4.2 Article

Sequential Shortest Path Interdiction with Incomplete Information

期刊

DECISION ANALYSIS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 68-98

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/deca.2015.0325

关键词

network interdiction; shortest path; k-most vital arcs; learning; incomplete information

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1233441]
  2. Air Force Research Laboratory Mathematical Modeling and Optimization Institute
  3. Air Force Office of Scientific Research
  4. Air Force Summer Faculty Fellowship
  5. Chilean Millennium Institute of Complex Engineering Systems [ICM: P05-004-F FIN. ICM-FIC]
  6. Business Intelligence Research Center (CEINE) at the University of Chile
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  8. Directorate For Engineering [1233441] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study sequential interdiction when the interdictor has incomplete initial information about the network and the evader has complete knowledge of the network, including its structure and arc costs. In each time period, the interdictor blocks at most k arcs from the network observed up to that period, after which the evader travels along a shortest path between two (fixed) nodes in the interdicted network. By observing the evader's actions, the interdictor learns about the network structure and arc costs and adjusts its actions to maximize the cumulative cost incurred by the evader. A salient feature of our work is that the feedback in each period is deterministic and adversarial. In addition to studying the regret minimization problem, we also discuss time stability of a policy, which is the number of time periods until the interdictor's actions match those of an oracle interdictor with prior knowledge of the network. We propose a class of simple interdiction policies that have a finite regret and detect when the instantaneous regret reaches zero in real time. More importantly, we establish that this class of policies belongs to the set of efficient policies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据