1. Command and Control Modeling in Soar Randall W. Hill, Jr. Jonathan Gratch USC Information Sciences Institute

2. Project Goals zDevelop autonomous command forces yAct autonomously for days at a time xReduce load on human operators yBehave in human-like manner xProduce realistic training environment yPerform Command and Control (C2) functions xReduce the number of human operators xCreate realistic organizational interactions

3. C2 Modeling Hypotheses zContinuous Planning yUnderstand evolving situations yAchieve goals despite unplanned events zCollaborative Planning* yUnderstand behavior of other groups yUnderstand organizational constraints * See Gratch’s workshop talk on Rude Planner

4. C2 Modeling Hypotheses zSituation Awareness yIdentify information requirements yFocus intelligence collection efforts yModel intelligence constraints on planning yFuse and assess sensor reports* * See Zhang’s workshop talk on clustering

5. Mission Capabilities zArmy Aviation Deep Attack yBattalion command agent yCompany command agents yCSS command agent yAH64 Apache Rotary Wing Aircraft

6. BP FARP CSS HA FLOT

7. Soar-CFOR Planning Architecture zSupport for continuous planning yIntegrates planning, execution and repair yRequires enhanced situation awareness zSupport for collaborative planning yReasons about plans of multiple groups yPlan sharing among entities yExplicit plan management activities

8. …. Operations Order (plan) C2 Architecture Battalion Commander Company A Commander Company X Commander Company A Pilot Helicopter Pilot Helicopter Pilot Helicopter ModSAF Company X Pilot Helicopter Pilot Helicopter Pilot Helicopter …. Operations Order (plan) Operations Order (plan) Situation Report (understanding) Situation Report (understanding) Situation Report (understanding) Percepts Actions Percepts Actions

9. Continuous Planning zPlan generation ySketch basic structure via decomposition yFill in details with causal-link planning zPlan execution yExplicitly initiate and terminate tasks yInitiate tasks whose preconditions unify with the current world yTerminate tasks whose effects unify with the current world zPlan Repair yRecognize situation interrupt yRepair plan by adding, retracting tasks

10. Company A plan Company B plan CSS plan Move Engage Return Move OPFOR Plan Move Battalion Tactical Plans Co Deep Attack Co Deep Attack FARP Operations

11. Situation Interrupts Happen! destroyed(Enemy) Attack(A, Enemy) Move(A,BP) Engage(A,Enemy) at(A,BP)at(A,FARP)at(A,BP)destroyed(Enemy) at(A,FARP) at(Enemy,EA) Current World active(A) Start of OP ADA Attack active(A)

12. Reacting to Situation Interrupt zSituations evolve unexpectedly yGoals change, actions fail, intelligence incorrect zDetermine whether plan affected yInvalidate assumptions? yViolate dependency constraints? zRepair plan as needed yRetract tasks invalidated by change yAdd new tasks yRe-compute dependencies

13. Collaborative Planning zRepresent plans of others yExtend plan network to include others’ plans zDetect interactions among plans ySame as with “normal” plan monitoring zApply planning modulators: yOrganizational roles yWhat others need to know yPhase of the planning yStance of the planner wrt phase and role

14. Situation Awareness zCurrent situation: consolidated picture yUse summary from higher headquarters yFuse sensor reports yApply clustering and classification algorithms (Zhang) yMake inferences about behavior and intentions zFuture situation: knowledge goals yWhat will I need to know for this plan to work? yEstablish Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR) xWhat commander needs to know about opposing force xDrives the placement of sensors and observation posts yConstrains the pace of plan execution

15. Automating PIR zIdentify PIR in my own plans yFind preconditions, assumptions, and triggering conditions that are dependent on OPFOR behavior zExtract PIR from higher echelon orders ySpecialize as appropriate for my areas of operation zDerive tasks for satisfying PIR ySensor placement zEnsure consistency of augmented plans

16. Summary zNuggets yContinuous planning paradigm appears to work well for C2 behavior in the joint synthetic battlespaces domain xHandles situation interrupts in test cases yEnabled collaboration with a few extensions to planner ySituation awareness can have a big impact on mission success zCoal yMore evaluation needed! xScalability, robustness, efficiency, …