Search arXiv⌕ 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

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Qiyue Yin, Jun Yang, Kaiqi Huang, Meijing Zhao, Wancheng Ni, Bin Liang, Yan Huang, Shu Wu, Liang Wang. 2022-08-18. 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

STRUCTUREDAGENT: Planning with AND/OR Trees for Long-Horizon Web Tasks

Existing LLM-based web agents struggle on complex, long-horizon tasks due to limited in-context memory, weak planning abilities, and greedy behaviors that lead to premature termination. To address these challenges, we propose \SA{}, a hierarchical planning framework that interleaves planning and execution via dynamic $\ANDOR$ trees. The framework separates structural planning from LLM-based reasoning, enabling principled error recovery through node repair, systematic exploration of alternatives via OR nodes, and modular plans that can facilitate human intervention. On WebArena (630 tasks), \SA{} achieves a $\sim$53\% success rate vs.\ $\sim$46\% for AgentOccam, and on complex multi-constraint Amazon shopping tasks, gains reach 10\% over the strongest baseline.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together

Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

cs.AI↗