79. J. McCarthy, Situations, actions, and causal laws. Technical report, DTIC Document, (1963)Google Scholar
  80. M.L. McShaffry, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI (Cengage Learning, Boston, 2009)Google Scholar
  81. I. Millington, J. Funge, Artificial Intelligence for Games (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009)Google Scholar
  82. V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wierstra, M.A. Riedmiller, Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. CoRR abs/1312.5602 (2013)Google Scholar
  83. B. Moldovan, M. van Otterlo, P. Moreno, J. Santos-Victor, L. De Raedt, Statistical relational learning of object aff ordances for robotic manipulation. in Latest Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012), p. 6Google Scholar
  84. L. Montesano, M. Lopes, A. Bernardino, J. Santos-Victor, Learning object affordances: from sensory–motor coordination to imitation. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24(1), 15–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. F. Mourato, M.P. dos Santos, F. Birra, Automatic level generation for platform videogames using genetic algorithms. in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACM, (Lisbon, Portugal, 2011), p. 8Google Scholar
  86. A. Narayan-Chen, L. Xu, J. Shavlik, An empirical evaluation of machine learning approaches for angry birds. in IJCAI 2013 Symposium on AI in Angry Birds, (IJCAI. BeiJing, China, 2013)Google Scholar
  87. J.C. Niebles, H. Wang, L. Fei-Fei, Unsupervised learning of human action categories using spatial-temporal words. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 79(3), 299–318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. D. Nyga, M. Beetz, Everything robots always wanted to know about housework (but were afraid to ask), in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, IEEE Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal (2012), pp. 243–250Google Scholar
  89. O. Oda, L.J. Lister, S. White, S. Feiner, Developing an augmented reality racing game. in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, (ACM. Cancun, Mexico, 2008), p. 2Google Scholar
  90. P.Walega, T. Lechowski, M. Zawidzki, Qualitative physics in angry birds: first results. in ECAI 2014 Symposium on AI in Angry Birds, (IOS Press. Prague, Czech Republic, 2014)Google Scholar
  91. C.P. Papageorgiou, M. Oren, T. Poggio, A general framework for object detection. in Computer Vision, 1998. Proceeding fo the Sixth International Conference on, IEEE, (IEEE Computer Society. Bombay, India, 1998), pp. 555–562Google Scholar
  92. M. Polceanu, C. Buche, Towards A theory-of-mind-inspired generic decision-making framework. CoRR abs/1405.5048, (2014)Google Scholar
  93. H. Prendinger, G. Schurz, Reasoning about action and change. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 5(2), 209–245 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. S. Rabin, Game AI Pro: Collected Wisdom of Game AI Professionals (CRC Press, Natick, Massachusetts, USA, 2013)Google Scholar
  95. J. Renz, The angry birds artificial intelligence competition (to appear). in Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference, (AAAI. Austin Texas, USA, 2015)Google Scholar
  96. J. Renz, S. Gould, X. Ge, Angry Birds: AI Competition (2013), http://www.aibirds.org, URL http://www.aibirds.org
  97. E. Sacks, L. Joskowicz, Automated modeling and kinematic simulation of mechanisms. Comput.-Aided Des. 25(2), 106–118 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. A.N. Sanborn, V.K. Mansinghka, T.L. Griffiths, Reconciling intuitive physics and newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. Psychol. Rev. 120(2), 411 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. A. Saxena, J. Driemeyer, A.Y. Ng, Robotic grasping of novel objects using vision. Int. J. Rob. Res. 27(2), 157–173 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. D.L. Schwartz, Physical imagery: kinematic versus dynamic models. Cogn. Psychol. 38(3), 433–464 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. N. Shaker, G.N. Yannakakis, J. Togelius, Towards automatic personalized content generation for platform games. in Proceedings of the Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, AIIDE, Stanford, 11–13 Oct 2010Google Scholar
  102. M. Shaker, M. Sarhan, O. Al Naameh, N. Shaker, J. Togelius, Automatic generation and analysis of physics-based puzzle games. in 2013 I.E. Conference on Computational Intelligence in Games (CIG), (IEEE. Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, 2013), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  103. K.A. Smith, E. Vul, Sources of uncertainty in intuitive physics. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5(1), 185–199 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. R. Speer, J. Krishnamurthy, C. Havasi, D. Smith, H. Lieberman, K. Arnold, An interface for targeted collection of common sense knowledge using a mixture model. in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM, (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 2009), pp. 137–146Google Scholar
  105. K. Squire, M. Barnett, J.M. Grant, T. Higginbotham, Electromagnetism supercharged!: learning physics with digital simulation games. in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences, International Society of the Learning Sciences, ICLS ‘04, (Santa Monica, California, USA, 2004), pp. 513–520Google Scholar
  106. J. Sun, J.L. Moore, A. Bobick, J.M. Rehg, Learning visual object categories for robot affordance prediction. Int. J. Rob. Res. 29(2–3), 174–197 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. M. Thielscher, Introduction to the fluent calculus. Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(14) (1998)Google Scholar
  108. J. Togelius, G.N. Yannakakis, K.O. Stanley, C. Browne, Search-based procedural content generation: a taxonomy and survey. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 3(3), 172–186 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. N. Tziortziotis, G. Papagiannis, K. Blekas, A bayesian ensemble regression framework on the angry birds game. CoRR abs/1408.5265, (2014)Google Scholar
  110. J.M. Vaccaro, Automated planning in very large, uncertain, partially observable environments. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2010Google Scholar
  111. M. Ventura, V. Shute, Y.J. Kim, Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in newtons playground. in Artificial Intelligence in Education, Springer, (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 579–582Google Scholar
  112. B. Weiss, Classic Home Video Games, 1985–1988: A Complete Reference Guide (McFarland and Company, McFarland, 2009)Google Scholar
  113. B.Y. White, Designing computer games to help physics students understand newton’s laws of motion. Cogn. Instr. 1(1), 69–108 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. D. Wolter, J.O. Wallgrün, Qualitative spatial reasoning for applications: new challenges and the sparq toolbox. in Qualitative Spatio-temporal Representation and Reasoning: Trends and Future Directions, IGI Global, Hershey, (Pennsylvani, USA, 2012) doi:10978–1Google Scholar
  115. Y.l. Kuo, J.C. Lee, K.Y. Chiang, R. Wang, E. Shen, C.W. Chan, J.Y.J. Hsu, Community-based game design: experiments on social games for commonsense data collection. in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation, ACM, (Paris, France, 2009), pp. 15–22Google Scholar
  116. A. Yilmaz, O. Javed, M. Shah, Object tracking: a survey. Acm Comput Surv (CSUR) 38(4), 13 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Z. Zhang, Microsoft kinect sensor and its effect. IEEE Multimedia 19(2), 4–10 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. C. Zhang, Z. Zhang, A survey of recent advances in face detection. Technical report, Microsoft Research (2010)Google Scholar
  119. P. Zhang, J. Renz, Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning in angry birds: the extended rectangle algebra. in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference, KR, Vienna, 20–24 July 2014Google Scholar
  120. S. Zhou, S.P. Ting, Qualitative physics for movable objects in mout. in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Simulation, IEEE Computer Society, (Huntsville, Alabama, 2006), pp. 320–325Google Scholar
  121. M. Zyda, From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer 38(9), 25–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Group, Research School of Computer ScienceThe Australian National University, ANU College of Engineering and Computer ScienceCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations