skip to main content
10.1145/3543507.3583390acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MassNE: Exploring Higher-Order Interactions with Marginal Effect for Massive Battle Outcome Prediction

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

In online games, predicting massive battle outcomes is a fundamental task of many applications, such as team optimization and tactical formulation. Existing works do not pay adequate attention to the massive battle. They either seek to evaluate individuals in isolation or mine simple pair-wise interactions between individuals, neither of which effectively captures the intricate interactions between massive units (e.g., individuals). Furthermore, as the team size increases, the phenomenon of diminishing marginal utility of units emerges. Such a diminishing pattern is rarely noticed in previous work, and how to capture it from data remains a challenge. To this end, we propose a novel Massive battle outcome predictor with margiNal Effect modules, namely MassNE, which comprehensively incorporates individual effects, cooperation effects (i.e., intra-team interactions) and suppression effects (i.e., inter-team interactions) for predicting battle outcomes. Specifically, we design marginal effect modules to learn how units’ marginal utility changing respect to their number, where the monotonicity assumption is applied to ensure rationality. In addition, we evaluate the current classical models and provide mathematical proofs that MassNE is able to generalize several earlier works in massive settings. Massive battle datasets generated by StarCraft II APIs are adopted to evaluate the performances of MassNE. Extensive experiments empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of MassNE, and MassNE can reveal reasonable cooperation effects, suppression effects, and marginal utilities of combat units from the data.

