Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Mutual Support by Sensor-Attacker Team for a Passive Target

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The attacker can guarantee capture of a constant-heading target if and only if the Apollonius circle between attacker and target is fully contained in the sensor's sensable region; speed thresholds below and above this condition decide the

desk verdict Core containment result and Theorems 2–3 are sound and worth building on; Theorem 5's printed quadratic has a sign error, though the corrected version matches the paper's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06092 v1 pith:VCZEH3XQ submitted 2025-09-07 eess.SY cs.SY

Prajakta Surve , Shaunak D. Bopardikar , Alexander Von Moll , Isaac Weintraub , David W. Casbeer This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 91A2449N75
keywords pursuit-evasiongameofkindsensableregionApolloniuscirclesensingconstraintsopen-looptargetspeedthresholdcooperativepursuit
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 studies a three-agent pursuit game: a slow sensor with a finite sensing radius, a fast attacker that depends on the sensor for target information, and a target that is faster than the sensor but slower than the attacker. The target is assumed to be passive, committing to a single constant heading at the start of the game. The authors derive an optimal sensor strategy that maximizes how long the target stays inside the sensing radius, and an attacker strategy that intercepts the target in minimum time along Apollonius-circle geometry. Their central claim is that capture is guaranteed exactly when the attacker's Apollonius circle lies entirely within the 'sensable region' — the set of positions the target can reach before escaping the sensor's range. From this geometric containment condition they produce explicit target-speed thresholds: below one speed capture is guaranteed for any initial geometry, above another escape is guaranteed, and in between a critical speed exists at which the two regions first become tangent.

What carries the argument

Two geometric objects carry the argument. The sensable region S_t is the set of all points the target can reach by moving at constant speed on some constant heading during the interval before it exits the sensor's radius, assuming the sensor follows its time-maximizing heading. The Apollonius circle A_t is the locus of points that the attacker and target can reach simultaneously, given their speed ratio μ. The load-bearing condition is containment: A_0 ⊂ S_0 means that whatever constant heading the target chooses, it cannot reach the boundary of sensing before the attacker reaches it. Theorems 2 and 3 translate this containment into explicit inequalities on the target speed, and Theorem 5 re

What would settle it

Simulate an engagement in which the target is allowed to change its heading once at an arbitrary time t > 0, rather than fixing its heading at t = 0. A single such trajectory that escapes from an initial configuration where the Apollonius circle is fully contained in the sensable region would refute the necessity of the containment condition for guaranteed capture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the outcome of the sensor-attacker-target engagement is decided by a single containment check at the initial time. Under the proposed sensor and attacker strategies, capture of a constant-heading target is guaranteed if and only if the Apollonius circle between the attacker and the target is fully contained in the sensable region. This iff condition is Lemma 2. From it, the paper derives speed-based criteria: if the target's speed is below v_T = ((R - d_ST0) v_A + d_AT0 v_S) / (d_AT0 + R - d_ST0), capture is guaranteed from any initial orientation; if the speed is above v_T = ((R - d_ST0) v_A + d_AT0 v_S) / (d_AT0 - R + d_ST0), there exists a constant heading g

