Coalition Agents eXperiment (CoAX) The Coalition TIE aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coax/

1. Supported by DARPA CoABS Program Coalition Agents eXperiment (CoAX) The Coalition TIE http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coax/ AFRL Rome, AIAI, Boeing, Dartmouth, DERA Malvern, Lockheed Martin ATL, Michigan, MIT Sloan, Stanford, USC/ISI Support from GITI, ISX, Mitre

2. DARPA

3. Scope • Coalition TIE • Coalition Scenario - Binni • Technical Approach • Initial Demonstration • Plans and Timescales • Management Plan • Summary

4. Coalition TIE Overview • Aim of demonstrations is to show: • interoperability between Coalition applications and information services (via the DARPA CoABS Grid) by using a heterogeneous agent community in multiple distinct “domains”. • Aim will be met through a number of phased technical demonstrations of increasing complexity.

5. Coalition Scenario Features • Different doctrine, decision making, rules of engagement and, in general, mission “agendas”. • Different technology skill and equipment levels. • Different cultures and languages. • Questionable compatibility of respective national information systems. • Limited models for coalition force operations. • Command authorities - agreement and transfers. • Variable reliability of components and infrastructures. • Information systems resource sharing agreements and capacity. • Different interpretation of situational information. • Lack of compatible security architectures. From LeRoy Pearce (Canadian MOD), 1999

6. Binni - Gateway to the Golden Bowl of Africa - 2011 Rathmell, R.A. (1999) A Coalition Force Scenario 'Binni - Gateway to the Golden Bowl of Africa', in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Knowledge-Based Planning for Coalition Forces, (ed. Tate, A.) pp. 115-125, Edinburgh, Scotland, 10th-11th May 1999.

7. Key Technical Drivers • Working with agents in multiple dynamic domains. • Need for partial sharing of data and facilities. • Cannot assume compatibility or complete reliability of functional capabilities, communications, security arrangements or information resources. • Need to integrate and use legacy systems. • Need for rapid formation and management of agent relationships. • Need to respect national concerns, limitations, cultural and political differences, etc. • Unclear and/or emerging objectives and tasking.

8. Research Issues • Agent Domain Management. • Dynamic agent organization formation and management. • Inter-agent Task and Process Management. • “Come as you are” capabilities and data sources. • Detection and diagnosis of agent compatibility problems, protocol violations and other exceptions. • Partial (secure) sharing of capabilities and information. • Shared and local visualizations for processes and information.

9. Agent-Wrapped Data Sources AODB and other DBs (LM ATL) Ariadne (USC/ISI) Other DBs... CoABS Grid (DARPA) Agent-Wrapped Capabilities MBP (DERA) CAMPS (AFRL) Multi-level Coordination (Michigan) Intelligence Agent (Dartmouth) Legacy Applications (LM ATL, others) CoABS Grid Services Domain Management Services (Boeing) Task and Process Management (AIAI) Incentive Management (Stanford) Robustness Services (MIT) Technical Approach Grid-Aware Agent Frameworks EMAA/CAST Agents (LM ATL) KAoS Agents (Boeing)

10. Multiple Areas of Concerns Coalition US UK Sub-US X-Country Function (e.g. intelligence)

11. Dynamic Domain Management 1. Islands of Common Policy 2. Points of Common Administration Country X Domain Country Y Domain Subdomain A Subdomain B Coalition Domain

12. UK Representative MBP Ariadne Info 1 CAMPS US Representative CAST/EMAA Coalition Commander Intell. Agent Ariadne Info 2 New Domain Representative MBP Copy? Ariadne Info 3 MCA Ariadne Info 4 Demo Arrangements Narrator Domain Management Task & Process Management Incentives Management Robustness Services

13. Master Battle Planner v2.1 (DERA, UK) EMAA / CAST Agents (LM ATL, US) AODB CoABS Grid Month 1 - Initial Demo • Demonstration involves AFRL Rome, DERA Malvern and LM ATL and is a first (risk reduction) step toward CoAX. • Demo shows legacy applications can be usefully integrated into an agent framework.

14. MBP Situation Map (Blue View)

15. CoAX Management Plan • 4 phased demos – 1, 9, 18 and 30 months. • 4 grid management services being explored: • Domain Management; • Task and Process Management; • Robustness and Exception Management; • Incentives Management. • 3 types of involvement in TIE: • Coalition-driven Management Services – AIAI, Boeing, DERA, MIT, Stanford; • Coalition-driven Capabilities – AFRL, Dartmouth, DERA, LM ATL, Michigan, USC/ISI; • Coalition Scenario Usage – others. • Buddy System. • 18 month demo is a focal point to engage other nations and research teams.

