Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Uniformed Patroller Game

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper solves the uniformed-patroller game on star, line, circle, and star-in-circle networks, where the attacker sees the patroller at her node and waits a delay $d$ after he leaves before attacking.

desk verdict A useful new attacker-information model with clean star-network results, but the abstract oversells the numerical sections. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01859 v2 pith:IHHTHPY7 submitted 2019-08-05 math.OC

Steve Alpern , Stamatios Katsikas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 91A0591A4390B40
keywords two-persongameconstant-sumpatrollinguniformedpatrollerstarnetworklinecirclewaitingtime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces a variant of network patrolling in which the Attacker can see the Patroller when he is at the node she plans to attack, because he wears a uniform, and can postpone her attack until he has been absent for $d$ consecutive periods. The paper's goal is to solve the resulting zero-sum game, and it claims full solutions for star, line, circle, and star-in-circle networks. On the star $S_n$ with two-period attacks, the solution is closed form: the Patroller should reflect at the end nodes and stay at the center with probability $\sqrt{n(n-1)}-(n-1)$, the Attacker should attack a random end after a delay of two periods, and the interception probability is $(2n-1)-2\sqrt{n(n-1)}$. For odd attack durations on the star, an ordinary random walk is uniquely optimal. If these results are right, uniformed patrols have a rational design that differs sharply from invisible-patrol strategies, and the paper provides exact benchmarks for that design.

What carries the argument

The central object is the away distribution $x^{(t)}$: the Patroller's position distribution conditional on his not having returned to the attack node for $t$ consecutive periods. The Attacker's delay $d$ determines which vector $x^{(d)}$ is used to start an attack, and each interception probability $\pi_m(p,q,\ldots,d)$ is a linear function of $x^{(d)}$ obtained by summing the Patroller's possible future paths of length $m$. On the star the machinery reduces to a one-parameter recursion for $q$, the probability that the Patroller is at the center given that he is away from the attacked end; minimizing $q$ in $t$ fixes $d=2$ and gives the closed forms (5)--(7). The same $x^{(t)}$ iteration, with symmetry-restricted Markovian walks, is what the numerical line, circle, and star-in-circle solutions are built on.