Load-bearing premise

The target commits to a single straight-line heading at the start of the game and never changes it, even though it knows the sensor's and attacker's strategies; the containment condition and all speed thresholds are derived for this open-loop target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Apollonius circle is initially contained in the sensable region, no constant-heading target can escape: the attacker intercepts it before the target exits the sensor's sensing radius.
  • A target speed below the closed-form threshold v_T guarantees capture regardless of the initial positions and headings of the three agents.
  • A target speed above the closed-form threshold v_T guarantees existence of a constant heading that lets the target escape, again for arbitrary initial geometry.
  • For a fixed initial orientation, the quadratic-derived threshold v_T⋆ gives a sharper escape speed than the geometry-independent bound, and the true critical speed v_T⋆ lies between v_T and v_T.
  • At the critical speed the Apollonius circle and the sensable region are tangent; increasing the target speed beyond that point makes the two regions intersect and opens an escape route.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the target were allowed to change heading even once after observing the sensor's commitment, the 'if and only if' containment condition would likely degrade to a sufficient-only condition: the intercept geometry in Lemma 2 is built on a straight-line target, so an adaptive target could invalidate the capture guarantee.
  • The containment condition could be turned into a real-time decision rule: before committing, the sensor-attacker team computes whether A_0 ⊂ S_0; if not, it knows escape is possible and can instead maneuver to reshape the sensable region before the engagement truly begins.
  • The same Apollonius-vs-sensable-region comparison may generalize to multiple sensors whose sensing discs overlap, with the team-level sensable region playing the role of S_0 and the attacker's capture set playing the role of A_0.
  • A direct numerical test of Theorem 4 would be to sweep the target speed through the interval [v_T, v_T] and locate the smallest speed at which A_0 first intersects S_0, verifying that it matches the root of the quadratic in Theorem 5 for each fixed initial orientation.
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 considers a planar three-agent pursuit-evasion game between a cooperative sensor-attacker team and a passive (constant-heading) target. The sensor is slower than the target, which is in turn slower than the attacker; the sensor has limited sensing radius R, and the attacker can only rely on the sensor's measurements. The target wins if it escapes the sensing radius before being intercepted; the team wins if the attacker intercepts the target while it remains within the sensing disc. The authors propose an optimal sensor heading that maximizes the time before escape (Lemma 1), an intercept heading for the attacker based on Apollonius-circle geometry (Eq. (45)), and a 'sensable region' S0 of target positions reachable before escape (Definition 1). The central result, Lemma 2, states that capture is guaranteed if and only if the initial Apollonius circle A0 is fully contained in S0. Theorems 2 and 3 give respective target-speed thresholds guaranteeing capture and escape for arbitrary initial orientations. Theorem 4 asserts the existence of a critical speed separating the two regimes, and Theorem 5 claims a sharper, orientation-dependent escape-speed threshold obtained by solving a quadratic. Numerical sections illustrate the thresholds and trajectories.

