Deterministic versus Probabilistic Methods for Searching for an Evasive Target
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
Several advanced applications of autonomous aerial vehicles in civilian and military contexts involve a searching agent with imperfect sensors that seeks to locate a mobile target in a given region. Effectively managing uncertainty is key to solving the related search problem, which is why all methods devised so far hinge on a probabilistic formulation of the problem and solve it through branch-and-bound algorithms, Bayesian filtering or POMDP solvers. In this paper, we consider a class of hard search tasks involving a target that exhibits an intentional evasive behaviour and moves over a large geographical area, i.e., a target that is particularly difficult to track down and uncertain to locate. We show that, even for such a complex problem, it is advantageous to compile its probabilistic structure into a deterministic model and use standard deterministic solvers to find solutions. In particular, we formulate the search problem for our uncooperative target both as a deterministic automated planning task and as a constraint programming task and show that in both cases our solution outperforms POMDPs methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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