16. Plans and Timescales • February 2000 (Month 1) - Initial AFRL/DERA/LM ATL demo. • July 2000 (Month 6) - AFRL, AIAI, Boeing, DERA and LM ATL agents working together on the CoABS grid via KAoS on a simple agent task. Multiple domain design document. Scenario description. • October 2000 (Month 9) - Demo incorporating MBP, EMAA/CAST, CAMPS and Ariadne. • July 2001 (Month 18) - Coalition scenario demo with fixed domains to CoABS and TTCP Representatives. • July 2002 (Month 30) - Larger scale demo with more domains and agents including dynamic domain management and dynamic tasking.

17. Planned Inputs • February 2000 (Month 1) - AFRL, DERA, LM ATL responsible for demo. • July 2000 (Month 6) – All participants have provided input to scenario, all participants in month 9 demo are “on-the-grid”. • October 2000 (Month 9) – AFRL, AIAI, Boeing, DERA, LM ATL, USC/ISI responsible for core demo. Michigan, MIT and Stanford provide “on-the-grid” add-on demos and storyboards in agreed coalition scenario. • July 2001 (Month 18) – All current participants in joint demo. • July 2002 (Month 30) – Possible participation of other nations (especially TTCP) and CoABS participants.

18. Further Information • See http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coax/ • coax@aiai.ed.ac.uk, coax-info@aiai.ed.ac.uk • Outstanding Issues follow. • Spare slides.

19. CoAX Outstanding Issues • Mike Kirton suggests that we seek to relate the list of coalition and technical objectives to the specific demonstrations we plan. • Mike Kirton notes that discussion in the TIE is needed to establish how the scenario maps to I-X and that maps to KAoS Domain Management.

20. Types of Involvement in TIE • Task management services • Task and process management (AIAI) • Incentive management (Stanford) • Agent management services • Domain management (Boeing) • Robustness (MIT) • Agent-management-aware capabilities • MBP (DERA) • CAMPS (AFRL) • Ariadne (USC/ISI) • Other Capabilities • Ariadne (USC/ISI) – unmodified • EMAA/CAST (LM-ATL) • O-Plan (AIAI) • Multi-level Coordination Agent (Michigan) • Intelligence Agent (Dartmouth)

21. Agent-Management-Aware Services Structure Agent Agent Capability Agent Management Helper Service requester “Come-as- you-are” Agent Agent Management Services provider

22. Jeff’s Slide for Conceptual Architecture Task- and Agent-Management-Aware Agent Capabilities Combined with Human Capabilities Agent Agent Management Helper Service requester Service requester Agent Management Services functionality Agent Task Management Services functionality Service provider Service provider

23. Grid Management Services Grid-Aware Capabilities Coalition Scenario USC/ISI Ariadne AIAI I-X LM ATL CAST Task and Process Management Boeing AFRL/BBN CAMPS Domain Management KAoS DERA MBP Stanford Control and Incentives AIAI Grid Infrastructure O-Plan MIT Robustness and Exceptions Michigan MCA Dartmouth Intell. Austin’s Slide for Conceptual Architecture

24. Agent Activity Triggers • Examples of situations which will trigger the need for information exchange by the agents include: • User checks to see if air units are over tasked, • Arrival of new information on the location / status of a SAM site, • User creates a new package / mission and needs to know whether Coalition assets are available, • Changes to plan details have to be disseminated to Coalition National HQs, wings, units etc, • User checks to see if missions have completed their tasks.

25. Agent Activity - Information • Examples of information to be collected, transformed and exchanged by the agents includes: • Entity attributes: • Location, status. • Co-ordination information: • Timing - e.g. mission critical points (waypoints), • Membership of missions / packages, • Current 'parent' unit, etc • 'Bean counting': • Numbers over tasked, currently airborne etc,

26. Scenario data – for target and asset data MBP Wrapper MBP MBP Proxy Agent Tanker PlanningAgent DERA TargetAgent DERAAssetAgent IntelligenceUpdateAgent EMAA / CAST Agent EMAA / CAST Agent AODB JavaSpace The GRID AFRL/DERA/LM ATL Demo(2)

27. Opponent's Airspace T Iona Chemical Storage Area * FLOT RAF Leuchars Friendly Airspace RAF Prestwick Opponent's Airspace * This is an entirely mythical site / scenario TFM is the Tactical Fighter Meet AFRL/DERA/LM ATL Demo Situation at Day 3 • TFM 95 • Based at RAF Leuchars • Day 3 - 29th September • Overland offensive, Iona • Mythical opponent • UNCLASSIFIED data ...