Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2111.07631

AI in Human-computer Gaming: Techniques, Challenges and Opportunities

Qiyue Yin·Jun Yang·Kaiqi Huang·Meijing Zhao·Wancheng Ni·Bin Liang·Yan Huang·Shu Wu·Liang Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With breakthrough of the AlphaGo, human-computer gaming AI has ushered in a big explosion, attracting more and more researchers all around the world. As a recognized standard for testing artificial intelligence, various human-computer gaming AI systems (AIs) have been developed such as the Libratus, OpenAI Five and AlphaStar, beating professional human players. The rapid development of human-computer gaming AIs indicate a big step of decision making intelligence, and it seems that current techniques can handle very complex human-computer games. So, one natural question raises: what are the possible challenges of current techniques in human-computer gaming, and what are the future trends? To answer the above question, in this paper, we survey recent successful game AIs, covering board game AIs, card game AIs, first-person shooting game AIs and real time strategy game AIs. Through this survey, we 1) compare the main difficulties among different kinds of games and the corresponding techniques utilized for achieving professional human level AIs; 2) summarize the mainstream frameworks and techniques that can be properly relied on for developing AIs for complex human-computer gaming; 3) raise the challenges or drawbacks of current techniques in the successful AIs; and 4) try to point out future trends in human-computer gaming AIs. Finally, we hope this brief review can provide an introduction for beginners, and inspire insights for researchers in the field of AI in human-computer gaming.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Qiyue Yin, Jun Yang, Kaiqi Huang, Meijing Zhao, Wancheng Ni, Bin Liang, Yan Huang, Shu Wu, Liang Wang. 2021-11-15. AI in Human-computer Gaming: Techniques, Challenges and Opportunities. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-022-1384-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