What would settle it

A concrete check: on the star $S_3$ with $m=2$, the paper's value is $5-2\sqrt{6}\approx 0.1010$; solve a dynamic program in which the Attacker's action at each period may depend on the full past history of the Patroller's presence at the chosen end node, and compute the minmax interception probability, and if any such history-dependent strategy achieves an interception probability below $5-2\sqrt{6}$, then the restriction to strategies $(i,d)$ fails and all claimed game values are upper bounds rather than exact values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that once the Attacker can observe the Patroller's presence at her chosen node, the game changes character: instead of attacking at a random time, she waits out a delay $d$, and the Patroller's optimal response is to bias his walk so that the conditional probability of being at certain nodes is low when the delay expires. On the star $S_n$ with attack difficulty $m=2$, the optimal Markovian Patroller reflects from every end node and, from the center, moves to each end with probability $(1-\sqrt{n(n-1)})/n$ and stays at the center with probability $\sqrt{n(n-1)}-(n-1)$. The best Attacker reply is to pick an end node uniformly and attack in the second period after the Patroller leaves it, giving interception probability $(2n-1)-2\sqrt{n(n-1)}$. For odd $m$ the paper proves that the random walk is uniquely optimal with value $1-((n-1)/n)^{(m-1)/2}$; for $m=4$ it gives an exact formula and the asymptotics $1.0944/n$. For $L_4$, $L_5$, $C_4$, $C_5$, and $E_4$ it reports numerical solutions, and two model extensions (one-step memory for the Patroller, direction-of-departure vision for the Attacker) quantify how much each information change shifts the value.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Attacker loses nothing by restricting to strategies of the form $(i,d)$---choose a node, wait until the Patroller visits it, then attack after $d$ consecutive absences---and if any richer history-dependent timing did better, every claimed value would be only an upper bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On a star with two-period attacks, the Patroller should never chase the previous attack but should spend a fraction tending to $1/2$ of his time at the center; for large $n$ the interception probability decays like $1/(4n)$.
  • For odd attack durations on a star, Proposition 2 shows that a memoryless random walk is uniquely optimal and that the Attacker's delay choice is irrelevant.
  • On all the solved line and circle networks, the Patroller optimally reflects at the endpoints, and for odd attack durations the optimal patrol is a random walk; attacks at end nodes dominate interior-node attacks.
  • Giving the Patroller one step of memory on $S_3$ raises the interception probability from about $0.101$ to about $0.136$, while giving the Attacker vision of the departure direction on $E_4$ lowers it from $0.1695$ to about $0.1667$; information alone moves the value in the direction one would expect.
  • The remark after Proposition 1 notes that the optimal Attacker strategy does not require knowing the Patroller's strategy, so the computed pair is a Nash equilibrium, not just a Stackelberg solution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending beyond the paper, the same away-distribution machinery should solve any network whose symmetry group makes the Patroller's walk a small-parameter family; a natural next test is a complete bipartite graph or a lollipop graph.
  • The sharp contrast with the earlier Hamiltonian-cycle value $m/n$ suggests a design principle: visible patrols should randomize and deliberately create unpredictable return times, since predictable tours invite immediate post-departure attacks.
  • Because the value on a large star decays like $1/(4n)$, even optimal uniformed patrols intercept very rarely, so deterrence, not interception, may be the real benefit of visible patrols; the paper itself flags this as an open direction.
  • A testable extension is to allow the Attacker's delay to be randomized and check on $S_n$ with $m=2$ whether mixing over $d=1$ and $d=2$ can beat the $d=2$ value; the paper's claimed Nash property predicts it cannot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a variant of network patrolling games in which the Attacker can observe the Patroller's presence or absence at her chosen node and may wait for d consecutive absence periods before launching an attack of duration m. The Patroller is restricted to ergodic Markovian strategies that respect the symmetries of the network. The main analytic result is for the star network S_n with attack difficulty m=2: the optimal Patroller strategy reflects at end nodes and stays at the center with probability sqrt(n(n-1))-(n-1), the optimal Attacker strategy is to attack a random end node with delay d=2, and the interception probability is (2n-1)-2*sqrt(n(n-1)) (Proposition 1, equations (5)-(7)). For odd m on stars, the random walk is claimed optimal with value 1-((n-1)/n)^((m-1)/2) (Proposition 2). For line, circle, and star-in-circle networks, values are obtained numerically for maximum delay D=15 and attack durations m=2,...,6. Two extensions are also considered: a Patroller with one-step memory on the star S_3, and an Attacker with slightly greater vision on the star-in-circle E_4.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution by introducing asymmetric information into network patrolling games and by providing clean closed-form values for the star network. The analytic sections are derived by explicit optimization of payoff expressions, with no fitted constants; Proposition 1 and its equations are crisp and falsifiable, and Section 3.5 gives an instructive exact analysis of the one-step-memory case. The numerical sections offer initial evidence for line, circle, and star-in-circle networks. However, the correctness of all reported values hinges on an unproved reduction of Attacker strategies to pairs (i,d), and the numerical claims are not verified to the same standard as the analytic star results. The paper is likely to stimulate follow-up work if these gaps are closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (formal model), applied in all later sections] The restriction of the Attacker to strategies (i,d) is not proved. The justification in Section 2 tells the Attacker, for free, the total number of 0's at node i since the last 1, which is information not available in the game as described: the Attacker arrives at the node and observes the presence/absence process only from that moment onward. A strategy that attacks after d observed absences without first waiting for a visit is not a pure (i,d) strategy, and the paper does not show that every adapted stopping rule can be represented as a (possibly mixed) strategy over (i,d). Since all computed game values are obtained by minimizing over the restricted family (i,d), without this reduction every value in Proposition 1 and equations (5)-(7) is only an upper bound on the Patroller's true interception probability, not the game value. This is a load-bearing gap in the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section 3.2, Proposition 2 (equation (8))] The proof does not establish optimality of the random walk for odd m. The 'Similarly' paragraph analyzes the interception probability under the random walk only; it shows that against this particular Patroller strategy every attack has interception probability at most the claimed value, which is an upper bound for the Patroller restricted to the random walk, not for arbitrary feasible Markovian symmetric strategies. To prove that V is the value of the game, one must show that for every feasible Patroller strategy there exists an attack with interception probability at most V, and this is not provided. The uniqueness claim of Proposition 2 is therefore unsupported.
  3. [Sections 4-5 and 6.2, Tables 3, 5, 7, 8, 9] The claimed solutions for line, circle, and star-in-circle networks are numerical and not fully verified. The delay bound is fixed at D=15, and the check for larger delays is qualitative (Figures 9, 12, 15, 16). The explicit payoff formulas for m=5 and m=6 are omitted in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, and the optimization over Patroller parameters is described as grid-based numerical work, so the reader cannot verify that the reported maxima are global. Moreover, the comparison of attack nodes in Tables 4 and 6 is carried out under the patrol optimized for an attack at node 1; this verifies only that, for that particular patrol, an end-node attack is better than attacks at nodes 2 and 3, not that the Attacker could not force a lower interception probability by attacking a different node against a different patrol. The abstract's claim that these networks are 'solved' is therefore stronger than the evidence presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] In the displayed inequality following 'the probability that the Attacker's node is among them is', the right-hand side should be 1 - ((n-1)/n)^j; the '1 -' is missing on the right-hand side.
  2. [Section 3.5, Proposition 3] The proposition states that the Patroller chooses p and s with probabilities approximately 0.305 and 0.136, but the preceding paragraph gives s approximately 0.217 and the value V approximately 0.136; the proposition should be corrected. The stated 'increase of approximately 36%' also conflicts with the earlier '34%' figure.
  3. [Section 4.1] In the paragraph before Figure 10, the optimal patrol for m=6 is given as (0.4947, 0.4267, 1), while Table 3 reports (0.4974, 0.4267, 1); these numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 5.2] The text says 'as seen in Figure 13' after presenting Figure 16; the cross-reference should be to Figure 16.
  5. [General] There are several minor wording issues, including 'scenaria' for 'scenarios' in the introduction, and the notation pi_m(..., infinity) used in Tables 3, 5, 7, and 8 should be explicitly defined as the limit as d tends to infinity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: game values are obtained by explicit optimization of payoff expressions, and earlier results are cited only as background.

