Comparative Evaluation of Bandit-Style Heuristic Policies for Moving Target Detection in a Linear Grid Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving-target detection under strict sensing constraints is a recurring subproblem in surveillance, search-and-rescue, and autonomous robotics. We study a canonical one-dimensional finite grid in which a sensor probes one location per time step with binary observations while the target follows reflecting random-walk dynamics. The objective is to minimize the expected time to detection using transparent, training-free decision rules defined on the belief state of the target location. We compare two belief-driven heuristics with purely online implementation: a greedy rule that always probes the most probable location and a belief-proportional sampling (BPS, probability matching) rule that samples sensing locations according to the belief distribution (i.e., posterior probability of the target location). Repeated Monte Carlo simulations quantify the exploitation-exploration trade-off and provide a self-comparison between the two policies. Across tested grid sizes, the greedy policy consistently yields the shortest expected time to detection, improving by roughly 17-20% over BPS and uniform random probing in representative settings. BPS trades some average efficiency for stochastic exploration, which can be beneficial under model mismatch. This study provides an interpretable baseline and quantitative reference for extensions to noisy sensing and higher-dimensional search.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".