Group Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Reports
Title: Simulation-based planning for computer generated forces
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: Simulation-based planning for computer generated forces
Alternate Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Report
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Lee, Jin Joo
Fishwick, Paul A.
Publisher: Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Copyright Date: 1994
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095284
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

1994135 ( PDF )

Full Text

Simulation-Based Planning for Computer Generated Forces

Jin Joo Lee Paul A. Fishwick
Department of Computer and Information Sciences
University of Florida


Planning in AI has been an active research topic for
more than thirty years but only recently has it started
to move in the direction of combining planning and
execution to achieve what is sometimes called as 'In-
telligent Reactive Planning'. We propose simulation-
based planning as a new way to perform intelligent re-
active planning. Simulation-based planning unlike
most other planning systems-integrates simulation
into the planning process. Once a set of plans is gen-
erated, simulations are used to test and evaluate the
plans to choose the most applicable plan for that cur-
rent situation. In most planning systems, plan evalu-
ation depends on rules alone and because rules must
be designed general enough to cover all possible cases,
the evaluation is not specific enough for some individ-
ual cases. However, when the plan evaluation is done
through simulations, the evaluation can be more fine-
tuned to individual cases and can allow better plans to
be chosen for that individual case. From the military
planning perspective, the simulation-based planner is
also quite useful due to its ability to perform adver-
sarial and multiagent planning. This is a natural con-
sequence of using simulation in the planning process.
By allowing other entities such as the enemy to simu-
late in parallel with the planner's forces, the planner
is able to observe, prior to the actual execution, the
effects of adversarial and multiagent actions against
its own plans.

1 Introduction

Planning in Artificial Intelligence has been a long
standing problem where researchers have tried to build
automatic systems that describe a set of actions which,
when executed, will lead to a desired goal. Many of the
early planners had a different view of planning than
how we view planning recently. They viewed plan-
ning mainly as a separate entity from execution and

assumed there is only one active agent in the world at
any time. Some of these earlier classical planners are
STRIPS [5, 6], NOAH [13] and SIPE [15].

These classical planning approaches will work well
when one can assume that the planner has complete
knowledge of the current state and the cause-and-
effect relationships of every action in that world. How-
ever, for situations which cannot guarantee the above
'ideal' condition-which is the case for any real world
planning problems the common planning approach
will not be sufficient. The actual execution of a gen-
erated plan is no longer guaranteed to succeed. This
can occur whenever there are changes that can take
place in the environment over which the planner has
no control, such as another agent or an enemy, and
when there is uncertainty of available information or
uncertainty of another agents reaction. Accurate pre-
diction of the resulting states of plan execution will
be difficult. Once concepts such as multiagent and
adversary are introduced into planning, the classical
approach will either break down in the plan generation
process, or produce unrealistic plans that can only suc-
ceed in an ideal (artificial) environment. As more vari-
ables are introduced, a large increase in complexity of
reasoning is unavoidable, especially when one central
system is responsible for reasoning about all possible
changes in the environment. To overcome this increase
in complexity of reasoning, many new approaches have
been introduced [14, 3, 10, 9]. Apart from the differ-
ences in methodology, some properties exist that are
common to many planning systems which have been
built for real applications such as [1]. One property
is that the planning process divided into two major
phases. During the first phase, a set of candidate
plans that satisfy some subset of constraints is gen-
erated (called plan generation). Then in the following
phase, a solution plan that satisfies the remaining con-
straints to its best is chosen. A strategy of dividing
the constraints may be to divide them according to
their criticality to the success of the plan. Another

property is that some form of Temporal projection is
used in each phase. Temporal projection is projecting
into the future, to find out if a sequence of actions
specified in a plan is applicable in a particular situa-
tion and if so, to predict what the results will be after
the execution. In the first phase, temporal projection
is used to find a set of applicable plans. Then in the
second phase, it is used to evaluate the set of candidate
plans by using an evaluating function which measures
different properties of the plan such as probability of
success and loss of resources. Users can obtain differ-
ent results by giving different evaluation criterion each
time the problem is given to the planner. In general,
one or more rule-based systems are used to generate
and evaluate the plans at each phase. Our approach
differs in the second phase. Instead of performing the
temporal projection of plans using rules, we perform
a simulation of each plan using simulation models.
We propose simulation-based planning as a new
concept through a sample application in the do-
main of mission planning for Computer Generated
Forces(CGF). Our mission planner is an integral part
of a larger project of the Institute for Simulation and
Training (IST) called "Intelligent Autonomous Behav-
ior by Semi-Automated Forces in Distributed Interac-
tive Siiii.. ii .1i.. which is funded by the U.S. Army
Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command
(STRICOM). The goal of the planner is to automati-
cally derive plans for a semi-automated force (CGF),
at the company level initially, so that the force will
provide an Army trainee with an effective training ex-
perience. Planning is only a small part of the overall
project, which includes efficient line of site (LOS) de-
termination, terrain reasoning, intelligent target ac-
quisition and behavior representation for CGF enti-
ties. The planner takes orders from the battalion level
and translates these orders, with a tight coupling with
the terrain analyzer, into efficient plans for the CGF
platoon entities. In addition to planning for its sub-
ordinate units, the planner must also also be able to
monitor the execution of the plan, react to unexpected
situations and replan if necessary.
Section 2 discusses simulation-based planning as a
general concept. We describe the architecture and de-
sign of our planner in section 3 using a sample mis-
sion to help illustrate our methods. Future work is
discussed in section 4 and finally some conclusions in
section 5.

