Seminar on Human-like Artificial Agents (Summer 2018/19)

Dates (SIS)

Mondays, 17:20, S8

Seminar Terms

  • You must attend the seminar regularly
    • If you’re late (more than 5 minutes) and you have not excused one day prior to the seminar, you will have to buy 1l of juice / handful of candies for the rest of us as compensation 😉
  • You must give at least one presentation on a chosen topic
    • Typically your bachelor/master thesis
  • You must act as an opponent for one presentation
  • You must choose, read critically, present and comment on possible shortcomings on one research paper
    • Concentrate not only on the idea but critically assess how well the paper is written, how well is the paper contribution described, what it claims and how the paper proves/backs the claims (or does not), what data it reports and in what form (and whether the data are reported clearly, how well they back the claims, etc.), if there is a soft discussion in the paper summarize and feedback on that as well
    • Choose your paper (preferably) from the following sources:
  • If the need arises, you will have to participate in some experiment (e.g., evaluating software or project of your colleague)

Papers to choose from

Papers Selection Link Presenter
Boyle, E., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of psychology in understanding the impact of computer games. Entertainment Computing2(2), 69-74. LINK
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Sutherland, J. (2018). 20 Years of Computer Games Degree Programs: From Abertay in 1997 to York in 2017.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Echeverría, Alejandro, et al. “The atomic intrinsic integration approach: A structured methodology for the design of games for the conceptual understanding of physics.” Computers & Education 59.2 (2012): 806-816. LINK
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Connor, A. M., Greig, T. J., & Kruse, J. (2017). Evaluating the impact of procedural generated content on game immersion. The Computer Games Journal, 6(4), 209-225.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Petr Jaroschy
Marcotte, Ryan, and Howard J. Hamilton. “Behavior trees for modelling artificial intelligence in games: A tutorial.” The Computer Games Journal 6.3 (2017): 171-184.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Surya Prakash
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of human-computer studies, 74, 14-31. LINK
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Radim Bufka
Parberry, I., Kazemzadeh, M., Roden, T., Nunn, J., Scheinberg, J., Carson, E., & Cole, J. (2010). Challenges and opportunities in the design of game programming classes for a traditional computer science curriculum. Journal of game design and development education.
LINK Ádrian Kormoš
Ahmad, N. B., Barakji, S. A. R., Shahada, T. M. A., & Anabtawi, Z. A. (2017). How to launch a successful video game: A framework. Entertainment computing, 23, 1-11.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Petr Šimůnek
Laitinen, S. (2006). Do usability expert evaluation and test provide novel and useful data for game development?. Journal of usability studies, 1(2), 64-75.
Ip, B., & Jacobs, G. (2004). Quantifying game design. Design Studies, 25(6), 607-624.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Smith, A. M., Butler, E., & Popovic, Z. (2013, May). Quantifying over play: Constraining undesirable solutions in puzzle design. In FDG (pp. 221-228).
Loh, C. S., Sheng, Y., & Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Serious Games Analytics. Edited by Christian Sebastian Loh, Yanyan Sheng, and Dirk Ifenthaler. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi, 10, 978-3.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International journal of human-computer studies, 66(9), 641-661.
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)
Fowler, A., Khosmood, F., Arya, A., & Lai, G. (2013, October). The global game jam for teaching and learning. In Proccedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (pp. 28-34).
LINK Merve Tuncel
Level Design in Procedural Generation, Gamasutra
Richardson, A. (1993). The death of the designer. Design Issues9(2), 34-43.
Nielsen, J., & Phillips, V. L. (1993, May). Estimating the relative usability of two interfaces: heuristic, formal, and empirical methods compared. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 214-221). ACM. LINK
(accessible from MFF UK subnet)

Structure of the Paper Presentation

  1. Summarize what the paper talks about, what is its take-home-message (10-15 minutes)
  2. Critically feedback the writing of the paper (5-10 minutes), e.g.:
    1. They claimed something at the beginning, that they did not deliver;
    2. the hypothesis was clear but the experiment is not designed so it may bring fruitful data;
    3. the data reported, when you try to interpret them, is not supporting the discussion within the paper;
    4. is the experiment replicable?
    5. Etc…


Seminar Schedule

Date Note Presenter Type Presentation Opponent
25.2.2019 Seminar welcome session
4.3.2019 Scientific reading introduction,
papers selection
11.3.2019 Scientific reading – Round 1 scientific reading Petr Šimůnek
18.3.2019 Scientific reading – Round 2 scientific reading Adrián Kormoš
scientific reading Petr Jaroschy
25.3.2019 Scientific reading – Round 3 scientific reading Merve Tuncel
scientific reading Jan Palášek
1.4.2019 Scientific reading – Round 4 scientific reading Surya Prakash
scientific reading František Dostál
8.4.2019 Presentations – Round 1 presentation Petr Jaroschy Jan Palášek
presentation Petr Šimůnek Adrián Kormoš
scientific reading Radim Bufka
15.4.2019 Presentations – Round 2 presentation Adrián Kormoš Petr Šimůnek
22.4.2019 Easter holidays
30.4.2019 Team Building Seminar
6.5.2019 Presentations – Round 3 presentation Merve Tuncel Surya Parakash
presentation Surya Prakash František Dostál
13.5.2019 Presentations – Round 4 presentation František Dostál Merve Tuncel
presentation  Jan Palášek Petr Jaroschy