full rationale

The paper defines a new game in which Attacker pure strategies are pairs (i,d) and Patroller strategies are ergodic Markovian walks, then computes interception probabilities from explicit transition dynamics and optimizes them. For example, in the star case, equations (1)-(4) derive the conditional probability of the Patroller being at the center given continued absence, and equations (5)-(7) follow by straightforward first-order optimization of the resulting interception probability; no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction and no target value is inserted as an input. The line, circle, and star-in-circle sections similarly derive payoff expressions from the relevant Markov chains and optimize them numerically or algebraically. Citations to Alpern, Morton and Papadaki (2011) are used for background comparison and for an extension of a non-uniformed game theorem, but the uniformed-game values are not imported from those citations. The only notable modeling step is the Section 2 restriction of Attacker strategies to (i,d), justified by an informal argument in which the Attacker is told for free the age of the current absence run. Even if that reduction is incomplete and should be assessed as a correctness risk, it is a modeling assumption about the strategy space rather than a circular derivation: the game value is defined within the (i,d) strategy space and computed independently from that definition. No circular step can be exhibited in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All numerical values for line, circle, and star-in-circle networks depend on the choice D=15 and on unstated optimizer settings, so they are conditional computational outputs. The exact star solutions depend on the Markovian and symmetric-strategy restriction and on the (i,d) reduction for the attacker. No free constants are fitted to external data; the optimized transition probabilities are decision variables solved from the model.

free parameters (2)
  • D = 15
    The maximum attacker delay in the numerical solutions of Sections 4-6 is fixed at D=15. The paper argues by plotting that larger delays do not lower interception probabilities below the tabulated optima, but this is not a proof, so the tabulated values are conditional on this choice.
  • Numerical grid/optimization resolution
    Sections 4-6 report optimal patrol parameters and delays but do not specify the step size, optimizer, convergence criterion, or number of restarts used to find them, so the reported optima are unverified computational outputs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Attacker strategies reduce to pairs (i,d): attack node i after the Patroller has been away for d consecutive periods following a visit.
    Informal exchange argument in Section 2, not a formal proof; all computed values depend on this reduction.
  • domain assumption Patroller is restricted to ergodic Markovian strategies that respect network symmetries.
    Stated as a modeling restriction in Section 2; without it, e.g., Hamiltonian tours can give value 1 when m is at least n, so the values computed here are for the restricted game.
  • domain assumption Stackelberg play: the Patroller announces his Markovian strategy and the Attacker observes it before choosing (i,d).
    Section 2; the computed values are leader-follower max-min values rather than simultaneous-move Nash values, though the authors note Nash existence in some cases.
  • domain assumption D=15 is large enough to capture the Attacker's best delay for line, circle, and star-in-circle networks.
    Sections 4-6 justify this by inspecting plots of interception probability vs. delay for the optimal patrol; no analytic bound is given.
  • domain assumption Numerical parameter searches in Sections 4-6 locate global optima.
    No proof or rigorous bounds are provided; the paper reports the results as estimated numerically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Uniformed Patroller Game." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHHTHPY7

