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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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!