|
Name
|
Sponsor
|
Service (Domain)
|
Level
|
Functions/Activities Modeled
|
Implementation/Architecture
|
Comments
|
|
Adaptive Combat Model
|
Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Office
|
Infantry/Marines (HBR models)
|
Individual and unit
|
Route planning
|
• Genetic algorithm optimization
|
• Currently an exploratory study
|
|
Commander's Visual Reasoning Tool (CoVRT)
|
Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
|
Army (decision support)
|
Brigade
|
Course-of-action generation
|
• Decision-aiding workstation with graphic depiction of military entities
|
• Underlying command/staff dependency matrix provides over-all framework for information flow among HBR agents
|
|
Marine Computer-Generated Force (CGF)
|
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Hughes Research
|
Marine (HBR models)
|
Individual and unit
|
Route planning
|
• Production rule system driven by external state variables
|
• Multiple rulesets for different decision alternatives;
• Generation of single plan frame for ModSAF execution
|
|
Computer-Controlled Hostiles for Team Target Engagement Simulator (TTES)
|
Institute for Simulation and Training/University of Central Florida (IST/UCE)
|
Marine (HBR models)
|
Individual
|
Short-term planning for individual military operations in urban terrain activities
|
• Hierarchical goal decomposition;
• Decision-theoretic goal selection;
• Situation-driven rules
|
Appears to be single-step planner, but could be expanded to multiple steps for individual course-of-action generation
|
|
Fixed-wing Attack (FWA)-Soar and Soar-Intelligent Force Agents (IFOR)
|
DARPA, Air Force, University of Michigan (UMich), University of California/Los Angeles (UCLA), Carnegie Mellon University
|
Air Force (HBR models)
|
Individual and unit
|
Full activities of tactical pilots across a wide range of aircraft and missions
|
• Soar architecture with hierarchical goal decomposition;
• Efficient production rule system to deal with large rulebase;
• Situation-driven rules
|
• Planning not explicitly represented, as Soar supports only single-step planning;
• Could be expanded to support an explicit planning module
|
|
Rotary-Wing Attack (RWA)-Soar
|
DARPA, Army, UMich, UCLA
|
Army Aviation (HBR models)
|
Individual and unit (company)
|
Full activities of rotorcraft pilots and company commander for RWA mission
|
• Live battalion commander;
• Soar-CFOR company commander that:;—Generates mission plan;—Monitors progress;—Replans as necessary;
• Soar-IFOR RWA pilots;
• ModSAF vehicle entities
|
• Plan generation and elaboration done through tactical templates and standard operating procedures;
• Plan refinement done through checks on task interdependencies, timing
|
|
Man-Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS)
|
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Army
|
Army Aviation (HBR models)
|
Individual and unit
|
Full activities of tactical rotorcraft pilots
|
• Symbolic operator model architecture with hierarchical mission activity decomposition;
• Production rule system to implement procedures;
• Situation-driven productions
|
• Similar to Soar in its top-down decomposition from mission phases to low-level activities;
• Single-step planning, but could be expanded to support an explicit planning module
|