MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416668723 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17367

R2PS: Worst-Case Robust Real-Time Pursuit Strategies under Partial Observability

2025· preprint· W4416668723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Runyu Lu, Yuanheng Zhu, Dongbin Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicGuidance and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBeijing Nova ProgramInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsObservabilityReinforcement learningPursuerGeneralizationPerfect informationPursuit-evasionComplete informationGraphMarkov decision process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computing worst-case robust strategies in pursuit-evasion games (PEGs) is time-consuming, especially when real-world factors like partial observability are considered. While important for general security purposes, real-time applicable pursuit strategies for graph-based PEGs are currently missing when the pursuers only have imperfect information about the evader's position. Although state-of-the-art reinforcement learning (RL) methods like Equilibrium Policy Generalization (EPG) and Grasper provide guidelines for learning graph neural network (GNN) policies robust to different game dynamics, they are restricted to the scenario of perfect information and do not take into account the possible case where the evader can predict the pursuers' actions. This paper introduces the first approach to worst-case robust real-time pursuit strategies (R2PS) under partial observability. We first prove that a traditional dynamic programming (DP) algorithm for solving Markov PEGs maintains optimality under the asynchronous moves by the evader. Then, we propose a belief preservation mechanism about the evader's possible positions, extending the DP pursuit strategies to a partially observable setting. Finally, we embed the belief preservation into the state-of-the-art EPG framework to finish our R2PS learning scheme, which leads to a real-time pursuer policy through cross-graph reinforcement learning against the asynchronous-move DP evasion strategies. After reinforcement learning, our policy achieves robust zero-shot generalization to unseen real-world graph structures and consistently outperforms the policy directly trained on the test graphs by the existing game RL approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicGuidance and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207