@misc{pith2026190801859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Uniformed Patroller Game},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHHTHPY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01859}
}
read the original abstract

In the recently introduced network patrolling game, an Attacker carries out an attack on a node of her choice, for a given number m of consecutive periods. The parameter m indicates the difficulty of the attack at a given node. To thwart such an attack, the Patroller adopts a walk on the network, hoping to be at the attacked node during one of the m periods. If this occurs, the attack is interrupted and the Patroller wins; otherwise the Attacker wins. In the original setting, the Attacker has no knowledge of the Patroller's location at any time. Here, to model the important alternative where the Patroller can be identified when he is at the Attacker's node (e.g. the Patroller wears a uniform), we allow the Attacker to initiate her attack after waiting for a chosen number d of consecutive periods in which the Patroller has been away. We solve this version of the game for various networks: star, line, circle and a mixture. We restrict the Patroller to Markovian strategies, which cover the whole network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of Attacker-Patroller dynamics for the line graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An asymmetric Hamiltonian graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The Star network Sn. We begin by assuming that the attack takes place at an end node, which we denote by e, and then we show that the Patroller should reflect from the ends (s = 1). Note that since we have taken m ≥ 2, reflecting from the ends will further imply that the Attacker should never attack at the center c because in that case the Patroller will never be away from it for two consecutive periods. 3.1 Attack … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The interception probability a2(n, p), for n = 2(blue), . . . , 8(yellow). For the n = 2 arc star (which is equivalent to a line network with three nodes), the Patroller should move from the center towards each end with probability about 0.3, and remain at the center w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optimal values for m = 2. We can pull together the above results into the following proposition: Proposition 1. Consider the Uniformed Patroller Problem on the star network Sn with n arcs and an attack difficulty of m = 2. The optimal Patroller’s strategy is to reflect…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a4(n, p) for n = 2(blue), . . . , 9(black). n rˆ p a ˆ 4(n, pˆ) 2 0.1778 0.4111 0.5391 3 0.1885 0.2705 0.3618 4 0.1924 0.2019 0.2720 5 0.1945 0.1611 0.2179 6 0.1960 0.1340 0.1817 7 0.1971 0.1147 0.1559 8 0.1976 0.1003 0.1364 9 0.1981 0.0891 0.1213 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Line network L4. To avoid unnecessary subscripts we introduce notation p2 = p, q2 = q, r2 = r. The general vector formula (18) for recursively calculating Patroller’s away distribution, reduces to the system (1 − p · x (t−1) 2 ) · x (t) 2 = (1 − p − q) · x (t−1) 2 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Interception probability for an attack at node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Interception probability for an attack at node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The Line network L5. Expanding the general recursive formula (18), we can rewrite the Patroller’s away distribu￾tion for L5 into the following system of equations (1 − p · x (t−1) 2 ) · x (t) 2 = (1 − p − q) · x (t−1) 2 + c · x (t−1) 3 , (1 − p · x (t−1) 2 ) · x (t) 3…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Interception probabilities for an attack at node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Interception probability for an attack at nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The Circle network Cn. Like above, we restrict the Patroller to Markovian strategies such that he moves clockwise and counter clockwise with the same probability p, while he stays at the same node with probability r = 1 − 2 · p. Given this symmetric patrol, every stra…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Interception probability for an attack at a random node of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Interception probability for an attack at a random node of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The Star-in-Circle network Sn. We take a Markovian Patroller that leaves an end towards each of its adjacent ends with probability p and towards the center with probability q, leaves the center towards each end with probability r, remains at an end with probability a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Uniformed Patroller Game

    cs.CR 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In the observable-patroller star game, the optimal attack delay is two periods and the optimal patroller never spends consecutive periods at a location.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization

    Alpern S (1995) The rendezvous search problem. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization. 33(3):673-683

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Operations Research

    Alpern S, Morton A, Papadaki K (2011) Patrolling games. Operations Research. 59(5):1246-1257

    2011

  3. [3]

