To foster shared battlespace awareness among air strategy planners, BAE Systems has developed Commander's Model
Integration and Simulation Toolkit (CMIST), an Integrated Development Environment for authoring, integration,
validation, and debugging of models relating multiple domains, including political, military, social, economic and
information. CMIST provides a unified graphical user interface for such systems of systems modeling, spanning several
disparate modeling paradigms. Here, we briefly review the CMIST architecture and then compare modeling results using
two approaches to intent modeling. The first uses reactive agents with simplified behavior models that apply rule-based
triggers to initiate actions based solely on observations of the external world at the current time in the simulation. The
second method models proactive agents running an embedded CMIST simulation representing their projection of how
events may unfold in the future in order to take early preventative action. Finally, we discuss a recent extension to
CMIST that incorporates Temporal Bayesian Knowledge Bases for more sophisticated models of adversarial intent that
are capable of inferring goals and future actions given evidence of current actions at particular times.
To foster shared battlespace awareness in Air Operations Centers supporting the Joint Forces Commander and Joint
Force Air Component Commander, BAE Systems is developing a Commander's Model Integration and Simulation
Toolkit (CMIST), an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for model authoring, integration, validation, and
debugging. CMIST is built on the versatile Eclipse framework, a widely used open development platform comprised of
extensible frameworks that enable development of tools for building, deploying, and managing software. CMIST
provides two distinct layers: 1) a Commander's IDE for supporting staff to author models spanning the Political,
Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information (PMESII) taxonomy; integrate multiple native (third-party)
models; validate model interfaces and outputs; and debug the integrated models via intuitive controls and time series
visualization, and 2) a PMESII IDE for modeling and simulation developers to rapidly incorporate new native
simulation tools and models to make them available for use in the Commander's IDE. The PMESII IDE provides
shared ontologies and repositories for world state, modeling concepts, and native tool characterization. CMIST includes
extensible libraries for 1) reusable data transforms for semantic alignment of native data with the shared ontology, and
2) interaction patterns to synchronize multiple native simulations with disparate modeling paradigms, such as
continuous-time system dynamics, agent-based discrete event simulation, and aggregate solution methods such as
Monte Carlo sampling over dynamic Bayesian networks. This paper describes the CMIST system architecture, our
technical approach to addressing these semantic alignment and synchronization problems, and initial results from
integrating Political-Military-Economic models of post-war Iraq spanning multiple modeling paradigms.
The Strategy Development Tool (SDT), sponsored by AFRL-IFS, supports effects-based planning by tightly integrating adversary modeling and analysis with plan authoring in a collaborative environment. At Joint Expeditionary Forces Experiment (JEFX) '04 the SDT was evaluated as part of an AFRL-sponsored initiative integrating tools for effects-based operations and predictive battlespace awareness. SDT was used primarily in the Strategy Division of the Combined Air Operation Center to build and analyze plans for the air campaign strategy played out in JEFX '04. This paper focuses in particular on the successes and lessons learned from user experiences with SDT's collaborative planning and adversary modeling capabilities. Initially, collaboration in SDT employed a workflow-based process by which high-level planners delegate lower-level planning tasks to planning specialists. This approach was rejected in the first JEFX spiral due to the bottleneck it imposes on senior officers such as the Strategy Chief. The final version supporting real-time collaboration greatly improved planning productivity compared to previous spirals, as it allowed users at all levels to freely contribute to the plan. SDT's adversary modeling capability initially appealed to a more selective user base, namely operational assessment specialists with analytical backgrounds. Over time, the capability won a wider audience due to the planning insights resulting from a shared understanding of the enemy. Users found novel applications of the tool in other areas of the planning process such as wargaming and branch planning.
The Strategy Development Tool (SDT), sponsored by AFRL-IFS, supports effects-based planning at multiple levels of war through three core capabilities: plan authoring, center of gravity (COG) modeling and analysis, and target system analysis. This paper describes recent extensions to all three of these capabilities. The extended plan authoring subsystem supports collaborative planning in which a user delegates elaboration of objectives to other registered users. A suite of collaboration tools allows planners to assign planning tasks, submit plan fragments, and review submitted plans, while a collaboration server transparently handles message routing and persistence. The COG modeling subsystem now includes an enhanced adversary modeling tool that provides a lightweight ontology for building temporal causal models relating enemy goals, beliefs, actions, and resources across multiple types of COGs. Users may overlay friendly interventions, analyze their impact on enemy COGs, and automatically incorporate the causal chains stemming from the best interventions into the current plan. Finally, the target system analysis subsystem has been extended with option generation tools that use network-based optimization algorithms to select candidate target set options to achieve specified effects.
This paper describes an approach to effects-based planning in which a strategic-theater-level mission is refined into operational-level and ultimately tactical-level tasks and desired effects, informed by models of the expected enemy response at each level of abstraction. We describe a strategy development system that implements this approach and supports human-in-the-loop development of an effects-based plan. This system consists of plan authoring tools tightly integrated with a suite of center of gravity (COG) and target system analysis tools. A human planner employs the plan authoring tools to develop a hierarchy of tasks and desired effects. Upon invocation, the target system analysis tools use reduced-order models of enemy centers of gravity to select appropriate target set options for the achievement of desired effects, together with associated indicators for each option. The COG analysis tools also provide explicit models of the causal mechanisms linking tasks and desired effects to one another, and suggest appropriate observable indicators to guide ISR planning, execution monitoring, and campaign assessment. We are currently implementing the system described here as part of the AFRL-sponsored Effects Based Operations program.
A prototype virtual environment (VE) has been developed for training a submarine officer of the desk (OOD) to perform in-harbor navigation on a surfaced submarine. The OOD, stationed on the conning tower of the vessel, is responsible for monitoring the progress of the boat as it negotiates a marked channel, as well as verifying the navigational suggestions of the below- deck piloting team. The VE system allows an OOD trainee to view a particular harbor and associated waterway through a head-mounted display, receive spoken reports from a simulated piloting team, give spoken commands to the helmsman, and receive verbal confirmation of command execution from the helm. The task analysis of in-harbor navigation, and the derivation of application requirements are briefly described. This is followed by a discussion of the implementation of the prototype. This implementation underwent a series of validation and verification assessment activities, including operational validation, data validation, and software verification of individual software modules as well as the integrated system. Validation and verification procedures are discussed with respect to the OOD application in particular, and with respect to VE applications in general.