Adaptive AI for competitive gaming: PSO-Optimized neural network for skill, engagement, and strategic evolution


Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reshaped the development of game agents to provide new levels of interactivity and engagement. Real-time decision-making, as in fighting games, abets the need for adaptive and human-like behaviour for agents, making competing difficult. In the classics of fighting games, traditional AI is based on pre-programmed scripts, rules-based systems, or approaches that are easily predictable and provide less engaging gameplay. This paper presents an Adaptive AI based on PSO to adapt its strategies dynamically based on the opponent’s behaviour. The proposed approach enables constant real-time updates to neural network weights, thus making continuous learning, strategic adaptation, and variance to gameplay. The proposed AI is evaluated against multiple state-of-the-art AI models and human players with several performance metrics like ELO Rating, Glicko-2, Opponent Adaptation Score, Engagement Score, and Win Consistency Score. Experimental results show that the proposed Adaptive AI performs better than other AI in terms of its adaptability, strategic diversity, engagement, and the level of competitiveness it provides against human opponents, which is fair and challenging at the same time. From the findings, it is concluded that real-time optimization can be achieved by integrating PSO with neural networks, which helps improve capabilities in fighting games. The research brings value to the field by creating an adaptable AI agent that enhances user gameplay.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.