    European Journal of Operational Research

    Alpern S, Lidbetter T, Papadaki K (2018) Optimizing Periodic Patrols against Short Attacks on the Line and Other Networks. European Journal of Operational Research

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Artificial Intelligence

    Basilico N, Gatti N, Amigoni F (2012) Patrolling security games: Definition and algorithms for solving large instances with single patroller and single intruder. Artificial Intelligence. 184:78-123

    2012

  5. [5]

    Adversarial patrolling with spatially uncertain alarm signals

    Basilico N, De Nittis G, Gatti N (2015) Adversarial patrolling with spatially uncertain alarm signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02850

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Operations Research

    Baston V, Kikuta K (2004) An ambush game with an unknown number of infiltrators. Operations Research. 52(4):597-605

    2004

  7. [7]

    Operations Research

    Baston V, Kikuta K (2009) Technical Note-An Ambush Game with a Fat Infiltrator. Operations Research. 57(2):514-519

    2009

  8. [8]

    European Journal of Operational Research

    Baykal-G\" u rsoy M, Duan Z, Poor H V, Garnaev A (2014) Infrastructure security games. European Journal of Operational Research. 239(2):469-478

    2014

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    In 8th International Conference on Fun with Algorithms, FUN 2016 (Vol

    Cohen N, Hilaire M, Martins N, Nisse N, Pérennes S (2016) Spy-Game on graphs. In 8th International Conference on Fun with Algorithms, FUN 2016 (Vol. 49). Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik

    2016

  2. [10]

    Optimal patrolling of fragmented boundaries

    Collins A, Czyzowicz J, Gasieniec L, Kosowski A, Kranakis E, Krizanc D, ..., Morales Ponce O (2013, July). Optimal patrolling of fragmented boundaries. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures (pp. 241-250). ACM

    2013

  3. [11]

    In Handbook of Computational Approaches to Counterterrorism (pp

    Fokkink R, Lindelauf R (2013) The Application of Search Games to Counter Terrorism Studies. In Handbook of Computational Approaches to Counterterrorism (pp. 543-557). Springer New York

    2013

  4. [12]

    In International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (pp

    Ho H M, Ouaknine J (2015, April) The cyclic-routing UAV problem is PSPACE-complete. In International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (pp. 328-342). Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2015

  5. [13]

    Networks

    Hochbaum D S, Lyu C, Ordóñez F (2014) Security routing games with multivehicle Chinese postman problem. Networks. 64(3):181-191

    2014

  6. [14]

    In System Sciences, 1989

    Holte R, Mok A, Rosier L, Tulchinsky I, Varvel D (1989, January) The pinwheel: A real-time scheduling problem. In System Sciences, 1989. Vol. II: Software Track, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 693-702). IEEE

    1989

  7. [15]

    Operations Research

    Lin K Y, Atkinson M P, Chung T H, Glazebrook K D (2013) A graph patrol problem with random attack times. Operations Research. 61(3):694-710

    2013

  8. [16]

    Naval Research Logistics (NRL)

    Lin K Y, Atkinson M P, Glazebrook K D (2014) Optimal patrol to uncover threats in time when detection is imperfect. Naval Research Logistics (NRL). 61(8):557-576

    2014

  9. [17]

    Morse P M, Kimball G E (1951) Methods of Operations Research (MIT Press and Wiley, New York)

    1951

  10. [18]

    Operations Research

    Papadaki K, Alpern S, Lidbetter T, Morton A (2016) Patrolling a border. Operations Research. 64(6):1256-1269

    2016

  11. [19]

    In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: industrial track (pp

    Pita J, Jain M, Marecki J, Ordóñez F, Portway C, Tambe M, ..., Kraus S (2008, May) Deployed ARMOR protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the Los Angeles International Airport. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous...

    2008

  12. [20]

    Naval Research Logistics (NRL)

    Szechtman R, Kress M, Lin K, Cfir D (2008) Models of sensor operations for border surveillance. Naval Research Logistics (NRL). 55(1):27-41

    2008

  13. [21]

    Naval Research Logistics Quarterly

    Washburn A R (1982) On patrolling a channel. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. 29(4):609-615

    1982

  14. [22]

    Military Operations Research

    Washburn A (2010) Barrier games. Military Operations Research. 15(3):31-41

    2010

  15. [23]

    European Journal of Operational Research

    Zoroa N, Fern\' a ndez-S\' a ez M J, Zoroa P (2012) Patrolling a perimeter. European Journal of Operational Research. 222(3):571-582

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.