1 / 22

Synthetic Forces Behavioral Architecture

Synthetic Forces Behavioral Architecture. Ian Page ipage@dera.gov.uk. Outline. Background: Software engineering emphasis Understanding of requirement Reasoning behind approach Framework Summary and way forward. Areas Research Training Mission Rehearsal Campaign Planning

damita
Download Presentation

Synthetic Forces Behavioral Architecture

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. Synthetic ForcesBehavioral Architecture Ian Page ipage@dera.gov.uk

  2. Outline • Background: Software engineering emphasis • Understanding of requirement • Reasoning behind approach • Framework • Summary and way forward

  3. Areas Research Training Mission Rehearsal Campaign Planning Operational Analysis Concept definition Test & Evaluation Equipment Procurement Operational Support Roles Programmers Subject Matter Experts Analysts Scientists Operators Controllers Bureaucrats Trainers Trainees Users of Synthetic Environments

  4. Navy CA Army CA UKLandSAF UKAirSAF UKSeaSAF OPFORSAF UK STOW Synthetic Forces Command Agent Infrastructure Individual Behaviour Model (Soar) Operational CIS (CDMA) Domain Perception monitor Command Agents CCSIL CCSIL Trace Visualisation Tool Interface CFOR Utilities

  5. Technical issues • “… there are many areas in which adequate theory either is entirely lacking or has not been integrated to a level that makes it directly applicable to the needs of human behaviour representation.” (Pew et al, 1998) • “… given the current state of model development and computer technology, it is not possible to create a single integrated model or architecture that can meet all the potential simulation needs of the services.” (Pew et al, 1998)

  6. Broad Agents Command Agents JACK Artificial Life Soar Task Frames To paraphrase… • “We don’t understand human behaviour, but we have lots of theories and hence even more software models representing bits of human behaviour” Key expertise Expensive ..? Many others… and those yet to come Simulation specific

  7. Research question • How do we provide a framework to allow disparate and hybrid models of behaviour to work cooperatively within a Synthetic Environment?

  8. Users ? SFBA Facilities CORBA Facilities SFBA Services CORBA Services • Communication mechanism (how) • Communication format (what) • Minimum constraints (self-description) • Insertion of existing and future standards • Single translations Requirements of a Behavioural Architecture/Framework Helper applications Disparate behavioural architectures No assumptions on OS or language To provide all this, need an abstract view on what behavioural models do Different physical simulations Multiple representation Future proof Plug’n’play

  9. Behavioural Entity EFF SEN Basic concepts

  10. Behavioural Entity EFF SEN Basic concepts EFF SEN Physical Simulations

  11. Behavioural Entity EFF SEN Basic concepts Simulation Specific EFF SEN Physical Simulation

  12. Behavioural Entity EFF SEN EFF SEN Physical Simulations Basic concepts Simulation Independent CCSIL helps

  13. Behavioural Entity Behavioural Entity Goals Goals World View World View Decision Making Decision Making SEN SEN EFF EFF But... X X Context of goals and world view not guaranteed

  14. W V Example Sniper behind tree, 3 o’clock G W V DM G DM Receiving a message is different from sensing a physical phenomenon and should therefore be modelled differently

  15. Communicator Behavioural Entity Behavioural Entity Goals Goals World View World View Decision Making Decision Making SEN EFF EFF COM SEN COM Goals and World View

  16. Behavioural Entity Goals World View Decision Making EFF SEN COM Goals and World View • World view either conveyed or not • Goals: • assign • exchange • share

  17. Behavioural Entity Goals World View Decision Making EFF SEN COM Behavioural model • General architecture does not have to be adopted... • ...but interface will need to support concepts of: • sensor • effector • communicator

  18. Levels for agent interoperation • Transport (CORBA) - ‘how’ • Language (KQML) - ‘what messages mean’ • Policy - conversation structure • Architecture - connecting systems

  19. SF BEHAVIOURAL ARCHITECTURE CONVERSATION POLICIES Sensor/Effector Policies Communicator Policies Integration Policy Sensor/Effector Policy Goal assignment Information flow from feed to target Organisation Policy Goal exchange Cohesion Policy Goal sharing Policies: conversation structure

  20. OBJECT REQUEST BROKER Connecting Architecture/Framework Generic Users Behavioural Models Simulations Underlying Applications SFBA Interfaces …etc. CORBA Facilities Data Translation Session AAR Logging Console Tools SFBA Facilities Component Inter- CORBA Naming representation Services SFBA Services

  21. Users ? SFBA Facilities CORBA Facilities SFBA Services CORBA Services Plan: demonstrate prototype

  22. Conclusions • Feasible approach • Neutral to OS, language and technique • Minimal assumptions, all behaviour (individual and group) can be reduced to operations on goals • Very much building on available techniques

More Related