1 / 16

Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM

Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM. Barry Silverman Mike Johns Gnana Barthy Evan Sandhaus January 2006. PMFServ Architecture. PMFServ Architecture. Model of Others’ Intentions/GSPs. Discourse Bluffing Deception Threats/Pacts. Intentions/GSP Trees

chase
Download Presentation

Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM Barry Silverman Mike Johns Gnana BarthyEvan Sandhaus January 2006

  2. PMFServ Architecture

  3. PMFServ Architecture

  4. Model of Others’ Intentions/GSPs • Discourse • Bluffing • Deception • Threats/Pacts • Intentions/GSP Trees • Needs & Wants • Culture & Personality • Relationships & Trust • PMFserv • Obj.Utility • Cold Delibertn • Game Theory • PMFserv • Perception • Subj.Utility • Hot Reaction Stressors/Personality & Coping Style Model of Others’ Intentions/GSPs • Discourse • Bluffing • Deception • Threats/Pacts • Intentions/GSP Trees • Needs & Wants • Culture & Personality • Relationships & Trust • PMFserv • Obj.Utility • Cold Delibtn • Game Theory • PMFserv • Perception • Subj.Utility • Hot Reaction Stressors/Stimulants & Coping Style Agents in Role Playing Game Simulations Human • Game • World • Territory • Resources • Groups • Threats • Tributes • Bluffs • Battles • etc. Actions Utterances Actions Utterances Actions Utterances Agent Agent

  5. Game World State LeaderSim AI PMFServ PMFServ Athena’sPrism Client Athena’sPrism Client Athena’sPrism Client LeaderSim AI LeaderSim Architecture XMLRPC GameServer Human Users

  6. Territories Leaders Resources LeaderSim Game Elements Actions Do Control Affect Have

  7. Preferences Tree Standards Tree Action Selection Algorithm Power Vulnerability Scale PaymentStrategy Action WMD Alignment Attacking/TargetResource Pairs PMFServ Goals Tree ReservoirDifferences RankedAttacking/TargetResource Pairs RankedActions Offensive / DefensiveActions

  8. Power And Vulnerability • Power • Measurement of an agent’s ability to act upon the resources of others • Vulnerability • Measurement of the ability of other agents to act upon one’s own resources

  9. Goals, Standards And Preferences • Goals • Best envisioned as steps in a plan to accomplish a task • Typically start with “I will…” • Standards • Typically socially-imposed guidelines for behavior • Typically start with “People should…” or “People should not…” • Preferences • Ideals about the desired state of the world • Typically start with “I like…” or “I dislike…”

  10. Goal Tree Goals Grow Protect Economy Black Market Foreign Aid Military Diplomacy WMD Programs Media Zealots People Authority Economy Black Market Foreign Aid Military Diplomacy WMD Programs Media Zealots People Authority

  11. Standards Tree Standards Exercise of Power Military Doctrine Treatment of Out Groups Scope OfDoing Good SensitivityToLife Task RelationshipBalance Be Relationship Focused Use Asymmetric Attacks Use Conventional Attacks Out Groups are Legitimate Targets Treat with Fairness and Justice Look After Narrower Interests Bring About Greater Good Be Open Be Controlling Not Sensitive Sensitive Be Task Focused Resolve Issues by Negotiation Provide Help Only Conventional Also Conventional Friend is Out Group Enemy is Out Group Neutral is Out Group Help Enemies too Help Neutrals Help Friends

  12. Preferences Tree + Preferences - Home Territory - Friendly Territory - Neutral Territory - Contested Territory + Enemy Territory - Own Resources - Ally’s Resources - Neutral’s Resources + Enemy’s Resources - Authority - People - Zealots - Media - WMD Programs Grow - Diplomacy Maintain - Foreign Aid Contain - Black Market Reduce + Economy

  13. Self Home Ally Ally Neutral LeaderSim AI Neutral Contested Enemy Enemy AI Perceptions Leader 1 Territory 1 Territory 2 Leader 2 Territory 3 Leader 3 Leader 4 Territory 4 Light Asymmetric Stick Leader 5 WMD Genocide Asymmetric Stick Political Sticks Carrot Self Organization Territory 5 Light Mil Stick Military Stick Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4

  14. Scope of LeaderSim Prototype Territories (3) Resources (3) Actions (5) Total (3x3x5xpayment levels) x no. of plies x N leaders (3) ScaleUp Territories (10) Resources (10) Actions (70) Total (10x10x70xpayment levels) x no. of plies x N leaders (10) • Referenceswww.seas.upenn.edu/~barryg/HBMR.html • .Silverman, BG, Rees, R., Toth, J, et al., (2005, Jan).“Athena’s Prism – A Diplomatic Strategy Role Playing Game for Generating Ideas and Exploring Alternatives”, 1st Internat’l Conf on Intel Anal • Silverman, B.G., Johns, M., Bharathy, G. (2004, August). “Agent-Based Simulation of Leaders.” ACASA/UPenn, Tech Report. • Silverman, B.G., Johns, M., et al. (2002, May). “Constructing Virtual Asymmetric Opponents from Data and Models in the Literature." 11th BRIMS, SISO.

  15. Prototype LeaderSim Results Using threats, Yellow turns Red and Blue against one another Nash Equilib: 2 winners in conflictual world Rare 3 in endgame. Yellow specialized away from Red and Blue. Y’s power is curtailed early. Y then uses treaties to negotiate peace.

More Related