通过运行时动作干预,让AI在星际争霸中更可控、更公平地表现。
Runtime Action Interference for AI Control of AlphaStar in StarCraft II

- 运行时干预动态过滤有害动作并控制行动频率
- 披露能力信息使玩家感知公平性下降、毒性感上升
- 适合关注AI可解释性与人机信任的研究者
训练好的强化学习策略并不能完全决定用户所见的行为:部署代码仍会调度、允许、抑制或替换其提议的动作。本文提出运行时动作干预(RAI),在不改变策略参数的前提下,于推理后调节动作节奏并过滤特定行为模式。只有当冷却条件满足且内容检测器未标记为有害时,才释放提议动作;否则发送无操作指令。检测器覆盖指定的有毒行为,如单位骚扰,冷却机制则控制动作速率。我们在复现AlphaStar actor.py的基础上实现RAI,并开源了代码与可复现材料。在一场人类参与者实验中,我们对比了同一高能力对手两种呈现方式:一种隐瞒能力声明,另一种公开声明。在1-5评分量表上,隐瞒声明时,公平感、信任感和毒性感的均值分别为3.90、3.50和2.00;公开声明时分别为2.62、4.31和2.85。公开能力信息导致各水平玩家对公平性的感知下降、毒性感上升,而信任感仅在新手和专家中提升,在中级玩家中下降。结果表明,即使控制配置不变,向用户披露能力信息也会显著改变其体验。因此,人机评估必须区分执行层控制与能力披露,并将公平、信任、毒性作为独立维度进行衡量。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
A trained reinforcement learning policy does not determine the complete behavior that users encounter: deployment code still schedules, admits, suppresses, or replaces its proposed actions. We contribute \emph{runtime action interference} (RAI), an AI control mechanism that preserves policy parameters while regulating action pacing and filtering configured action patterns after inference. RAI releases a proposed action only when its cooldown condition is satisfied and its content detector does not flag the action; otherwise, it dispatches a no-op. The detector covers specified toxic behaviors, including worker-unit harassment, while the cooldown controls action rate. We implement RAI in a replication of AlphaStar actor.py and make the implementation and reproducibility materials available through an open source code repository. We deployed RAI in a \textit{StarCraft~II} human participant study that compared two presentations of the same opponent with high capability and rate limited actions; we withheld its capability claim in one presentation and disclosed it in the other. On response scales from 1 to 5, we observed pooled fairness, trust, and toxicity means of 3.90, 3.50, and 2.00 under claim withholding, compared with 2.62, 4.31, and 2.85 under disclosure. Disclosure corresponded with lower perceived fairness and higher perceived toxicity across every expertise group, whereas trust increased among novices and experts but decreased among intermediate participants. Our human evaluation therefore shows that perceptions of an opponent controlled through RAI can vary substantially with the capability information presented to users, even when the configured control remains constant. We conclude that human-computer evaluations must separate control within the execution stack from capability disclosure and assess fairness, trust, and toxicity as distinct dimensions of human experience.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。