$\rm{A}^{\rm{SAR}}$: $\varepsilon$-Optimal Graph Search for Minimum Expected-Detection-Time Paths with Path Budget Constraints for Search and Rescue (SAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Searches are conducted to find missing persons and/or objects given uncertain information, imperfect observers and large search areas in Search and Rescue (SAR). In many scenarios, such as Maritime SAR, expected survival times are short and optimal search could increase the likelihood of success. This optimization problem is complex for nontrivial problems given its probabilistic nature. Stochastic optimization methods search large problems by nondeterministically sampling the space to reduce the effective size of the problem. This has been used in SAR planning to search otherwise intractably large problems but the stochastic nature provides no formal guarantees on the quality of solutions found in finite time. This paper instead presents $\rm{A}^{\rm{SAR}}$, an $\varepsilon$-optimal search algorithm for SAR planning. It calculates a heuristic to bound the search space and uses graph-search methods to find solutions that are formally guaranteed to be within a user-specified factor, $\varepsilon$, of the optimal solution. It finds better solutions faster than existing optimization approaches in operational simulations. It is also demonstrated with a real-world field trial on Lake Ontario, Canada, where it was used to locate a drifting manikin in only 150s.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".