Significance. If the central geometric characterization is correct, the paper is a useful contribution to the cooperative pursuit-evasion literature. Lemma 2 and Theorems 2 and 3 are explicit, parameter-free conditions, derived from transparent geometry, and the numerical examples are consistent with those results. The sensable-region/containment viewpoint is clean and likely to be reused. The paper does not rely on curve fitting or hidden normalization; the thresholds are algebraic consequences of the geometry. However, the fourth contribution (Theorem 5) contains a concrete sign error, and the relationship between the computed threshold and the exact critical speed of Theorem 4 is conflated. These issues affect the manuscript's headline claims and require correction. The main framework is sound and the errors appear fixable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Theorem 5 / Eqs. (58)–(71)] The printed quadratic is inconsistent with the derivation and with the paper's own numerical example. In Eq. (58), the angle at T0 in triangle ΔC_Ap^0 T0 Ttf is the angle between the vectors T0→C_Ap^0 and T0→Ttf. Since C_Ap^0 lies on the ray from A0 through T0, this angle is θ_AT0−θ_ST0 (for γ_T=θ_ST0), not π−(θ_AT0−θ_ST0). Using the printed sign gives coefficients a,b with the wrong signs in Eqs. (69)–(70). With the Section V-D parameters (S0=(0,0), A0=(3,3), T0=(1.5,0.5), vS=0.3, vA=1, R=2), the printed quadratic yields roots 0.1416 and 0.3956, whereas the paper reports 0.1765 and 0.4896. The reported roots are reproduced by the corrected coefficients a=1+2DPθ+D², b=−2vS(1+DPθ), c=vS²−D²vA². Eq. (60) also has the sign of the μPθ term reversed; the correct solutions have μPθ±√(1−μ²Qθ²). Since Theorem 5 is one of the four stated contributions, the formulas must be corrected and the numer
  2. [Section IV, Theorems 4 and 5 / Remark 7] The symbol v_{T⋆} is used for two different objects. Theorem 4 asserts the existence of an exact critical speed with capture for v_T≤v_{T⋆} and escape for v_T>v_{T⋆}. Section V-D then calls the Theorem 5 root 'the valid critical speed.' However, Remark 7 states that when v_T<v_{T⋆} (the value from Theorem 5), capture cannot be concluded because the true critical speed may be lower. This directly contradicts Theorem 4(2) if the symbols denote the same quantity. The proof of Theorem 4 does not identify the exact tangency speed, and the Theorem 5 computation is conditional on the assumption that tangency occurs at the minimum-escape point. The paper must either prove that the Theorem 5 root is the exact critical speed of Theorem 4, or clearly present it as a sufficient escape threshold and revise Theorem 4 and the Conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section IV, Theorem 5 proof] Even apart from the sign error, the theorem is not established as stated. The proof assumes that the tangency point of A0 and S0 coincides with the point of minimum escape distance; the sentence before Theorem 5 says 'by assuming that the tangency point coincides with the point of minimum escape distance.' No argument is given that this assumption holds for the given initial geometry, and Remark 5 acknowledges that multiple tangency points may occur. The proof also does not show that the computed root is < v̄T for all admissible parameters, nor that v_T>v_{T⋆} implies A0⊄S0 without the min-escape-point assumption. The numerical example is consistent with the corrected algebra, but the theorem's existence claim over the parameter domain requires a proof or a more carefully bounded statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The attacker strategy is described as 'proportional navigation,' but Eq. (45) is a geometric intercept heading (essentially pure/parallel pursuit to the predicted intercept point). Please use terminology consistent with the actual guidance law.
  2. [Throughout] The notation v_T (target speed and a threshold), v̄_T, and v_{T⋆} is easy to confuse. Consider using distinct symbols, e.g., v_T^-, v_T^+, v_T^*, for the three thresholds.
  3. [Assumption 1 / Lemma 2] The 'if and only if' in Lemma 2 is for passive (open-loop) target headings. Since Assumption 1 nevertheless gives the target full knowledge of the team's strategies, a reactive target would invalidate the sufficiency direction. This limitation should be stated in the main text more prominently, not only in the introduction.
  4. [Remark 4] Remark 4 claims a first-order sensitivity result without a derivation. Either provide the short calculation or label the statement as an observation.
  5. [Section V-B] The sentence 'by Theorem 2, this containment persists for all future times' is stronger than what Theorem 2 states. Theorem 2 guarantees capture under the speed threshold; the persistence claim needs a proof or rewording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: speed thresholds are algebraic consequences of the stated geometry, not fitted or definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper derives its main conditions from explicit kinematic definitions. Lemma 2's containment condition follows from Definition 1 (sensable region as the target-reachable set before escape) and Definition 2 (Apollonius circle as the simultaneous-arrival set); Theorems 2 and 3 convert that containment into inequalities on v_T using Corollary 1 and the Apollonius center/radius formulas (Eqs. 40-41), with no parameter fitted to a prediction target. Theorem 5 solves a quadratic obtained from the same geometric setup. No load-bearing result is imported solely from a self-citation: the formulas cited from [33] are standard and are used algebraically, and the sensor-strategy result is re-derived in the paper rather than assumed. The paper's self-citations concern the passive-target modeling convention and related surveillance games, not the central derivation. One non-circular concern: the printed quadratic in Theorem 5 (Eqs. 69-71) is inconsistent with the law-of-cosines step (Eq. 58) and with the Section V-D numerical roots; this is a correctness/derivation error, not a circularity. Remark 7 also concedes that the tangency-at-minimum-escape-distance assumption of Theorem 5 is not generally valid, limiting the theorem's force. These issues do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the open-loop target assumption, the speed ordering, and the ideal information pattern. The Theorem 5 sharpenning also rests on the ad hoc tangency-at-minimum-distance assumption, which the authors themselves flag. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Target uses a constant, open-loop heading chosen at t=0
    Section II, Assumption 1 and the passive-target discussion. This is what makes the intercept geometry a straight-line Apollonius problem; a maneuvering target invalidates the iff condition.
  • domain assumption Agent speeds satisfy vS < vT < vA
    Assumption 2; if the target were slowest or fastest the game would be trivial.
  • domain assumption The sensor-attacker team knows the target's instantaneous position, speed, and heading while the target is inside the sensing radius
    Assumption 1; the attacker has no onboard sensing and the sensor provides the measurements.
  • domain assumption Vehicles have no turn-rate constraints and move on straight-line courses at constant speed
    Section I.B, beyond-visual-range scaling; used in the kinematics Eq. (1).
  • ad hoc to paper In Theorem 5 the tangency point between the Apollonius circle and the sensable region is assumed to be the point of minimum escape distance
    Remark 7 admits the tangency can occur elsewhere; this makes Theorem 5 sufficient only for escape, not for capture.
  • domain assumption The containment relation A0(vT) vs S0(vT) is continuous and monotone in vT, guaranteeing a unique critical speed
    Proof of Theorem 4 asserts contraction/expansion without a formal rigorous proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Support by Sensor-Attacker Team for a Passive Target." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCZEH3XQ

@misc{pith2026250906092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Support by Sensor-Attacker Team for a Passive Target},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCZEH3XQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06092}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a pursuit game played between a team of a sensor and an attacker and a mobile target in the unbounded Euclidean plane. The target is faster than the sensor, but slower than the attacker. The sensor's objective is to keep the target within a sensing radius so that the attacker can capture the target, whereas the target seeks to escape by reaching beyond the sensing radius from the sensor without getting captured by the attacker. We assume that as long as the target is within the sensing radius from the sensor, the sensor-attacker team is able to measure the target's instantaneous position and velocity. We pose and solve this problem as a \emph{game of kind} in which the target uses an open-loop strategy (passive target). Aside from the novel formulation, our contributions are four-fold. First, we present optimal strategies for both the sensor and the attacker, according to their respective objectives. Specifically, we design a sensor strategy that maximizes the duration for which the target remains within its sensing range, while the attacker uses proportional navigation to capture the target. Second, we characterize the \emph{sensable region} -- the region in the plane in which the target remains within the sensing radius of the sensor during the game -- and show that capture is guaranteed {if and only if} the Apollonius circle between the attacker and the target is fully contained within this region. Third, we {derive a lower bound} on the target's speed below which capture is guaranteed, and an upper bound on the target speed above which there exists an escape strategy for the target, from an arbitrary initial orientation between the agents. Fourth, for a given initial orientation between the agents, we present a sharper upper bound on the target speed above which there exists an escape strategy for the target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the Sensor-Attacker-Target (SAT) en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optimal direction for S. The state kinematics of the agents S and T are given by Eq. (1). Let us denote the relative position of S with respect to T by (Xt, Yt) at any given time t as Xt = T x t − S x t , (3) Yt = T y t − S y t . (4) To maximize the time of the engagement, we define the cost function J = Z tf 0 dt, (5) where, as mentioned earlier, tf denotes the final time of the engagement where either capture or e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Engagement among the three agents at the time of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the Cartesian oval shape of the sensable region S0 for all values of the heading γ T ∈ [0, 2π). Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Attacker-target engagement with Apollonius circle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A typical engagement scenario between the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the gap between v T and v T for the given initial positions of the sensor, attacker and the target. Proof of Theorem 3. Assume that the initial conditions satisfy Eq. (50). Rearranging the inequality gives v T (d AT 0 − R + d ST 0 ) > (R − d ST 0 )v A …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A typical engagement scenario between the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of S0 and A0 for target velocity values v T (dotted line), v T ⋆ (solid line), and v T (dashed line). conditions, by assuming that the tangency point coincides with the point of minimum escape distance, we can refine the upper bound v T from Theorem 3 to …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of agent trajectories for various values of the target’s heading angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of Theorem 2. In subplot (a), the target’s speed is below the threshold, resulting in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of Theorem 3. The sets At and St are shown at the initial time t = 0 (dashed line) and at the termination time t = tf (solid line). Target escape for v T = 0.5190 m/s, since A0 extends beyond S0. d ST 0 = 1.5811 m, θ AT 0 = −120.96◦ , and d AT 0 = 2.9155 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Construction of barrier in a fishing game with point capture,

    W. Zha, J. Chen, Z. Peng, and D. Gu, “Construction of barrier in a fishing game with point capture,”IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1409–1422, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Multi-player pursuit–evasion games with one superior evader,

    J. Chen, W. Zha, Z. Peng, and D. Gu, “Multi-player pursuit–evasion games with one superior evader,”Automatica, vol. 71, pp. 24–32, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Cooperative containment of a high- speed evader,

    E. Garcia and S. D. Bopardikar, “Cooperative containment of a high- speed evader,” inIEEE American control conference (ACC), pp. 4698– 4703, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Pursuit-evasion games of high speed evader,

    M. V . Ramana and M. Kothari, “Pursuit-evasion games of high speed evader,”Journal of intelligent & robotic systems, vol. 85, pp. 293–306, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Surveillance of a faster fixed-course target,

    I. E. Weintraub, A. V on Moll, E. Garcia, D. W. Casbeer, and M. Pachter, “Surveillance of a faster fixed-course target,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 4147–4158, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A decentralized fuzzy learning algorithm for pursuit-evasion differential games with superior evaders,

    M. D. Awheda and H. M. Schwartz, “A decentralized fuzzy learning algorithm for pursuit-evasion differential games with superior evaders,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 83, pp. 35–53, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Optimal evading strategies and task allocation in multi-player pursuit–evasion problems,

    V . R. Makkapati and P. Tsiotras, “Optimal evading strategies and task allocation in multi-player pursuit–evasion problems,”Dynamic Games and Applications, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1168–1187, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Cooperative target capture using Voronoi region shaping,

    G. Kumar and A. Ratnoo, “Cooperative target capture using Voronoi region shaping,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, pp. 1–11, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Matching-based cap- ture strategies for 3d heterogeneous multiplayer reach-avoid differential games,

    R. Yan, X. Duan, Z. Shi, Y . Zhong, and F. Bullo, “Matching-based cap- ture strategies for 3d heterogeneous multiplayer reach-avoid differential games,”Automatica, vol. 140, p. 110207, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    A geometric approach for the cooperative two-pursuer one-evader differential game,

    E. Garcia, Z. E. Fuchs, D. Milutinovic, D. W. Casbeer, and M. Pachter, “A geometric approach for the cooperative two-pursuer one-evader differential game,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 15209– 15214, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Pursuit- evasion of an evader by multiple pursuers,

    A. V on Moll, D. W. Casbeer, E. Garcia, and D. Milutinovi ´c, “Pursuit- evasion of an evader by multiple pursuers,” inInternational Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 133–142, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    One Apollonius circle is enough for many pursuit-evasion games,

    M. Dorothy, D. Maity, D. Shishika, and A. V on Moll, “One Apollonius circle is enough for many pursuit-evasion games,”Automatica, vol. 163, p. 111587, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Defending a moving target against missile or torpedo attack,

    R. L. Boyell, “Defending a moving target against missile or torpedo attack,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 522–526, 1976

    1976

  6. [14]

    Counterweapon aiming for defense of a moving target,

    R. L. Boyell, “Counterweapon aiming for defense of a moving target,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 402–408, 1980

    1980

  7. [15]

    Circular target defense differential games,

    A. V on Moll, M. Pachter, D. Shishika, and Z. Fuchs, “Circular target defense differential games,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4065–4078, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Triangle intercept guidance for aerial defense,

