IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v259y2017i3p873-886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approximate dynamic programming for missile defense interceptor fire control

Author

Listed:
  • Davis, Michael T.
  • Robbins, Matthew J.
  • Lunday, Brian J.

Abstract

Given the ubiquitous nature of both offensive and defensive missile systems, the catastrophe-causing potential they represent, and the limited resources available to countries for missile defense, optimizing the defensive response to a missile attack is a necessary national security endeavor. For a single salvo of offensive missiles launched at a set of targets, a missile defense system protecting those targets must determine how many interceptors to fire at each incoming missile. Since such missile engagements often involve the firing of more than one attack salvo, we develop a Markov decision process (MDP) model to examine the optimal fire control policy for the defender. Due to the computational intractability of using exact methods for all but the smallest problem instances, we utilize an approximate dynamic programming (ADP) approach to explore the efficacy of applying approximate methods to the problem. We obtain policy insights by analyzing subsets of the state space that reflect a range of possible defender interceptor inventories. Testing of four instances derived from a representative planning scenario demonstrates that the ADP policy provides high-quality decisions for a majority of the state space, achieving a 7.74% mean optimality gap over all states for the most realistic instance, modeling a longer-term engagement by an attacker who assesses the success of each salvo before launching a subsequent one. Moreover, the ADP algorithm requires only a few minutes of computational effort versus hours for the exact dynamic programming algorithm, providing a method to address more complex and realistically-sized instances.

