Multifunction cognitive radar task scheduling using Monte Carlo tree search and policy networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modern radar may be designed to perform multiple functions, such as surveillance, tracking, and fire control. Each function requires the radar to execute a number of transmit–receive tasks. A radar resource management (RRM) module makes decisions on parameter selection, prioritisation, and scheduling of such tasks. RRM becomes especially challenging in overload situations, where some tasks may need to be delayed or even dropped. In general, task scheduling is an NP‐hard problem. In this work, the author develops the branch‐and‐bound (B&B) method which obtains the optimal solution but at exponential computational complexity. On the other hand, heuristic methods have low complexity but provide relatively poor performance. They resort to machine learning‐based techniques to address this issue; specifically, they propose an approximate algorithm based on the Monte Carlo tree search method. Along with using bound and dominance rules to eliminate nodes from the search tree, they use a policy network to help to reduce the width of the search. Such a network can be trained using solutions obtained by running the B&B method offline on problems with feasible complexity. They show that the proposed method provides near‐optimal performance, but with computational complexity orders of magnitude smaller than the B&B algorithm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".