1 Random Disambiguation Random Disambiguation Paths Paths Al Aksakalli Al Aksakalli In Collaboration with In Collaboration with Carey Priebe Carey Priebe & & Donniell Fishkind Donniell Fishkind Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University Adaptive Sensing MURI Workshop June 28, 2006 Duke University
Random Disambiguation Paths. Adaptive Sensing MURI Workshop June 28, 2006 Duke University. Al Aksakalli In Collaboration with Carey Priebe & Donniell Fishkind Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics Johns Hopkins University. Outline:. Problem Description - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Random Disambiguation PathsRandom Disambiguation Paths
Al AksakalliAl Aksakalli
In Collaboration withIn Collaboration with Carey Priebe Carey Priebe && Donniell Fishkind Donniell Fishkind
Department of Applied Mathematics and StatisticsDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
Johns Hopkins UniversityJohns Hopkins University
Adaptive Sensing MURI Workshop
June 28, 2006
Duke University
2
1) Problem Description
2) Markov Decision Process Formulation
3) Simulated Risk Disambiguation Protocol
4) Computational Experiments
5) Ongoing Research
6) Summary and Conclusions
Outline:
3
Spatial arrangement of detections:true detections ,false detections
Problem Description:
4
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
Spatial arrangement of detections:true detections ,false detections
Assume for all that isthe probability that
Problem Description:
We only see
5
Given start and destination
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
startt
destination
s
Problem Description:
6
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
s
t
Given start and destination
Problem Description:
7
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
s
t??
??
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
Given start and destination
We seek a continuous curvefrom to inof shortest achievable arclength
Problem Description:
8
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
s
t
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
Given start and destination
…and we assume the ability todisambiguate detections from the boundary of their hazard regions.
We seek a continuous curvefrom to inof shortest achievable arclength
Problem Description:
9
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.72
.59
.64
.61
.72
s
t
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
Given start and destination
…and we assume the ability todisambiguate detections from the boundary of their hazard regions.
true
We seek a continuous curvefrom to inof shortest achievable arclength
Problem Description:
10
.89
.29.11
.39
.26
.23
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.59
.64
.61
.72
s
t
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
Given start and destination
…and we assume the ability todisambiguate detections from the boundary of their hazard regions.
…or false
We seek a continuous curvefrom to inof shortest achievable arclength
Problem Description:
11
.89
.29.11
.26
.68
.32
.27
.13
.83
.59
.64
.72
s
t
About each detectionthere is a hazard region ,an open disk of fixed radius
Given start and destination
…and we assume the ability todisambiguate detections from the boundary of their hazard regions.
the rest of the transversal…
We seek a continuous curvefrom to inof shortest achievable arclength
Problem Description:
12
Definition: A disambiguation protocol is a function
Related work:• Canadian Traveller Problem (CTP): Graph theoretic RDP
• Given a finite graph – edges with specific probabilities of being traversable, and a starting and a destination vertex – each edge’s status is revealed only when one of the end points is visited: objective is to minimize expected traversal length
• Shown to be #P-hard
17
Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulation:Let be the information vector keeping track of the decision maker’s current knowledge; be the set of all possible disambiguation points
RDP Problem can be cast as a K-stage finite horizon MDP with
States:
Actions: where v is a disambiguation point and i is a hazard region index
Rewards: the negative of the shortest path distance between the state vertex and the action vertex minus c, if not going to d - d is an absorbative state for which there is a one-time and very large reward for entering
Transitions: governed by ‘s
18
Simulated Risk Protocol:For purpose of deciding next disambiguation point, we pretend that ambiguous disks are riskily traversable…
traversal ?
? ??
?
19
is the surprise length of , which is the negative logarithm of the probability that is traversable in actuality.
Risk Simulation Protocol:For purpose of deciding next disambiguation point, we pretend that ambiguous disks are riskily traversable…
traversal ?
? ??
?
is the usual Euclidean length of .
20
Given undesirability function(henceforth, monotonically non-decreasing in its arguments)
and, say,
21
Given undesirability function(henceforth, monotonically non-decreasing in its arguments)
and, say,
Definition: The simulated risk protocol is defined as dictating that the next disambiguation be at the first ambiguous point of .
traversal ?
? ??
?
22
Given undesirability function(henceforth, monotonically non-decreasing in its arguments)
and, say,
Definition: The simulated risk protocol is defined as dictating that the next disambiguation be at the first ambiguous point of .
traversal ?
? ??
?
How to proceed once this disambiguation is performed: update and , decrement , and set the new s to be y.
23
How to navigate in this continuous setting: The Tangent Arc Graph (TAG) is the superimposition/subdivision of all visibility graphs generated by all subsets of disks.
For any undesirability function,
is an path in TAG !
24
Linear undesirability functions:
• Because of the efficiency in their realization, we will consider simulated risk protocols generated by linear undesirability functions for a chosen parameter .
• As a further shorthand, denote such a protocol by .
25
How (during the simulation of risk phase) can be affected by :
26
How (during the simulation of risk phase) can be affected by :
27
How (during the simulation of risk phase) can be affected by :
28
How (during the simulation of risk phase) can be affected by :
29
How (during the simulation of risk phase) can be affected by :