Designing a Cognitive Agent Connector for Complex Environments: A Case Study with StarCraft

  • Vincent J. KoemanEmail author
  • Harm J. Griffioen
  • Danny C. Plenge
  • Koen V. Hindriks
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11375)


The evaluation of cognitive agent systems, which have been advocated as the next generation model for engineering complex, distributed systems, requires more benchmark environments that offer more features and involve controlling more units. One issue that needs to be addressed time and again is how to create a connector for interfacing cognitive agents with such richer environments. Cognitive agents use knowledge technologies for representing state, their actions and percepts, and for deciding what to do next. Issues such as choosing the right level of abstraction for percepts and action synchronization make it a challenge to design a cognitive agent connector for more complex environments. The leading principle for our design approach to connectors for cognitive agents is that each unit that can be controlled in an environment is mapped onto a single agent. We design a connector for the real-time strategy (RTS) game StarCraft and use it as a case study for establishing a design method for developing connectors for environments. StarCraft is particularly suitable to this end, as AI for an RTS game such as StarCraft requires the design of complicated strategies for coordinating hundreds of units that need to solve a range of challenges including handling both short-term as well as long-term goals. We draw several lessons from how our design evolved and from the use of our connector by over 500 students in two years. Our connector is the first implementation that provides full access for cognitive agents to StarCraft: Brood War.


  1. 1.
    Behrens, T.M., Hindriks, K.V., Dix, J.: Towards an environment interface standard for agent platforms. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 61(4), 261–295 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.): Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications. Springer, Boston (2009). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dignum, F.: Agents for games and simulations. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 24(2), 217–220 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dignum, F., Westra, J., van Doesburg, W.A., Harbers, M.: Games and agents: designing intelligent gameplay. Int. J. Comput. Games Technol. 2009, Article ID 837095 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heinermann, A.: Brood War API (2008). Accessed 12 May 2018
  6. 6.
    Hindriks, K.V.: The shaping of the agent-oriented mindset. In: Dalpiaz, F., Dix, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B. (eds.) EMAS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8758, pp. 1–14. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hindriks, K.V.: Unreal Goal Bots. In: Dignum, F. (ed.) AGS 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6525, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M.: A roadmap of agent research and development. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 1(1), 7–38 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, A.S., Kaysø-Rørdam, C., Villadsen, J.: Interfacing agents to real-time strategy games. In: SCAI, pp. 68–77 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koeman, V.J., Griffioen, H.J., Plenge, D.C., Hindriks, K.V.: Designing a cognitive agent connector for complex environments: a case study with starcraft. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems. EMAS 2018, July 2018Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koeman, V.J., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Automating failure detection in cognitive agent programs. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2016, pp. 1237–1246. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koeman, V.J., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Designing a source-level debugger for cognitive agent programs. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 31(5), 941–970 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lara-Cabrera, R., Cotta, C., Fernández-Leiva, A.: A review of computational intelligence in RTS games. In: 2013 IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computational Intelligence (FOCI), pp. 114–121, April 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logan, B.: A future for agent programming. In: Baldoni, M., Baresi, L., Dastani, M. (eds.) EMAS 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9318, pp. 3–17. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, J.P., Fischer, K.: Application impact of multi-agent systems and technologies: a survey. In: Shehory, O., Sturm, A. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, pp. 27–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ontañón, S., Synnaeve, G., Uriarte, A., Richoux, F., Churchill, D., Preuss, M.: A survey of real-time strategy game AI research and competition in StarCraft. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 5(4), 293–311 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson, G., Watson, I.: A review of real-time strategy game AI. AI Mag. 35(4), 75–104 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vinyals, O., et al.: StarCraft II: a new challenge for reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04782, August 2017
  19. 19.
    Weber, B.G., Mateas, M., Jhala, A.: Building human-level AI for real-time strategy games. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: Advances in Cognitive Systems, vol. 11 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Čertický, M., et al.: Student StarCraft AI Tournament (2011). Accessed 12 May 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent J. Koeman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Harm J. Griffioen
    • 1
  • Danny C. Plenge
    • 1
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations