8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Synthetic Forces Behavioral Architecture Ian Page

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Outline Background: Software engineering emphasis Understanding of requirement Reasoning behind approach Framework Summary and way forward

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Users of Synthetic Environments Areas Research Training Mission Rehearsal Campaign Planning Operational Analysis Concept definition Test & Evaluation Equipment Procurement Operational Support Roles Programmers Subject Matter Experts Analysts Scientists Operators Controllers Bureaucrats Trainers Trainees

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training UK STOW Synthetic Forces OPFORSAFUKLandSAFUKSeaSAF UKAirSAF Domain Perception monitor Trace Visualisation Tool Army CANavy CA Command Agents Command Agent Infrastructure Operational CIS (CDMA) Individual Behaviour Model (Soar) CCSIL Interface CFOR Utilities

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Technical issues “… there are many areas in which adequate theory either is entirely lacking or has not been integrated to a level that makes it directly applicable to the needs of human behaviour representation.” (Pew et al, 1998) “… given the current state of model development and computer technology, it is not possible to create a single integrated model or architecture that can meet all the potential simulation needs of the services.” (Pew et al, 1998)

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Artificial Life Broad Agents JACK Soar Task Frames..? Many others… and those yet to come Command Agents To paraphrase… “We don’t understand human behaviour, but we have lots of theories and hence even more software models representing bits of human behaviour” Expensive Simulation specific Key expertise

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Research question How do we provide a framework to allow disparate and hybrid models of behaviour to work cooperatively within a Synthetic Environment?

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Requirements of a Behavioural Architecture/Framework Users ? SFBA Services CORBA Facilities CORBA Services SFBA Facilities Disparate behavioural architectures Different physical simulations Multiple representation Future proof Plug’n’play Communication mechanism (how) Communication format (what) Minimum constraints (self-description) Insertion of existing and future standards Single translations No assumptions on OS or language Helper applications To provide all this, need an abstract view on what behavioural models do

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Basic concepts

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Basic concepts SEN EFF Physical Simulations

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Basic concepts SEN EFF Physical Simulation Specific

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Basic concepts SEN EFF Physical Simulations Simulation Independent CCSIL helps

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training But... SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals X X Context of goals and world view not guaranteed

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Example W V DM G G W V Sniper behind tree, 3 o’clock Receiving a message is different from sensing a physical phenomenon and should therefore be modelled differently

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals COM SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals COM Goals and World View Communicator

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals COM Goals and World View World view either conveyed or not Goals: –assign –exchange –share

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Behavioural model General architecture does not have to be adopted......but interface will need to support concepts of: sensor effector communicator SEN EFF Behavioural Entity Decision Making World View Goals COM

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Levels for agent interoperation Transport (CORBA) - ‘how’ Language (KQML) - ‘what messages mean’ Policy - conversation structure Architecture - connecting systems

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Policies: conversation structure SF BEHAVIOURAL ARCHITECTURE CONVERSATION POLICIES Sensor/Effector Policies Integration Policy Goal assignment Cohesion Policy Goal sharing Organisation Policy Goal exchange Sensor/Effector Policy Information flow from feed to target Communicator Policies

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Connecting Architecture/Framework …etc. Translation SFBA Services Data Logging Component Naming Inter- representation OBJECT REQUEST BROKER CORBA Facilities CORBA Services SFBA Facilities Session Console AAR Tools SFBA Interfaces Underlying Applications Behavioural Models Simulations Generic Users

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Plan: demonstrate prototype Users ? SFBA Services CORBA Facilities CORBA Services SFBA Facilities

8th CGF & BR Conference May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Conclusions Feasible approach Neutral to OS, language and technique Minimal assumptions, all behaviour (individual and group) can be reduced to operations on goals Very much building on available techniques