A Hybrid Strategy for Target Search Using Static and Mobile Sensors
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
Locating a mobile target, untrackable in real-time, is pertinent to numerous time-critical applications, such as wilderness search and rescue. This paper proposes a hybrid approach to this dynamic problem, where both static and mobile sensors are utilized for the goal of detecting a target. The approach is novel in that a team of robots utilized to deploy a static-sensor network also actively searches for the target via on-board sensors. Synergy is achieved through: 1) optimal deployment planning of static-sensor networks and 2) optimal routing and motion planning of the robots for the deployment of the network and target search. The static-sensor network is planned first to maximize the likelihood of target detection while ensuring (temporal and spatial) unbiasedness in target motion. Robot motions are, subsequently, planned in two stages: 1) route planning and 2) trajectory planning. In the first stage, given a static-sensor network configuration, robot routes are planned to maximize the amount of spare time available to the mobile agents/sensors, for target search in between (just-in-time) static-sensor deployments. In the second stage, given robot routes (i.e., optimal sequences of sensor delivery locations and times), the corresponding robot trajectories are planned to make effective use of any spare time the mobile agents may have to search for the target. The proposed search strategy was validated through extensive simulations, some of which are given in detail here. An analysis of the method's performance in terms of target-search success is also included.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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