pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02349 · v1 · pith:BGL4CK5Onew · submitted 2019-07-04 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Experience Management in Multi-player Games

Jichen Zhu , Santiago Onta\~n\'on This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords experience managementmulti-player gamesAI adaptationgroup recommender systemsinteractive experiencesplayer modelingmulti-user experiences
0
0 comments X

The pith

Experience management for multi-player games requires identifying challenges distinct from single-player cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Experience management uses AI to adapt interactive experiences like games to individual players while meeting design goals. Existing work has concentrated almost entirely on single-player settings. This paper identifies the primary challenges involved in extending the approach to multi-player and multi-user contexts. It draws links to group recommender systems as a related area that has tackled similar coordination issues and outlines potential applications. A reader would care because most commercial games involve multiple participants, raising the question of whether single-player methods can transfer directly.

Core claim

The paper claims that the core problems of multi-player experience management are sufficiently distinct from single-player experience management and from group recommendation techniques to require a dedicated research program, and it takes a first step by identifying the main challenges in expanding EM to multi-player or multi-user games or experiences while discussing connections and applications.

What carries the argument

The identification of main challenges for multi-player experience management, treated as distinct from single-player adaptation and group recommendation.

If this is right

  • Solutions developed for group recommender systems can be examined for transfer to multi-player experience management.
  • Applications of multi-player EM can be explored in shared interactive experiences beyond games.
  • A dedicated research program would focus on player coordination and conflicting goals that do not arise in single-player settings.
  • The impact includes improved personalization in multi-user environments once the challenges are addressed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Developers of multiplayer games may need new modeling techniques that track interactions among participants rather than isolated player profiles.
  • If the distinction holds, research effort should shift from direct reuse of single-player algorithms toward hybrid methods that incorporate group dynamics.
  • Testing in commercial multiplayer titles could reveal whether the identified challenges manifest as measurable drops in player retention or design goal achievement.

Load-bearing premise

The core problems of multi-player experience management are sufficiently distinct from single-player cases and from existing group recommendation techniques that a dedicated research program is required rather than direct transfer of prior methods.

What would settle it

A demonstration that single-player experience management techniques or group recommender system methods can be applied to multi-player games without new coordination problems or loss of effectiveness would falsify the claim that dedicated identification of distinct challenges is necessary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02349 by Jichen Zhu, Santiago Onta\~n\'on.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The main control loop of a standard experience manager, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In a multi-player EM setting, instead of a single player, player [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Experience Management studies AI systems that automatically adapt interactive experiences such as games to tailor to specific players and to fulfill design goals. Although it has been explored for several decades, existing work in experience management has mostly focused on single-player experiences. This paper is a first attempt at identifying the main challenges to expand EM to multi-player/multi-user games or experiences. We also make connections to related areas where solutions for similar problems have been proposed (especially group recommender systems) and discusses the potential impact and applications of multi-player EM.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a position paper arguing that experience management (EM) research has primarily addressed single-player interactive experiences and that extending EM to multi-player or multi-user games requires identifying distinct challenges. It enumerates these challenges, draws connections to group recommender systems as a related area with potential solutions, and discusses applications and impact of multi-player EM.

Significance. If the enumerated challenges accurately capture the barriers to multi-player EM and the links to group recommendation prove fruitful, the paper could help organize a research agenda in adaptive multi-user systems. As a high-level position statement without new algorithms, experiments, or formal models, its value lies in framing open problems rather than resolving them.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The motivating claim that multi-player EM problems are 'sufficiently distinct' from single-player EM and from group recommender systems (so that direct transfer is insufficient) is asserted without concrete counter-examples, failure cases of existing methods, or analysis of why transfer would not work; this assumption is load-bearing for the call for a dedicated research program.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The motivating claim that multi-player EM problems are 'sufficiently distinct' from single-player EM and from group recommender systems (so that direct transfer is insufficient) is asserted without concrete counter-examples, failure cases of existing methods, or analysis of why transfer would not work; this assumption is load-bearing for the call for a dedicated research program.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by more explicit support for the distinctness claim. The body of the paper enumerates challenges (e.g., reconciling conflicting real-time player goals, managing emergent group-level experience trajectories, and adapting to inter-player social dynamics) that we argue are not directly solvable by existing single-player EM techniques or by group recommender systems, which typically operate on static preference aggregation rather than interactive, goal-directed experience adaptation. However, the referee is correct that the abstract itself does not supply concrete counter-examples or failure cases. In revision we will expand the abstract (and the opening of the introduction) with two or three brief, specific illustrations drawn from the challenges section, such as why a single-player drama manager cannot resolve simultaneous competing narrative goals without an explicit group model. This will make the motivating assumption more transparent while preserving the position-paper character of the work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a position statement that enumerates open challenges for multi-player experience management and notes connections to group recommender systems. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems. The central claim is presented as a motivating hypothesis rather than a derived result, so no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that multi-player experience management is a coherent extension of single-player EM and that group recommender systems supply transferable solutions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Experience management techniques developed for single players can be meaningfully extended to groups once the right challenges are identified.
    Invoked in the abstract as the premise for the entire discussion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1148 out tokens · 20563 ms · 2026-05-25T09:14:21.589513+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Weyhrauch, Guiding interactive drama . Carnegie Mellon University, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Virtual reality, art, and entertainment,

