Bicriterion differential games with qualitative outcomes

  • U. R. Prasad
  • D. Ghose
Contributed Papers

Abstract

Combat games are studied as bicriterion differential games with qualitative outcomes determined by threshold values on the criterion functions. Survival and capture strategies of the players are defined using the notion of security levels. Closest approach survival strategies (CASS) and minimum risk capture strategies (MRCS) are important strategies for the players identified as solutions to four optimization problems involving security levels. These are used, in combination with the preference orderings of the qualitative outcomes by the players, to delineate the win regions and the secured draw and mutual kill regions for the players. It is shown that the secured draw regions and the secured mutual kill regions for the two players are not necessarily the same. Simple illustrative examples are given.

Key Words

Game theory differential games bicriterion games combat games Pareto optimality security levels outcome regions two-target games multicriterion games games with vector payoffs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Isaacs, R.,Differential Games, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaquiere, A., Gerard, F., andLeitmann, G.,Quantitative and Qualitative Games, Academic Press, New York, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ardema, M. D., Heymann, M., andRajan, N.,Combat Games, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 391–398, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardema, M. D., Heymann, N., andRajan, N.,Analysis of a Combat Problem: The Turret Game, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 23–42, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shinar, J., andDavidovitz, A.,Unified Approach for Two-Target Game Analysis, Proceedings of the 10th IFAC World Congress on Automatic Control, Munich, West Germany, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghose, D., andPrasad, U. R.,Qualitative Analysis of Secured Outcome Regions for Two-Target Games, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 233–255, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Getz, W. M., andPachter, M.,Two-Target Pursuit-Evasion Differential Games in the Plane, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 383–403, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Getz, W. M., andPachter, M.,Capturability in a Two-Target Game of Two-Cars, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 15–21, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prasad, U. R., andGhose, D.,Formulation and Analysis of Combat Problems as Zero-Sum Bicriterion Differential Games, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1–24, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghose, D., andPrasad, U. R.,Multicriterion Differential Games with Applications to Combat Problems, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 18, No. 1–3, pp. 117–126, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breakwell, J. V.,Comment on “To Pursue or to Evade—That is the Question,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 127–128, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. R. Prasad
    • 1
  • D. Ghose
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and AutomationIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations