Human Behavior in the Infantry Warrior Simulation (IWARS) Applications of BRIMS Alicia Borgman General Dynamics Information Technology

Objectives IWARS Overview HBR in IWARS Future HBR Development Directions We’ll talk about how we use HBR in IWARS in conjunction with all of the other elements of our simulation

IWARS Overview What is IWARS? IWARS is… The only M&S Army Technology Objective… Constructive, agent-based, force-on-force combat simulation… Focused on individual and small-unit dismounted combatants and their equipment… Used to assess operational effectiveness across a spectrum of missions, environments and threats. Typical mode of operations: parametric analyses of equipment Not training Want to see how equipment affects the force; part of that is how the equipment is used. In order to achieve that, we need a representative set of behaviors related to the equipment of interest

IWARS Overview V1.0 Applications Through V&V and Sensitivity Analysis, IWARS Version 1.0 found suitable for use in direct-fire, small-unit engagement analyses: Soldier Sensor Performance Soldier Small-arms Lethality Soldier Survivability Situational Awareness / Battle Command (Limited) IWARS V1.0 approved by the Army’s V&V agency for small arms RDA analyses and adopted by Army and international community

HBR in IWARS Modeling Imperatives Represent Elements of the Real World Important to RDA Studies Represent elements of the real world: our goal is not a virtual reality environment, so we don’t need that level of CGF behavioral fidelity. We have to pick out the elements of the real world that are important to our studies. We are keenly aware of computing requirements and limitations. Since behavior isn’t the only thing that IWARS does, we have to make trade-offs between behavioral fidelity and physics fidelity (target acquisition, environment representation, engagement – munitions flyout, casualty assessment, etc.). Note difference between what we do and virtual reality, technical limitations of computing capability and simulation software Cannot Exceed Technical Limitations of Target Simulations Scientific Basis / Data for Algorithms

Agents Perform Individual and Small-unit Missions HBR in IWARS Approach MISSION PROFILE Agents Perform Individual and Small-unit Missions Essential Tasks MoPs MoEs Operational Effectiveness of Equipment and Tactics Our acquisition analyses require us to have an end-to-end solution of which individual behavior representation is a part. There are competing needs in IWARS and limited resources (computational and development). Need physics (target acquisition, engagement) as well as a behavior engine. Need enough of a behavior engine to represent the mission, but a behavior engine is not the end goal. Flow chart representation of behaviors gives us the transparency we require – it allows the analyst to easily determine why certain things might be happening in a scenario MOPs vs. MOEs – what is in our output and how is it useful to analysts MOP: velocity of a bullet, easily measured MOE: how the velocity of that bullet translates into “goodness” of the bullet for the mission Actions, Activities, and Conditions

HBR in IWARS Focus Ground soldiers and small units User-defined units – not Army-centric Decisions and actions required at individual and small unit levels

HBR in IWARS Process Identify Soldier capabilities to be evaluated E.g., helmet-mounted fused sensor, NLOS firing capability Research behaviors and processes necessary for Soldier to use capabilities Field manuals, SMEs, use cases, field experiments, existing data Required equipment characteristics include both physical parameters and how the equipment affects the behaviors of the individual and small unit

HBR in IWARS Process Create flow chart of process, identifying compound activities, actions (primitives), and conditions (rule sets) Philosophy: as much as possible, use compound activities and keep relatively few primitives – gives user greater flexibility Develop algorithms and code to represent primitives and rule sets Algorithms based on input from SMEs, FMs, and relevant data

Agent knowledge enables situation awareness HBR in IWARS Behavior Engine Agent Knowledge Information received from other agents Shared information, data for following commands Information about other agents Possibly incomplete information Information about self E.g., available weapons, unit knowledge Information can be perceived from the environment or received from a sensor or another agent Ensley / OODA Loop Agent knowledge enables situation awareness

HBR in IWARS Behavior Engine Behaviors Agent actions in the environment Move, shoot, communicate, sense, decide Decide: use information gained to determine which course of action to take based on a set of rules Act alone or in groups according to mission parameters Agents react to battlefield circumstances Allows scenario to play out in a way we hadn’t anticipated when building the scenario Enables analysts to capture unexpected consequences of behaviors associated with equipment of interest Use knowledge to drive these behaviors, actions Concurrent behaviors – agents can do multiple activities, decisions at once Unexpected consequences: just because you scripted it doesn’t mean you know everything’s going to happen given the context of the overall environment If you expect to get A and you get B, you can look into why (flow chart) With high level scripting and large case matrices, can see solution spaces related to behaviors – can figure out how the new equipment should be used (direction we’re headed)

Future Directions Development Needs Behaviors associated with proposed Ground Soldier System (GSS) equipment and capabilities Explicit representation of netted fires Situational awareness (User-defined Operating Picture) Interoperability with Army vehicle systems Other characteristics of the networked battlefield GSS is successor to Land Warrior GSS includes behaviors that are not infantry (medic - casualty care, engineer - clear a path, different ground soldier MOSs that we’ll be looking at including) Coming to this community because we know they have information that we can use Leverage existing efforts to enhance individual and small-unit behavior models in IWARS

Future Directions Development Needs Performance effects of physical and cognitive workloads Use of, and interaction with, larger set of battlefield sensors of different types Data fusion (multiple sensors, multiple individuals) Improved target acquisition and engagement behaviors Improved definition of area targets, differentiation of target types, uncertainty in perception, minimum information necessary to engage Development needs not necessarily all inclusive Workload performance: we don’t own the answer, but we’ll work with others (HRED – IMPRINT, MRMC – medical community) to get the answers Uncertainty: outputs of empirical models should account for information from multiple sources, soldier’s confidence in the information

Future Directions Development Needs Decision-making based on more complex factors Ease of building use case scenarios even as set of use cases grows Behaviors include wider range of factors Inferences about environment and other agents Individual proficiency with different equipment types and items Manipulation of objects in the terrain Equipment handoff and unit reorganization More complex set of behaviors for different operational circumstances. Could be behavior library, advanced algorithms, etc. Possibly a library of complex decision-making behaviors; make scripting of complex activities easier Need more knowledge elements to go along with it, are working with knowledge elicitation to determine minimum spanning set of knowledge elements Want to simplify some of the factors. E.g., threat: don’t want to list out everything that might be a high threat, but would just want to have “high threat” defined We aren’t aware of a standard for knowledge elements, but if they exist we’d like to use them. We’re at the earlier stages of this process.

Summary IWARS… Focus is analysis of ground soldier systems modeling Complex model of individuals and combat environment Continued HBR development is important for IWARS Recognized by Army, NATO and others as useful tool for acquisition analyses Leverages existing efforts to enhance the representation of tasks and capabilities of ground soldiers Our analysis focus drives the development decisions we make, and makes our simulation different from what a training simulation might be IWARS used by Marine Corps, Army next generation simulation, UO and Soldier FACTS (trying to contribute to development), NPS We ask for your expert input as well!