42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475)
DOI: 10.1109/cdc.2003.1272268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shortest path problems on stochastic graphs: a neuro dynamic programming approach

Abstract: Absfracf-The shortest path problem on stochastic graphs is addressed. A stochastic optimal control problem is slated, for which dynamic programming can be used. The complexity of the problem leads us tu look for a suboptimal solution making use of neural networks to approximate the cost-togo function. By introducing the concept of "frontier", an alternative technique is given, for which any feasible policy leads to the destination node. Moreover by using a suitable algorithm, any approximation of the cost-to-g… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One potential direction for future research would be to identify bounds tighter than those discussed in this work, which would potentially result in more aggressive node pruning and consequently reduce execution time. One other exciting direction for future research would be to use CAO * in conjunction with approximation schemes for CTP (Baglietto et al 2003, de Farias and Roy 2003, Chang and Marcus 2003, Kearns and Singh 2002. CAO * can also be converted into a heuristic method by employing stronger, yet suboptimal pruning techniques.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One potential direction for future research would be to identify bounds tighter than those discussed in this work, which would potentially result in more aggressive node pruning and consequently reduce execution time. One other exciting direction for future research would be to use CAO * in conjunction with approximation schemes for CTP (Baglietto et al 2003, de Farias and Roy 2003, Chang and Marcus 2003, Kearns and Singh 2002. CAO * can also be converted into a heuristic method by employing stronger, yet suboptimal pruning techniques.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The goal here is to find a policy that decides what and where to disambiguate en route so as to minimize the expected length of the traversal. Several 97 heuristics and approximation algorithms have been introduced for CTP in the literature (Baglietto et al 2003, Xu et al 2009, Eyerich et al 2009) and optimal algorithms for certain special cases of CTP have been proposed (Ferguson et al 2004, Nikolova and Karger 2008, Bnaya et al 2011.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then the agent continues to t through A 5 or counterclockwise around A 5 , according as A 5 is traversable or not. If A 4 was not traversable then the agent was to continue to t counterclockwise around A 4 and A 5 . Under this policy, the agent's s, t traversal is an s, t-curve-valued random variable which would be γ 1 , γ 2 , γ 3 , γ 4 [18 + 2.2].…”
Section: The Disambiguation Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Heuristics are suggested for CTP and SOSP in [2], [4], [5], and [12], but they would not be applicable to the problem we address here in this manuscript without initially approximating and recasting our continuous setting to the setting of a finite graph, in which case the resolution of the discretization drives up the number of vertices and edges in the approximating graph. By contrast, the algorithm we propose here is polynomial-time solely in the number of detections |X|.…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, in Section 4, we address the issue of how, in general, to select an optimal or near-optimal value for α. Poisson(50), and the true and false marks are Beta(6, 2) and Beta (2,6). We adopted the starting point s = (−11, 110), destination point t = (66, 110), disc radius r = 10, disambiguation cost c = 1, and the number of available disambiguations K = 4.…”
Section: Mine Countermeasures Examplementioning
confidence: 99%