MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Anomaly in Intercept Time for Short Range Ballistic Re-Entry Vehicles

2022· article· en· W4317815221 on OpenAlexaff
P. Bao U. Nguyen, Maude Amyot-Bourgeois, Brittany Astles

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Defense Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)TrajectorySAFERComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)SimulationReal-time computingAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineeringComputer securityControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents an anomaly in intercept time of a ballistic re-entry vehicle (RV) by a ballistic interceptor. Intuitively, it is expected that as soon as an incoming RV is detected, the defense will launch an interceptor. However, we show that under some conditions (short range, lofted RV trajectory and an interceptor that is slower than the RV) it is best to delay the launch of the interceptor so that the intercept time is minimal. This is important since by minimizing the intercept time, the interceptor can intercept the RV earlier, further away from the defense location and therefore safer for the defense. In addition, with minimal intercept times, the defense may maximize the number of engagement opportunities. This will allow the defense to improve the probability of raid negation. That is, the probability of neutralizing all incoming RVs is greater with more engagement opportunities. We will show how to minimize the intercept time using analysis in the phase space (velocities of the RV and the interceptor) and validate the results using MANA (Map-Aware Non-uniform Automata).

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)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)Same topicMilitary Defense Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207