Shoot-look-shoot: A review and extension

Operations Research

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2004, Pages

  Glazebrook, Kevin ^a   Washburn, Alan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision analysis: sequential; dynamic programming optimal control: Markov finite state; Markov infinite state; military: targeting; probability: Markov processes; Stochastic model applications

Indexed keywords

DECISION ANALYSIS: SEQUENTIAL; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING/OPTIMAL CONTROL: MARKOV FINITE STATE; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING/OPTIMAL CONTROL: MARKOV INFINITE STATE; MILITARY:TARGETING; PROBABILITY:MARKOV PROCESSES, STOCHASTIC MODEL APPLICATIONS; SHOOTING PROBLEMS;

DECISION THEORY; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING; MARKOV PROCESSES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MILITARY OPERATIONS; PROBABILITY; SET THEORY;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 19744378295     PISSN: 0030364X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/opre.1030.0086     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Anderson, L. 1989. A heterogeneous shoot-look-shoot attrition process. Paper P-2250, Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA, 10-11.
2. Aviv, Y., M. Kress. 1997. Evaluating the effectiveness of shoot-look-shoot tactics in the presence of incomplete damage information. Military Oper. Res. 3(1) 79-89.
3. Barkdoll, T., D. Gaver, K. Glazebrook, P. Jacobs, S. Posadas. 2002. Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) as an information duel. Naval Res. Logist. 49 723-742.
4. Blackwell, D. 1965. Discounted dynamic programming. Ann. Math. Statist. 36(1) 226-235.
5. Eckler, A., S. Burr. 1972. Mathematical Models of Target Coverage and Missile Allocation. Military Operations Research Society, Washington, DC, 109-112.
6. Everett, H. 1963. Generalized Lagrange multiplier method for solving problems of optimal allocation of resources. Oper. Res. 11 399-417.
7. Glazebrook, K., N. Fay. 1990. Evaluating strategies for Markov decision processes in parallel. Math. Oper. Res. 15 17-32.
8. Glazebrook, K., D. Gaver, P. Jacobs. 2001. On a military scheduling problem. Technical Report NPS-OR-01-010, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
9. Lovejoy, W. 1991. A survey of algorithmic methods for partially observed Markov decision processes. Ann. Oper. Res. 28 47-65.
10. Manor, G., M. Kress. 1997. Optimality of the greedy shooting strategy in the presence of incomplete damage information. Naval Res. Logist. 44 613-622.
11. Monahan, G. 1982. A survey of partially observable Markov decision processes. Management Sci. 28 1-16.
12. Przemieniecki, J. 1990. Introduction to Mathematical Methods in Defense Analysis. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC, 134-136.
13. Puterman, M. 1994. Markov Decision Processes. Wiley, New York.
14. Ross, S. 1970. Applied Probability Models with Optimization Applications. Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, 132-141.
15. Ross, S. 1971. Quality control under Markov deterioration. Management Sci. 17 587-596.
16. Strauch, R. 1966. Negative dynamic programming. Ann. Math. Statist. 37 871-890.
17. Thomas, L., R. Hartley, A. Lavercombe. 1983. Computational comparison of value iteration algorithms for discounted Markov decision processes. Oper. Res. Lett. 2 72-76.
18. Yost, K. 1998. Solution of large scale allocation problems with partially observable outcomes. Ph.D. dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
19. Yost, K., A. Washburn. 2000. Optimizing assignments of air-to-ground assets and BDA sensors. Military Oper. Res. 5(2) 77-91.
20. Whittle, P. 1982. Optimization Over Time, Ch. 14. Wiley, NewYork.
21. Wilkening, D. 1999. A simple model for calculating ballistic missile defense effectiveness. Working paper, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford, CA, 12-17.