    T. Yamasaki and S. Balakrishnan, “Triangle intercept guidance for aerial defense,”Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Aircraft defense differential game with non-zero capture radius,

    E. Garcia, D. W. Casbeer, Z. E. Fuchs, and M. Pachter, “Aircraft defense differential game with non-zero capture radius,”IFAC-PapersOnLine - 20th IFAC World Congress, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 14200–14205, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Dynamic network analysis of a target defense differential game with limited observations,

    S. K. Singh and P. V . Reddy, “Dynamic network analysis of a target defense differential game with limited observations,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 308–320, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Heterogeneous roles against assignment based policies in two vs two target defense game,

    G. Das, V . Rostobaya, J. Berneburg, Z. Bell, M. Dorothy, and D. Shishika, “Heterogeneous roles against assignment based policies in two vs two target defense game,” inIEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 8416–8422, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Three-player pursuit and evasion conflict,

    S. Rubinsky and S. Gutman, “Three-player pursuit and evasion conflict,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 37, pp. 98–110, 01 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    A beam rider concept for three point aerial rendezvous guidance,

    P. Anjaly and A. Ratnoo, “A beam rider concept for three point aerial rendezvous guidance,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, p. 2108, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    On discrete-time pursuit-evasion games with sensing limitations,

    S. D. Bopardikar, F. Bullo, and J. P. Hespanha, “On discrete-time pursuit-evasion games with sensing limitations,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1429–1439, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Nash strategies for pursuit-evasion differential games involving limited observations,

    W. Lin, Z. Qu, and M. A. Simaan, “Nash strategies for pursuit-evasion differential games involving limited observations,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1347–1356, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Desensitized strategies for pursuit-evasion games with asymmetric information,

    V . R. Makkapati, V . Comandur, H. Sarabu, P. Tsiotras, and S. Hutchin- son, “Desensitized strategies for pursuit-evasion games with asymmetric information,” inIEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applica- tions (CCTA), pp. 219–224, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Optimal evasion from a sensing-limited pursuer,

    D. Maity, A. V on Moll, D. Shishika, and M. Dorothy, “Optimal evasion from a sensing-limited pursuer,” inIEEE American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 2758–2765, 2024. 16

    2024

  18. [26]

    Dominance regions of pursuit-evasion games in non-anticipative information patterns,

    W. Huang, L. Liang, N. Xu, and F. Deng, “Dominance regions of pursuit-evasion games in non-anticipative information patterns,”Auto- matica, vol. 176, p. 112258, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Beyond visual range tactics,

    E. Garcia, D. M. Tran, D. Casbeer, D. Milutinovic, and M. Pachter, “Beyond visual range tactics,” inAIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, p. 1229, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Defending a moving target against missile or torpedo attack,

    R. L. Boyell, “Defending a moving target against missile or torpedo attack,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, no. 4, pp. 522–526, 1976

    1976

  21. [29]

    Maximum observation of a target by a slower observer in three dimensions,

    I. E. Weintraub, A. V on Moll, E. Garcia, and M. Pachter, “Maximum observation of a target by a slower observer in three dimensions,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Navigation, vol. 44, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    En- gagement zone defense of a non-maneuvering evader,

    I. Weintraub, A. V on Moll, D. Casbeer, E. Garcia, and M. Pachter, “En- gagement zone defense of a non-maneuvering evader,” inConference on Control Technology and Applications, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Pure pursuit with an effector,

    A. V on Moll, M. Pachter, and Z. Fuchs, “Pure pursuit with an effector,” Dynamic Games and Applications, pp. 961—-979, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    L. S. Pontryagin,Mathematical theory of optimal processes. Routledge, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Optimal guidance strategy for the defense of a non-manoeuvrable target in 3-dimensions,

    I. Weintraub, E. Garcia, and M. Pachter, “Optimal guidance strategy for the defense of a non-manoeuvrable target in 3-dimensions,”IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1531–1538, 2020. Prajakta Surveis a Post-Doctoral Researcher with the Electrical and Comput...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.