10,722 research outputs found

    Generative Design in Minecraft (GDMC), Settlement Generation Competition

    Full text link
    This paper introduces the settlement generation competition for Minecraft, the first part of the Generative Design in Minecraft challenge. The settlement generation competition is about creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents that can produce functional, aesthetically appealing and believable settlements adapted to a given Minecraft map - ideally at a level that can compete with human created designs. The aim of the competition is to advance procedural content generation for games, especially in overcoming the challenges of adaptive and holistic PCG. The paper introduces the technical details of the challenge, but mostly focuses on what challenges this competition provides and why they are scientifically relevant.Comment: 10 pages, 5 figures, Part of the Foundations of Digital Games 2018 proceedings, as part of the workshop on Procedural Content Generatio

    Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation

    Get PDF
    This paper surveys the current state of the art in Natural Language Generation (NLG), defined as the task of generating text or speech from non-linguistic input. A survey of NLG is timely in view of the changes that the field has undergone over the past decade or so, especially in relation to new (usually data-driven) methods, as well as new applications of NLG technology. This survey therefore aims to (a) give an up-to-date synthesis of research on the core tasks in NLG and the architectures adopted in which such tasks are organised; (b) highlight a number of relatively recent research topics that have arisen partly as a result of growing synergies between NLG and other areas of artificial intelligence; (c) draw attention to the challenges in NLG evaluation, relating them to similar challenges faced in other areas of Natural Language Processing, with an emphasis on different evaluation methods and the relationships between them.Comment: Published in Journal of AI Research (JAIR), volume 61, pp 75-170. 118 pages, 8 figures, 1 tabl

    Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering

    Full text link
    For more than 30 years, it has been claimed that a way to improve software developers' productivity and software quality is to focus on people and to provide incentives to make developers satisfied and happy. This claim has rarely been verified in software engineering research, which faces an additional challenge in comparison to more traditional engineering fields: software development is an intellectual activity and is dominated by often-neglected human aspects. Among the skills required for software development, developers must possess high analytical problem-solving skills and creativity for the software construction process. According to psychology research, affects-emotions and moods-deeply influence the cognitive processing abilities and performance of workers, including creativity and analytical problem solving. Nonetheless, little research has investigated the correlation between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving performance of programmers. This article echoes the call to employ psychological measurements in software engineering research. We report a study with 42 participants to investigate the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers. The results offer support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities. The following contributions are made by this study: (1) providing a better understanding of the impact of affective states on the creativity and analytical problem-solving capacities of developers, (2) introducing and validating psychological measurements, theories, and concepts of affective states, creativity, and analytical-problem-solving skills in empirical software engineering, and (3) raising the need for studying the human factors of software engineering by employing a multidisciplinary viewpoint.Comment: 33 pages, 11 figures, published at Peer

    Mixed-initiative co-creativity

    Get PDF
    Creating and designing with a machine: do we merely create together (co-create) or can a machine truly foster our creativity as human creators? When does such co-creation foster the co-creativity of both humans and machines? This paper investigates the simultaneous and/or iterative process of human and computational creators in a mixed-initiative fashion within the context of game design and attempts to draw from both theory and praxis towards answering the above questions. For this purpose, we first discuss the strong links between mixed-initiative co-creation and theories of human and computational creativity. We then introduce an assessment methodology of mixed-initiative co-creativity and, as a proof of concept, evaluate Sentient Sketchbook as a co-creation tool for game design. Core findings suggest that tools such as Sentient Sketchbook are not mere game authoring systems or mere enablers of creation but, instead, foster human creativity and realize mixed-initiative co-creativity.peer-reviewe

    Interweaving story coherence and player creativity through story-making games

    Get PDF
    In story-making games, players create stories together by using narrative tokens. Often there is a tension between players playing to win using the rules of a story-making game, and collaboratively creating a good story. In this paper, we introduce a competitive story-making game prototype coupled with computational methods intended to be used for both supporting players’ creativity and narrative coherence.peer-reviewe

    Evaluating content generators

    Get PDF
    Evaluating your content generator is a very important task, but difficult to do well. Creating a game content generator in general is much easier than creating a good game content generator—but what is a “good” content generator? That depends very much on what you are trying to create and why. This chapter discusses the importance and the challenges of evaluating content generators, and more generally understanding a generator’s strengths and weaknesses and suitability for your goals. In particular, we discuss two different approaches to evaluating content generators: visualizing the expressive range of generators, and using questionnaires to understand the impact of your generator on the player. These methods could broadly be called top-down and bottom-up methods for evaluating generators.peer-reviewe
    • 

    corecore