    J. Bates, “Virtual reality, art, and entertainment,” Presence: Teleopera- tors & Virtual Environments , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 133–138, 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Dynamic experience management in virtual worlds for entertainment, education, and train- ing,

    M. O. Riedl, A. Stern, D. Dini, and J. Alderman, “Dynamic experience management in virtual worlds for entertainment, education, and train- ing,” International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications, Special Issue on Agent Based Systems for Human Learning, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 23–42, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Toward a unified understanding of experi- ence management,

    D. Thue and V . Bulitko, “Toward a unified understanding of experi- ence management,” in Fourteenth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games,

    R. Hunicke, “The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games,” in 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology. ACM, 2005, pp. 429–433

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Understanding the effect of existing positive relationships on a social motion-based game for health,

    K. Caro, Y . Feng, T. Day, E. Freed, B. Fox, and J. Zhu, “Understanding the effect of existing positive relationships on a social motion-based game for health,” in Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Con- ference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare . ACM, 2018, pp. 77–87

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    More than the sum of its members: challenges for group recommender systems,

    A. Jameson, “More than the sum of its members: challenges for group recommender systems,” in Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces . ACM, 2004, pp. 48–54

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Intelligent tutoring systems,

    J. R. Anderson, C. F. Boyle, and B. J. Reiser, “Intelligent tutoring systems,” Science, vol. 228, no. 4698, pp. 456–462, 1985

    work page 1985

  9. [9]

    Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned,

    J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier, “Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned,” The journal of the learning sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–207, 1995

    work page 1995

  10. [10]

    Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors,

    K. R. Koedinger and V . Aleven, “Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors,” Educational Psychology Review , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 239–264, 2007

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments,

    W. L. Johnson, J. W. Rickel, J. C. Lester et al., “Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments,” International Journal of Artificial intelligence in education , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47–78, 2000

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?

    R. Moreno, R. E. Mayer, H. A. Spires, and J. C. Lester, “The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?” Cognition and instruction, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 177–213, 2001

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning english as a second language,

    S. Choi and R. E. Clark, “Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning english as a second language,” Journal of educational computing research , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 441–466, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    Theory and practice of case-based learning aids,

    J. L. Kolodner and M. Guzdial, “Theory and practice of case-based learning aids,” Theoretical foundations of learning environments , pp. 215–242, 2000

    work page 2000

  15. [15]

    A behavior language for story-based believable agents,

    M. Mateas and A. Stern, “A behavior language for story-based believable agents,” IEEE Intelligent Systems , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 39–47, 2002

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    Towards a narrative theory of virtual reality,

    R. Aylett and S. Louchart, “Towards a narrative theory of virtual reality,” Virtual Reality, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 2–9, 2003

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Character-based interactive storytelling,

    M. Cavazza, F. Charles, and S. J. Mead, “Character-based interactive storytelling,” IEEE Intelligent systems , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 17–24, 2002

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    Laurel, Computers as theatre

    B. Laurel, Computers as theatre . Addison-Wesley, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Fearnot!– an experiment in emergent narrative,

    R. S. Aylett, S. Louchart, J. Dias, A. Paiva, and M. Vala, “Fearnot!– an experiment in emergent narrative,” in International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 2005, pp. 305–316

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learn- ing environments,

    J. P. Rowe, L. R. Shores, B. W. Mott, and J. C. Lester, “Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learn- ing environments,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 21, no. 1-2, pp. 115–133, 2011

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Interactive pedagogical drama,

    S. C. Marsella, W. L. Johnson, and C. LaBore, “Interactive pedagogical drama,” in International Conference on Autonomous Agents: Proceed- ings of the fourth international conference on Autonomous agents, vol. 3, no. 07, 2000, pp. 301–308

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    Director agent intervention strategies for interactive narrative environments,

    S. Y . Lee, B. W. Mott, and J. C. Lester, “Director agent intervention strategies for interactive narrative environments,” in International Con- ference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Springer, 2011, pp. 140–151

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Early prediction of student self-regulation strategies by combining multiple models

    J. L. Sabourin, B. W. Mott, and J. C. Lester, “Early prediction of student self-regulation strategies by combining multiple models.” International Educational Data Mining Society , 2012

