CP Storyboard Proposal Please use the “Notes Page View” for details CP Storyboard Proposal Jim Blythe Jihie Kim Yolanda Gil Varun Ratnakar USC Information Sciences Institute April 18, 2002

Scenario: Otstott #1: Attack on objective JAYHAWK SME defines two COAs using sketch + CMAP Tool analyzes COAs, presents results to SME By normative simulation By fine-grained simulation By question answering SME can add knowledge (to be added to the storyboard) COA comparison and what-if analysis

COAs to be entered by the SME COA1: attack on the weak left flank COA2: rapid, direct attack

COA 1: CMAP view (to be revised by UT) subevent AxisBlue subevent subevent path Destroy1-1 Move1-1 Next-event agent object Brigade3, Brigade4 29thTankDiv subevent The sketch will give us a lot of information about the COA, such as the units involved, their locations, and possibly their paths of movement. But we also need to get information about the tasks that the units will be doing. There are two possible ways to do this: either through the sketching tool with menus, or through cmaps. This slides shows how the SME might use the cmaps interface to enter information about the tasks of the COA. Using the sketching tool will be preferable for some tasks because it reduces the amount the SME has to switch between views of the COA. This will rely on two-way communication with the sketching tool and a way to enter arbitrary information. object Move2-1 Next-event Fix1-1 NOTE: all tasks would have object/location/agent assignments AxisGreen path Follow and support1-1 Support-by-fire-1-1

COA 2: CMAP view (To be revised by UT) subevent AxisGreen subevent subevent path Destroy1-2 Move1-2 Next-event agent object Brigade1, Brigade2 29thTankDiv subevent object Move2-2 Next-event Fix1-2 Destroy2-2 path AxisBlue Follow1-2 Move3-2 Follow2-2 Support-by-fire-1-2

COA analysis for each task Results from normative simulation COA tasks: Move toward Obj JAYHAWK via Axis Blue Precondition: Land slope < 20 ? more Results from terrain analysis yes no Movement is possible for Brigade3 and 4 more Attack on axis Blue to seize Obj JAYHAWK COA assessment can be done using simulation. We can do this by normative simulation of the COA, as Kanal does, or through a more detailed simulation like the U Mass system. Normative simulation might be a good way to get high-level assessments of the COA based on information that can be had directly from the COA and/or KB, while a monte carlo simulation could help with more uncertain calculations including probability of success or attrition rates. Either form could bring to light missing information in the models as well as assessments of the current COA. Here, the system warns the user that an assumption needs to be made that the land slope is less than 20 for mechanized and armored units, which is true in rolling terrain in Kansas. The SME confirms he is aware of the assumption and it is ok. The force ratio precondition also fails, because the Blue forces are a little lighter than would be preferred. This problem is pointed out by normative simulation but in reality is not necessarily fatal to the COA. The SME then runs a Monte Carlo simulation which shows that the destroy succeeds 80% of the time. The user may choose to accept the risk and overrides/dismisses this warning. We could also analyze the COA with other reasoners: a temporal reasoner that would point out timing/duration of tasks, a terrain analysis tool, etc. Precondition false: force ratio required >= 3 force ratio assigned is 2.6 more Results from detailed simulation Detailed simulation shows 94% task success more

Alternative to the last slide: grouping critiques by standard headings COA Analysis Mission accomplishment: Mission: Seizure of Obj JAYHAWK and destruction of 29th guard Results from normative simulation Remaining strength Red: destroyed (casualty greater than 50%) Tank Brigade1: 15% Tank Brigade2: 10% … Results from terrain analysis Location of units Blue: all at or near JAYHAWK Mission success probability estimate: 90% Results from detailed simulation

Alternative to the last slide: grouping critiques by standard headings COA Analysis Results from normative simulation Speed: Move1-1 (by Main effort): path AxisBlue has marsh area Time taken to move: 4 hrs Move2-1 (by supporting effort): a high speed highway on AxisGreen Time taken to move: 1 hr Overall time taken: 12 hrs Results from terrain analysis Use of terrain: Results from detailed simulation Fire support: Attack aviation attrits red artilley 50% before main attack Attack aviation (attrited 10%) supports main attack

COA assessment by normative simulation COA tasks: Attack on axis Blue to seize Obj JAYHAWK Precondition false: force ratio < 3 (force ratio = 2.6) more Timing info: destroy task earliest start: 2320hrs more Attrition info: 29th Guards 50% more Attack on axis Green to hold Other possible results from normative simulation may include completeness (a well-formed COA has fire tasks), and user-defined expected effects that specify purposes/intent/mission. To support this, we need to extend the current KANAL interface to let SMEs specify expected effects of any task or subtasks in a COA. Users typically want to see summaries of the simulation such as aggregates of values, averages, violations of norms and thresholds, etc. These factors can be derived from either the normative or the detailed simulation. If we have the time and resources, it would probably be beneficial to allow users specify and define what factors they would like to see summarized about the simulation. Timing info: attack task earliest start: 1720hrs more Expected reserve tasks not present more Expected effect achieved: 29th Guards destroyed more

COA Assessment by Detailed Simulation UMAss work illustrated here

Comparing COAs COA assessment: COA2 COA assessment: COA1 Summary of COA critiques: … Simplicity Avg. n of tasks assigned per unit : 1.5 Avg. n of connections per task: 2.5 Summary of COA critiques: … Simplicity Avg. n of tasks assigned per unit : 1.2 Avg. n of connections per task: 2 Fire support: Analogy can also be used here. Fire support: Attack aviation attrits red artilley 50% before main attack Attack aviation supports main attack in close battle Attack aviation (attrited 10%) supports main attack … Attack aviation (attrited 20%) Destroys fleeing units …

Selecting Critique Criteria These are the key criteria (default): Mission accomplishment Use of Terrain Risk Fire support COA1 and COA2 have different values for these. Do you want to check them? Speed Simplicity Do you want to check any of these in addition? Position for follow-on operation Force protection Mobility Command and control Logistics …

The following show more details on the COA analysis

Mission Accomplishment Mission: Seizure of Obj JAYHAWK and destruction of 29th guard COA1: Remaining strength Red: destroyed (casualty greater than 50%) Tank Brigade1: 15% Tank Brigade2: 10% … Blue: Location of units Blue: all at or near JAYHAWK COA2: Tank Brigade1: 25% Tank Brigade2: 30% more more Results from terrain analysis more more

Speed COA1: COA2: Checking paths in Moving operations Move1-1 (by Main effort): path AxisBlue has marsh area Time taken to move: 4 hrs Move2-1 (by supporting effort): a high speed highway on AxisGreen Time taken to move: 1 hr Overall time taken: 12 hrs COA2: Move1-2 (by Main effort): path AxisGreen has a high speed highway Move2-2 (by supporting effort): path AxisBlue has marsh area Time taken to move: 5 hrs Overall time taken: 15 hrs Results from terrain analysis more more Results from detailed simulation

Simplicity COA1: Average number of tasks assigned per unit : 1.2 Average number of connections per task: 2 COA2 : Average number of tasks assigned per unit : 1.5 Average number of connections per task: 2.5 more more more more

Use of Terrain We assume that terrain features are given COA1: COA2: Use of terrain features Bridge: not used Highway on Axis Green : path of Move2-1 … Shift of axis: none COA2: Highway on Axis Green : path of Move1-2 Shift of axis: Move3-2 to Move 4-2 by Brigade3 Results from terrain analysis