References

  1. Dimitri P Bertsekas. 2014. Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods. Academic press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew P Bradley. 1997. The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern recognition 30, 7 (1997), 1145–1159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39, 3/4 (1952), 324–345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Shuo Chen and Thorsten Joachims. 2016. Modeling intransitivity in matchup and comparison data. In Proceedings of WSDM. 227–236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Zhengxing Chen, Truong-Huy D Nguyen, Yuyu Xu, Christopher Amato, Seth Cooper, Yizhou Sun, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2018. The art of drafting: a team-oriented hero recommendation system for multiplayer online battle arena games. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 200–208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Zhengxing Chen, Yuyu Xu, Truong-Huy D Nguyen, Yizhou Sun, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2018. Modeling game avatar synergy and opposition through embedding in multiplayer online battle arena games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10402 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Churchill, Abdallah Saffidine, and Michael Buro. 2012. Fast heuristic search for RTS game combat scenarios. In Eighth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Olivier Delalleau, Emile Contal, Eric Thibodeau-Laufer, Raul Chandias Ferrari, Yoshua Bengio, and Frank Zhang. 2012. Beyond skill rating: Advanced matchmaking in ghost recon online. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4, 3 (2012), 167–177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aram Ebtekar and Paul Liu. 2021. Elo-MMR: A Rating System for Massive Multiplayer Competitions. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 1772–1784.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Arpad E Elo. 1978. The rating of chessplayers, past and present. Arco Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Donelson R Forsyth. 2018. Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mark E Glickman. 1999. Parameter estimation in large dynamic paired comparison experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 48, 3 (1999), 377–394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Linxia Gong, Xiaochuan Feng, Dezhi Ye, Hao Li, Runze Wu, Jianrong Tao, Changjie Fan, and Peng Cui. 2020. OptMatch: Optimized Matchmaking via Modeling the High-Order Interactions on the Arena. In SIGKDD. 2300–2310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Boris Groysberg, Jeffrey T Polzer, and Hillary Anger Elfenbein. 2011. Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science 22, 3 (2011), 722–737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yin Gu, Qi Liu, Kai Zhang, Zhenya Huang, Runze Wu, and Jianrong Tao. 2021. Neuralac: Learning cooperation and competition effects for match outcome prediction. In AAAI, Vol. 35. 4072–4080.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bartosz Gula, Nemanja Vaci, Rainer W Alexandrowicz, and Merim Bilalic. 2021. Never too much-The benefit of talent to team performance in the National Basketball Association: Comment on Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich, Ronay, and Galinsky (2014). Psychological science 32, 2 (2021), 301–304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 1026–1034.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Xiangnan He and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural factorization machines for sparse predictive analytics. In ACM SIGIR. 355–364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ralf Herbrich, Tom Minka, and Thore Graepel. 2007. TrueSkill: a Bayesian skill rating system. In NeurIPS. 569–576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jie Huang, Qi Liu, Fei Wang, Zhenya Huang, Songtao Fang, Runze Wu, Enhong Chen, Yu Su, and Shijin Wang. 2021. Group-Level Cognitive Diagnosis: A Multi-Task Learning Perspective. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 210–219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Tzu-Kuo Huang, Chih-Jen Lin, and Ruby C Weng. 2008. Ranking individuals by group comparisons. JMLR 9, Oct (2008), 2187–2216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. James Kennedy. 2006. Swarm intelligence. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Alexander Kovarsky and Michael Buro. 2005. Heuristic search applied to abstract combat games. In Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence. Springer, 66–78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Anders Krogh and John A Hertz. 1992. A simple weight decay can improve generalization. In NeurIPS. 950–957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Frederick William Lanchester. 1916. Aircraft in warfare: The dawn of the fourth arm. Constable limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Richard Layard, Guy Mayraz, and Stephen Nickell. 2008. The marginal utility of income. Journal of Public Economics 92, 8-9 (2008), 1846–1857.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Donghyeon Lee, Man-Je Kim, and Chang Wook Ahn. 2020. Battlenet: Capturing advantageous battlefield in RTS games (student abstract). In AAAI, Vol. 34. 13849–13850.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Donghyeon Lee, Man-Je Kim, and Chang Wook Ahn. 2021. Predicting combat outcomes and optimizing armies in StarCraft II by deep learning. Expert Systems with Applications 185 (2021), 115592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hojoon Lee, Dongyoon Hwang, Hyunseung Kim, Byungkun Lee, and Jaegul Choo. 2022. DraftRec: Personalized Draft Recommendation for Winning in Multi-Player Online Battle Arena Games. In ACM Web Conference. 3428–3439.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Yao Li, Minhao Cheng, Kevin Fujii, Fushing Hsieh, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2018. Learning from group comparisons: exploiting higher order interactions. In NeurIPS. 4981–4990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tom Minka, Ryan Cleven, and Yordan Zaykov. 2018. Trueskill 2: An improved bayesian skill rating system. Tech. Rep. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jordan Michael I Ng, Andrew Y. 2002. On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: A comparison of logistic regression and naive bayes. In NeurIPS. 841–848.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Santiago Ontanón, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alberto Uriarte, Florian Richoux, David Churchill, and Mike Preuss. 2013. A survey of real-time strategy game AI research and competition in StarCraft. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games 5, 4 (2013), 293–311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In NeurIPS. 8026–8037.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Robert S Pindyck and Daniel L Rubinfeld. 2014. Microeconomics. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Dongning Ren, Olga Stavrova, and Wen Wei Loh. 2022. Nonlinear effect of social interaction quantity on psychological well-being: Diminishing returns or inverted U¿Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 122, 6 (2022), 1056.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Steffen Rendle. 2010. Factorization machines. In ICDM. IEEE, 995–1000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schroeder De Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nantas Nardelli, Tim GJ Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip HS Torr, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. 2019. The starcraft multi-agent challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04043 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Aleksandr Semenov, Peter Romov, Sergey Korolev, Daniil Yashkov, and Kirill Neklyudov. 2016. Performance of machine learning algorithms in predicting game outcome from drafts in Dota 2. In International Conference on Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts. Springer, 26–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Dennis Soemers. 2014. Tactical planning using MCTS in the game of StarCraft. Master’s thesis, Maastricht University (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The journal of machine learning research 15, 1 (2014), 1929–1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Roderick I Swaab, Michael Schaerer, Eric M Anicich, Richard Ronay, and Adam D Galinsky. 2014. The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science 25, 8 (2014), 1581–1591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Richard Tay. 2008. Marginal effect of increasing ageing drivers on injury crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40, 6 (2008), 2065–2068.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Alberto Uriarte and Santiago Ontanón. 2015. Automatic learning of combat models for RTS games. In Eleventh artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Alberto Uriarte and Santiago Ontanón. 2017. Combat models for RTS games. IEEE TOG 10, 1 (2017), 29–41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Oriol Vinyals, Igor Babuschkin, Wojciech M Czarnecki, Michaël Mathieu, Andrew Dudzik, Junyoung Chung, David H Choi, Richard Powell, Timo Ewalds, Petko Georgiev, 2019. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575, 7782 (2019), 350–354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Shijin Wang, and Yu Su. 2022. NeuralCD: A General Framework for Cognitive Diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Zelong Yang, Zhufeng Pan, Yan Wang, Deng Cai, Shuming Shi, Shao-Lun Huang, Wei Bi, and Xiaojiang Liu. 2022. Interpretable Real-Time Win Prediction for Honor of Kings–a Popular Mobile MOBA Esport. IEEE TOG (2022).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Kai Zhang, Hao Qian, Qing Cui, Qi Liu, Longfei Li, Jun Zhou, Jianhui Ma, and Enhong Chen. 2021. Multi-interactive attention network for fine-grained feature learning in ctr prediction. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 984–992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Chuang Zhao, Hongke Zhao, Yong Ge, Runze Wu, and Xudong Shen. 2022. Winning Tracker: A New Model for Real-time Winning Prediction in MOBA Games. In ACM Web Conference. 3387–3395.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. MassNE: Exploring Higher-Order Interactions with Marginal Effect for Massive Battle Outcome Prediction

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WWW '23: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023
      April 2023
      4293 pages
      ISBN:9781450394161
      DOI:10.1145/3543507

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 April 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      Upcoming Conference

      WWW '24
      The ACM Web Conference 2024
      May 13 - 17, 2024
      Singapore , Singapore
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)172
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format