This month I continued work on trial-and-error learning for playing Allergic Cliffs. If you haven't read my introduction to this Acuitas sub-project and the subsequent progress report, I recommend taking a look at those. What I've done since has been debugging and enhancing the "feedback-informed actions" and "rule formation" features discussed in the progress report, and getting them to actually work. It turned out to be a fairly big job!
Now that "feedback-informed actions" is functional, though, I'm a little surprised by how well it works. Its essence is that, in the event of a success, Acuitas tries to make his next move as similar as possible; in the event of a failure, he makes certain his next move is different. This heuristic only considers feedback from the move immediately previous, so it's a reactive, barely intelligent behavior. It still enables Acuitas to win the game about 90% of the time! Granted, he is playing on the easiest difficulty level, and at higher levels it is quite possible this would not work. It's still a huge improvement over purely random move selection.
Candidate cause-and-effect rules are also being formed successfully, and marked invalid when violated by an example. What I need to do next is implement higher levels of generalization. Right now rule formation only looks at positive commonalities between pairs of examples, and I need to also consider commonalities across larger groups, and commonalities based on the absence of a feature rather than its presence. In some cases I can see the algorithm *reaching* toward discovery of the hidden rule that defines the Allergic Cliffs' behavior, but we're not quite there yet.
After getting that far, I decided to walk away for a bit to look at game-playing with fresh eyes later, and worked on narrative understanding some more. What I wanted to add was the concept of a role or job. It's important for Acuitas to be aware of character goals, but those goals aren't always explicitly stated. If I told you somebody was a detective, you would automatically assume that this person wants to solve crimes, right? You wouldn't need to be told.
Acuitas had an existing system that allowed the semantic memory for a concept (like "detective") to contain goals that override parts of the default "agent" goal model. But here's the tricky part: the goal model specifies *intrinsic* goals, and goals associated with a role aren't necessarily intrinsic! Adoption of a role is often derived from some instrumental goal, like "get money," which eventually ties back to an intrinsic goal like survival or altruism. The meaning of anything a character does in a role is shaded by how invested they are in performing that role, and why. So it became evident to me that role-related goals need to be nested under a goal that encompasses the role as a whole, which can then be tied to an intrinsic goal.
So I tweaked the semantic memory's goal definition format a bit, to include a way to distinguish role-related goals from intrinsic goals, and provided the Narrative engine with a way to pull those into the scratchboard when a character is said to have a role. For now, all roles have to be sub-categories of the concept "professional," but I can imagine other types of roles in the future.
Until the next cycle,
Jenny
