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

---

Dates (SIS)

Mondays, 17:20, SU1

---

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

Paper	Link	Presenter	Date
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: The case of action video game players. Cognition, 101(1), 217-245.	LINK	Adrián Kormoš
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.	LINK	Petr Jaroschy
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)
Kanner, Joseph H., and Alvin J. Rosenstein. “Television in army training: Color vs black and white.” Audiovisual communication review 8.5 (1960): 243-252.	LINK on request	Martin Strupek
Cavazza, M., Lugrin, J. L., Pizzi, D., & Charles, F. (2007, September). Madame bovary on the holodeck: immersive interactive storytelling. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 651-660). ACM.	LINK	Patrik Smelík
Cutumisu, Maria, et al. “ScriptEase: A generative/adaptive programming paradigm for game scripting.” Science of Computer Programming 67.1 (2007): 32-58.	LINK	Pavel Halbich
Rohlfshagen, Philipp, and Joanna J. Bryson. “Flexible latching: A biologically-inspired mechanism for improving the management of homeostatic goals.” Cognitive Computation 2.3 (2010): 230-241.	LINK (accessible from MFF UK subnet)	Roberto Najáres
Sadowski, C., & Kurniawan, S. (2011, October). Heuristic evaluation of programming language features: two parallel programming case studies. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools (pp. 9-14). ACM.	LINK	Hynek Schlindenbuch
Freeman, J., Ziemba, C. M., Heeger, D. J., Simoncelli, E. P., & Movshon, J. A. (2013). A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates. Nature neuroscience, 16(7), 974.	LINK (accessible from MFF UK subnet)	Jan Musil
Vintch, B., Movshon, J. A., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2015). A convolutional subunit model for neuronal responses in macaque V1. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(44), 14829-14841.	LINK
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
8.10.2018	Seminar welcome session
15.10.2018	Papers shown, Scientific method discussed
22.10.2018	Scientific reading – Round 1	Martin Strupek	scientific reading
		Adrián Kormoš	scientific reading
29.10.2018	Scientific reading – Round 2	Pavel Halbich	scientific reading
		Petr Jaroschy	scientific reading
5.11.2018	Scientific reading – Round 3	Patrik Smelík	scientific reading
		Roberto Najáres	scientific reading
12.11.2018	Scientific reading – Round 4	Hynek Schlindenbuch	scientific reading
		Jan Musil	scientific reading
19.11.2018	Cancelled!
26.11.2018	Presentations – Round 1	Hynek Schlindenbuch	MSc. thesis in progress	Monte Carlo CFR	Pavel Halbich
		Roberto Najáres	Bc. thesis in progress	Battlecode	Adrián Kormoš
3.12.2018	Presentations – Round 2	Adrián Kormoš	Bc. thesis in progress		Roberto Najáres
10.12.2018	Presentations – Round 3	Petr Jaroschy	Bc. thesis in progress		Patrik Smelík
		Patrik Smelík	Bc. thesis in progress		Petr Jaroschy
17.12.2018	Christmas Meeting in Roesel, possibly continuing to to Geekarna for board games
7.1.2018	Presentations – Round 4	Pavel Halbich	MSc. thesis in progress		Hynek Schlindenbuch