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Search-based drama management in the interactive fiction anchorhead

    M. J. Nelson and M. Mateas, “Search-based drama management in the interactive fiction anchorhead.” in AIIDE, 2005, pp. 99–104

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    Drama management and player modeling for interactive fiction games,

    M. Sharma, S. Onta ˜n´on, M. Mehta, and A. Ram, “Drama management and player modeling for interactive fiction games,” Computational Intelligence, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 183–211, 2010

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Declarative optimization-based drama management in interactive fiction,

    M. J. Nelson, M. Mateas, D. L. Roberts, and C. L. Isbell, “Declarative optimization-based drama management in interactive fiction,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 32–41, 2006

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    Decomposing drama man- agement in educational interactive narrative: A modular reinforcement learning approach,

    P. Wang, J. Rowe, B. Mott, and J. Lester, “Decomposing drama man- agement in educational interactive narrative: A modular reinforcement learning approach,” in International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Springer, 2016, pp. 270–282

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Ai characters and directors for interactive computer games,

    B. Magerko, J. E. Laird, M. Assanie, A. Kerfoot, D. Stokes et al., “Ai characters and directors for interactive computer games,” in AAAI, 2004, pp. 877–883

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    Notes on the use of plan structures in the creation of interactive plot,

    R. M. Young, “Notes on the use of plan structures in the creation of interactive plot,” in AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence , 1999, pp. 164–167

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    An architecture for integrating plan-based behavior gen- eration with interactive game environments,

    R. M. Young, M. O. Riedl, M. Branly, A. Jhala, R. Martin, and C. Saretto, “An architecture for integrating plan-based behavior gen- eration with interactive game environments,” Journal of Game Develop- ment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51–70, 2004

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Extending real-time challenge balancing to multiplayer games: A study on eco-driving,

    H. Prendinger, K. Puntumapon, and M. Madruga, “Extending real-time challenge balancing to multiplayer games: A study on eco-driving,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 2016

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Robust and authorable multi- player storytelling experiences,

    M. Riedl, B. Li, H. Ai, and A. Ram, “Robust and authorable multi- player storytelling experiences,” in Seventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2011

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Local move prediction in go,

    E. Van Der Werf, J. W. Uiterwijk, E. Postma, and J. Van Den Herik, “Local move prediction in go,” in Computers and Games . Springer, 2003, pp. 393–412

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    Player modeling using self-organization in tomb raider: Underworld,

    A. Drachen, A. Canossa, and G. N. Yannakakis, “Player modeling using self-organization in tomb raider: Underworld,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–8

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Exploring player trace seg- mentation for dynamic play style prediction,

    J. Valls-Vargas, S. Ontan ´on, and J. Zhu, “Exploring player trace seg- mentation for dynamic play style prediction,” in Eleventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Evolving personas for player decision modeling,

    C. Holmg ˚ard, A. Liapis, J. Togelius, and G. N. Yannakakis, “Evolving personas for player decision modeling,” in 2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games . IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–8

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Using sequential observations to model and predict player behavior,

    B. Harrison and D. L. Roberts, “Using sequential observations to model and predict player behavior,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games . ACM, 2011, pp. 91–98

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds,

    R. Bartle, “Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds,” Journal of MUD research , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 19, 1996

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Beyond player types: gaming achievement goal,

    C. Heeter, Y .-H. Lee, B. Medler, and B. Magerko, “Beyond player types: gaming achievement goal,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Game Papers . ACM, 2011, p. 7

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Modeling player expe- rience in super mario bros,

    C. Pedersen, J. Togelius, and G. N. Yannakakis, “Modeling player expe- rience in super mario bros,” in 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games . IEEE, 2009, pp. 132–139

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    Passage: A demonstration of player modeling in interactive storytelling

    D. Thue, V . Bulitko, and M. Spetch, “Passage: A demonstration of player modeling in interactive storytelling.” in AIIDE, 2008

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Player modeling for intelligent difficulty ad- justment,

    O. Missura and T. G ¨artner, “Player modeling for intelligent difficulty ad- justment,” in International Conference on Discovery Science. Springer, 2009, pp. 197–211

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Polymorph: dy- namic difficulty adjustment through level generation,

    M. Jennings-Teats, G. Smith, and N. Wardrip-Fruin, “Polymorph: dy- namic difficulty adjustment through level generation,” in Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games . ACM, 2010, p. 11

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    A temporal data-driven player model for dynamic difficulty adjustment,

    A. E. Zook and M. O. Riedl, “A temporal data-driven player model for dynamic difficulty adjustment,” in Eighth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2012

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Goal recognition with markov logic networks for player-adaptive games,

    E. Y . Ha, J. P. Rowe, B. W. Mott, and J. C. Lester, “Goal recognition with markov logic networks for player-adaptive games,” in Seventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2011

