A Parallel Analytical Solution of a Stochastic Combat Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various combat models such as deterministic Lanchester, stochastic Lanchester and the general renewal models of combat have been widely used in for the analytical purpose to predict and to simulate the mutual attrition between two opponents[1]. One problem of those analytical solutions is that the methods of exhaustive enumeration, which have strong exponential computation time. Therefore, in practice, they are used for only small-to-moderate-size. The time complexity makes it practically impossible to use them for battles beyond 4 on 4[2]. Investigating the assumptions of the general-renewal model[3] for an army battle, one key requirement is that all combatants choose an opponent and fire independently, the authors consider the suitability of using a parallel approach. This paper discusses the possibility to use a parallel analytical solution of stochastic combat. The discussion is divided into three sections. Firstly, a review of analytical solutions of combat model is given. Secondly, our algorithm of a parallel analytical solution of stochastic combat is illustrated. Thirdly, conclusions are drawn and future directions are highlighted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it