Human Behavior in the Infantry Warrior Simulation (IWARS)

1. Human Behavior in the Infantry Warrior Simulation (IWARS) Applications of BRIMS Alicia Borgman General Dynamics Information Technology

2. Objectives • IWARS Overview • HBR in IWARS • Future HBR Development Directions

3. IWARS OverviewWhat is IWARS? IWARS is… • The only M&SArmy Technology Objective… • Constructive, agent-based, force-on-force combat simulation… • Focused on individual and small-unit dismounted combatants and their equipment… • Used to assess operational effectiveness across a spectrum of missions, environments and threats.

4. IWARS OverviewV1.0 Applications • Through V&V and Sensitivity Analysis, IWARS Version 1.0 found suitable for use in direct-fire, small-unit engagement analyses: • Soldier Sensor Performance • Soldier Small-arms Lethality • Soldier Survivability • Situational Awareness / Battle Command (Limited) IWARS V1.0 approved by the Army’s V&V agency for small arms RDA analyses and adopted by Army and international community

5. HBR in IWARSModeling Imperatives Represent Elements of the Real World Important to RDA Studies Cannot Exceed Technical Limitations of Target Simulations Scientific Basis / Data for Algorithms

6. MISSION PROFILE Agents Perform Individual and Small-unit Missions HBR in IWARS Approach MoPs MoEs Essential Tasks Operational Effectiveness of Equipment and Tactics Actions, Activities, and Conditions

7. HBR in IWARSFocus • Ground soldiers and small units • User-defined units – not Army-centric • Decisions and actions required at individual and small unit levels

8. HBR in IWARSProcess • Identify Soldier capabilities to be evaluated • E.g., helmet-mounted fused sensor, NLOS firing capability • Research behaviors and processes necessary for Soldier to use capabilities • Field manuals, SMEs, use cases, field experiments, existing data • Required equipment characteristics include both physical parameters and how the equipment affects the behaviors of the individual and small unit

9. HBR in IWARSProcess • Create flow chart of process, identifying compound activities, actions (primitives), and conditions (rule sets) • Philosophy: as much as possible, use compound activities and keep relatively few primitives – gives user greater flexibility • Develop algorithms and code to represent primitives and rule sets • Algorithms based on input from SMEs, FMs, and relevant data

10. HBR in IWARSBehavior Engine • Agent Knowledge • Information received from other agents • Shared information, data for following commands • Information about other agents • Possibly incomplete information • Information about self • E.g., available weapons, unit knowledge • Information can be perceived from the environment or received from a sensor or another agent Agent knowledge enables situation awareness

11. HBR in IWARSBehavior Engine • Behaviors • Agent actions in the environment • Move, shoot, communicate, sense, decide • Decide: use information gained to determine which course of action to take based on a set of rules • Act alone or in groups according to mission parameters • Agents react to battlefield circumstances • Allows scenario to play out in a way we hadn’t anticipated when building the scenario • Enables analysts to capture unexpected consequences of behaviors associated with equipment of interest

12. Future DirectionsDevelopment Needs • Behaviors associated with proposed Ground Soldier System (GSS) equipment and capabilities • Explicit representation of netted fires • Situational awareness (User-defined Operating Picture) • Interoperability with Army vehicle systems • Other characteristics of the networked battlefield Leverage existing efforts to enhance individual and small-unit behavior models in IWARS

13. Future DirectionsDevelopment Needs • Performance effects of physical and cognitive workloads • Use of, and interaction with, larger set of battlefield sensors of different types • Data fusion (multiple sensors, multiple individuals) • Improved target acquisition and engagement behaviors • Improved definition of area targets, differentiation of target types, uncertainty in perception, minimum information necessary to engage

14. Future DirectionsDevelopment Needs • Decision-making based on more complex factors • Ease of building use case scenarios even as set of use cases grows • Behaviors include wider range of factors • Inferences about environment and other agents • Individual proficiency with different equipment types and items • Manipulation of objects in the terrain • Equipment handoff and unit reorganization

15. Summary IWARS… • Focus is analysis of ground soldier systems modeling • Complex model of individuals and combat environment • Continued HBR development is important for IWARS • Recognized by Army, NATO and others as useful tool for acquisition analyses • Leverages existing efforts to enhance the representation of tasks and capabilities of ground soldiers