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    An inclusive taxonomy of player modeling,

    A. M. Smith, C. Lewis, K. Hullett, G. Smith, and A. Sullivan, “An inclusive taxonomy of player modeling,” University of California, Santa Cruz, Tech. Rep. UCSC-SOE-11-13 , 2011

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    Player modeling: Towards a common taxonomy,

    M. C. Machado, E. P. Fantini, and L. Chaimowicz, “Player modeling: Towards a common taxonomy,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Games . IEEE, 2011, pp. 50–57

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    G. N. Yannakakis and J. Togelius, Artificial intelligence and games . Springer, 2018, vol. 2

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Inferring personality of online gamers by fusing multiple-view predictions,

    J. Shen, O. Brdiczka, N. Ducheneaut, N. Yee, and B. Begole, “Inferring personality of online gamers by fusing multiple-view predictions,” in International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personal- ization. Springer, 2012, pp. 261–273

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    Modeling player retention in madden nfl 11,

    B. G. Weber, M. John, M. Mateas, and A. Jhala, “Modeling player retention in madden nfl 11,” in Twenty-Third IAAI Conference, 2011

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    Ai for game production,

    M. O. Riedl and A. Zook, “Ai for game production,” in 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Inteligence in Games (CIG). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–8

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    Modeling user knowledge with dynamic bayesian networks in interactive narrative environments,

    J. P. Rowe and J. C. Lester, “Modeling user knowledge with dynamic bayesian networks in interactive narrative environments,” in Sixth Ar- tificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2010

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Cooperative learning,

    R. E. Slavin, “Cooperative learning,” Review of educational research , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 315–342, 1980

    work page 1980

  54. [54]

    Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom,

    R. T. Johnson and D. W. Johnson, “Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom,” The annual report of educational psychology in Japan , vol. 47, pp. 29–30, 2008

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Group recommender systems: Combining individual mod- els,

    J. Masthoff, “Group recommender systems: Combining individual mod- els,” in Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 2011, pp. 677–702

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    Incompleteness and incomparability in preference aggregation: Complexity results,

    M. S. Pini, F. Rossi, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh, “Incompleteness and incomparability in preference aggregation: Complexity results,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 175, no. 7-8, pp. 1272–1289, 2011

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    Musicfx: An arbiter of group prefer- ences for computer-supported cooperative workouts,

    J. F. McCarthy and T. Anagnost, “Musicfx: An arbiter of group prefer- ences for computer-supported cooperative workouts,” in 1998 ACM Con- ference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’98) , 1998

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    Polylens: a recommender system for groups of users,

    M. Oconnor, D. Cosley, J. A. Konstan, and J. Riedl, “Polylens: a recommender system for groups of users,” in ECSCW 2001. Springer, 2001, pp. 199–218

    work page 2001

  59. [59]

    Adaptive radio: achieving consensus using negative preferences,

    D. L. Chao, J. Balthrop, and S. Forrest, “Adaptive radio: achieving consensus using negative preferences,” in Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work . ACM, 2005, pp. 120–123

    work page 2005

  60. [60]

    Interactive evolution of levels for a competitive multiplayer fps,

    P. T. Ølsted, B. Ma, and S. Risi, “Interactive evolution of levels for a competitive multiplayer fps,” in 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1527–1534

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    A case-based song scheduler for group customised radio,

    C. Baccigalupo and E. Plaza, “A case-based song scheduler for group customised radio,” in International Conference on Case-Based Reason- ing. Springer, 2007, pp. 433–448

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    Shaker, J

    N. Shaker, J. Togelius, and M. J. Nelson, Procedural content generation in games. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Toward vignette-based story generation for drama management systems,

    M. O. Riedl and C. Le ´on, “Toward vignette-based story generation for drama management systems,” in Workshop on Integrating Technolo- gies for Interactive Stories-2nd International Conference on INtelligent TEchnologies for interactive enterTAINment , 2008, pp. 8–10

    work page 2008

  64. [64]

    Graph grammar-based con- trollable generation of puzzles for a learning game about parallel programming,

    J. Valls-Vargas, J. Zhu, and S. Onta ˜n´on, “Graph grammar-based con- trollable generation of puzzles for a learning game about parallel programming,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games . ACM, 2017, p. 7

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    Controllable procedural content gen- eration via constrained multi-dimensional markov chain sampling

    S. Snodgrass and S. Ontan ´on, “Controllable procedural content gen- eration via constrained multi-dimensional markov chain sampling.” in IJCAI, 2016, pp. 780–786

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Towards automatic per- sonalized content generation for platform games,

    N. Shaker, G. Yannakakis, and J. Togelius, “Towards automatic per- sonalized content generation for platform games,” in Sixth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference , 2010

    work page 2010