MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133700832 · doi:10.1109/taes.2007.4383578

Network-Enabled Missile Deflection: Games and Correlation Equilibrium

2007· article· en· W2133700832 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Maskery, Vikram Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNash equilibriumSequential equilibriumMissileComputer scienceSolution conceptMathematical optimizationEpsilon-equilibriumCorrelated equilibriumGame theoryEquilibrium pointStrategyTelecommunications networkEquilibrium selectionBest responseMathematical economicsRepeated gameMathematicsEngineeringComputer networkDifferential equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of deploying countermeasures (CM) against antiship missiles is investigated from a network centric perspective in which multiple ships coordinate to defend against a known missile threat. Using the paradigm of network enabled operations (NEOPS), the problem is formulated as a transient stochastic game with communication where the appropriate strategy takes the form of an optimal stationary correlated equilibrium. Under this strategy, ships cooperate through real-time communication to satisfy both local and collective interests. The use of communication results in a performance improvement over the noncommunicating, Nash equilibrium scenario. This framework allows us to develop a theoretical foundation for NEOPS and captures the trade-off between information exchange and performance, while generalizing the standard Nash equilibrium solution for the missile deflection game given in [1], The NEOPS equilibrium strategy is characterized as the solution to an optimization problem with linear objective and bilinear constraints, which can be solved calculating successive improvements starting from an initial noncooperative (Nash) solution. The communication overhead required to implement this strategy is associated with the mutual information between individual action probability distributions at equilibrium. Numerical results illustrate the trade-off between communication and performance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207