Suggested Citation

  • Davis, Michael T. & Robbins, Matthew J. & Lunday, Brian J., 2017. "Approximate dynamic programming for missile defense interceptor fire control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 873-886.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:259:y:2017:i:3:p:873-886
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221716309481
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Matlin, 1970. "A Review of the Literature on the Missile-Allocation Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 334-373, April.
    2. Richard H. Day, 1966. "Allocating Weapons to Target Complexes by Means of Nonlinear Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 992-1013, December.
    3. Menq, Jau-yeu & Tuan, Pan-chio & Liu, Ta-sheng, 2007. "Discrete Markov ballistic missile defense system modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 560-578, April.
    4. Ravindra K. Ahuja & Arvind Kumar & Krishna C. Jha & James B. Orlin, 2007. "Exact and Heuristic Algorithms for the Weapon-Target Assignment Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1136-1146, December.
    5. Richard M. Soland, 1987. "Optimal Terminal Defense Tactics When Several Sequential Engagements are Possible," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 537-542, August.
    6. G. G. denBroeder & R. E. Ellison & L. Emerling, 1959. "On Optimum Target Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 322-326, June.
    7. Alan S. Manne, 1958. "A Target-Assignment Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 346-351, June.
    8. Harry C. Hoyt, 1985. "A Simple Ballistic-Missile-Defense Model to Help Decision Makers," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 54-62, October.
    9. Eitan Wacholder, 1989. "A Neural Network-Based Optimization Algorithm for the Static Weapon-Target Assignment Problem," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 232-246, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rempel, M. & Cai, J., 2021. "A review of approximate dynamic programming applications within military operations research," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    2. Hughes, Michael S. & Lunday, Brian J., 2022. "The Weapon Target Assignment Problem: Rational Inference of Adversary Target Utility Valuations from Observed Solutions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Liles, Joseph M. & Robbins, Matthew J. & Lunday, Brian J., 2023. "Improving defensive air battle management by solving a stochastic dynamic assignment problem via approximate dynamic programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1435-1449.
    4. Jenkins, Phillip R. & Robbins, Matthew J. & Lunday, Brian J., 2021. "Approximate dynamic programming for the military aeromedical evacuation dispatching, preemption-rerouting, and redeployment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(1), pages 132-143.
    5. Rebekah S. McKenna & Matthew J. Robbins & Brian J. Lunday & Ian M. McCormack, 2020. "Approximate dynamic programming for the military inventory routing problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 391-416, May.
    6. Gülpınar, Nalan & Çanakoğlu, Ethem & Branke, Juergen, 2018. "Heuristics for the stochastic dynamic task-resource allocation problem with retry opportunities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 291-303.
    7. Satic, U. & Jacko, P. & Kirkbride, C., 2024. "A simulation-based approximate dynamic programming approach to dynamic and stochastic resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(2), pages 454-469.
    8. Younglak Shim & Michael P. Atkinson, 2018. "Analysis of artillery shoot‐and‐scoot tactics," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 242-274, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander G. Kline & Darryl K. Ahner & Brian J. Lunday, 2019. "Real-time heuristic algorithms for the static weapon target assignment problem," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 377-397, June.
    2. Alexandre Colaers Andersen & Konstantin Pavlikov & Túlio A. M. Toffolo, 2022. "Weapon-target assignment problem: exact and approximate solution algorithms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 581-606, May.
    3. Chan Y. Han & Brian J. Lunday & Matthew J. Robbins, 2016. "A Game Theoretic Model for the Optimal Location of Integrated Air Defense System Missile Batteries," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 405-416, August.
    4. Lu, Yiping & Chen, Danny Z., 2021. "A new exact algorithm for the Weapon-Target Assignment problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Anissa Frini & Adel Guitouni & Abderrezak Benaskeur, 2017. "Solving Dynamic Multi-Criteria Resource-Target Allocation Problem Under Uncertainty: A Comparison of Decomposition and Myopic Approaches," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(06), pages 1465-1496, November.
    6. Alexander G. Kline & Darryl K. Ahner & Brian J. Lunday, 2020. "A heuristic and metaheuristic approach to the static weapon target assignment problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 78(4), pages 791-812, December.
    7. Ojeong Kwon & Donghan Kang & Kyungsik Lee & Sungsoo Park, 1999. "Lagrangian relaxation approach to the targeting problem," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(6), pages 640-653, September.
    8. Juan Li & Bin Xin & Panos M. Pardalos & Jie Chen, 2021. "Solving bi-objective uncertain stochastic resource allocation problems by the CVaR-based risk measure and decomposition-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 639-666, January.
    9. Ravindra K. Ahuja & Arvind Kumar & Krishna C. Jha & James B. Orlin, 2007. "Exact and Heuristic Algorithms for the Weapon-Target Assignment Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1136-1146, December.
    10. Orhan Karasakal & Nur Evin Özdemirel & Levent Kandiller, 2011. "Anti‐ship missile defense for a naval task group," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 304-321, April.
    11. Gülpınar, Nalan & Çanakoğlu, Ethem & Branke, Juergen, 2018. "Heuristics for the stochastic dynamic task-resource allocation problem with retry opportunities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 291-303.
    12. Hughes, Michael S. & Lunday, Brian J., 2022. "The Weapon Target Assignment Problem: Rational Inference of Adversary Target Utility Valuations from Observed Solutions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Ahmet Silav & Orhan Karasakal & Esra Karasakal, 2019. "Bi‐objective missile rescheduling for a naval task group with dynamic disruptions," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(7), pages 596-615, October.
    14. Cha, Young-Ho & Kim, Yeong-Dae, 2010. "Fire scheduling for planned artillery attack operations under time-dependent destruction probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 383-392, October.
    15. Michael J. Armstrong, 2014. "Modeling Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense and Israel's Iron Dome System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1028-1039, October.
    16. Martijn van Ee, 2020. "On efficient algorithms for finding efficient salvo policies," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(2), pages 147-158, March.
    17. Cihan Çetinkaya & Samer Haffar, 2018. "A Risk-Based Location-Allocation Approach for Weapon Logistics," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, May.
    18. Ahmet Silav & Esra Karasakal & Orhan Karasakal, 2022. "Bi-objective dynamic weapon-target assignment problem with stability measure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1229-1247, April.
    19. Johannes O. Royset & R. Kevin Wood, 2007. "Solving the Bi-Objective Maximum-Flow Network-Interdiction Problem," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 175-184, May.
    20. Daniel Selva & Bruce Cameron & Ed Crawley, 2016. "Patterns in System Architecture Decisions," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 477-497, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:259:y:2017:i:3:p:873-886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.