2 Simulation-Based Planning

The simulation-based approach to planning has been
used by the military for a considerable time in the

form of conflict simulation (or wargames). Conflict
simulations are termed constructive simulations when
comparing them against the virtual or live methods.
Simulations of the constructive type involve aggregate
simulations using discrete time (turns) and space (ter-
rain). During a planning phase, a commander would
perform I. i1 if' scenarios by setting up a course
of action on a hexagonally tiled map of the terrain.
Engagements, instead of being fought with individual
entities, are abstracted using a stochastic method in
the form of a combat results table (CRT) or through
Lanchester equations for force attrition.
The wargame approach to planning is simulation-
based, where the model is aggregate and the simula-
tion is discrete and "turn" oriented (in a game fash-
ion). Related work by Czigler et al. [2] demonstrates
the usefulness of simulation as a decision tool. Our ap-
proach is to extend this method by using more detailed
models, where the models simulate entity queuing at
fords and bridges as well as engagements. At first, our
engagement simulation will use many of the features
of constructive models, such as probabilistic combat
results tables, but we will eventually create plans that
involve simulated entity-level interaction since this is
the most accurate way to learn if a plan will fail or
In the simulation literature, simulation is defined
as the discipline of designing a model of an actual
or theoretical physical system, executing the model on
a digital computer, and analyzing the execution out-
put"; Fishwick [8]. In Dean [4], it states that the idea
of using model to formulate sequences of actions is
central to planning and given a sequence of actions, a
robot can use the model to simulate the future as it
would occur if the actions were carried out. So simu-
lation provides the robot with information which can
be used to suggest modifications or to compare the
proposed sequence with alternative sequence. And
therefore, once simulation models have been built for
a system, simulation can be used as a tool to pro-
vide the system with information useful for evaluating
its hypothesis. It is logical that we employ simula-
tion within the planning process to gather information
about each candidate plan (sequence of actions) and
to compare them.

3 Overview of Planner

The biggest challenge for Computer Generated Forces
(CGF) systems is to simulate human behavior. Our
particular interest is to simulate the behavior of a com-
pany commander which involves mission planning and
plan execution for its company. Given an Operation

Order from a higher level unit, the planner's role is to
generate a mission plan that will achieve the task(s)
given in the Operation Order. Using this plan the
planner then issues the corresponding subtasks to each
subordinate unit, which in this case are platoons, in
the form of an Operation order.

3.1 Planner's interface to IST CGF

As mentioned earlier in section 1, the mission plan-
ner is a part of a larger project at IST. The planner
must integrate with many other components in the
IST project, but for the most part it must work with
the IST's Terrain Analyzer.

3.1.1 Terrain Analyzer

The Terrain Analyzer is the planner's only source
of information where terrain is concerned and thus
the planner uses the TA quite extensively during the
planning process. The TA is responsible for route
planning, finding tactical positions, computing Line
of Sight and answering questions about terrain fea-
tures. The interface between the TA and the plan-
ner is established by four types of calls; ROUTE,

ROUTE: Given the maximum number of routes,
start and end position, the unit boundary, the
minimum percentage of concealment, the mission
type and the direction of approach to the OBJ
(located at end position), the TA returns multi-
ple routes that satisfy the given constraints. Note
that the direction of approach does not apply to
cases when the end position does not have an en-
emy unit and the mission type is not a SEIZE
mission. Any intermediate enemy position that
needs to be avoided can also be given along with
a radius and the TA will generate routes avoid-
ing these locations radius distance away from the
avoid locations. Each returned route has a route
id, length and percentage of concealment relative
to the route. The actual route is represented as
a piecewise linear curve made up of a set of line
segments. Each line segment contains not only
it's begin and end points but also the percentage
of mobility, passable width, probability of LOS
to the OBJ and the terrain_type (ground, road,

DEF_TACT_POS: Given the type of mission, this
call requires the TA to provide locations for a
given type of tactical positionss. for the type of

tactical position, given the current type of mis-
sion. The current position of the unit and the
OBJ must also be given There are three differ-
ent types of position: SUPPORT_BY_FIRE, DE-
FENSE, and ATTACK. We have two types of
mission : SEIZE and DEFEND. Finally, the en-
emy location must also be provided to the TA for

ALOS: This call directs the TA to perform an
area to area Line_ofsight determination. Loca-
tions 1 and 2 are given, each with Radiusl and
Radius2. The Radiusl describes the circular area
centered at 1 and Radius2 describes the circular
area centered at 2. 1_#_PTS constrains the num-
ber of points where LOS should be tested within
circle centered at 1. 2_#_PTS constrains circle at
location 2 in the same manner. If Radius is 0 for
both locations then a simple point to point LOS
is performed. The returned data is the probabil-
ity of sightings over the #_PTS tested within the
two areas.

TERRAIN_FEATURE: This call requires the TA
to return all the terrain features that are included
within the radius of a given point. The planner
supplies the TA with a center point and a ra-
dius and the TA returns one or more of the fol-
lowing types as a terrain_feature: ROAD, FORD,

3.2 Planner Architecture

Figure 1 displays the architecture of our planner in
relation to the IST CGF Testbed [11]. Each com-
mander in the IST testbed is simulated by a Command
Entity (CE). The Planner performs major functions of
this entity. The planner has two phases: the Reactive
phase and the Planning phase. A Phase is a group of
states that collectively display a behavior. Only one
phase is active at any given time. The starting phase
is the Reactive Behavior. The decision as to which
phase becomes active is made by the current active
phase based on the inputs. There is no single 'main'
algorithm that controls the whole process. Thus, the
decision is made in a distributive manner. In par-
ticular, the decision to give up planning and report
to higher level unit is made by the planning behav-
ior. The inputs are either Oporders or Sitreps, and
depending on the type of Sitreps and Oporders, dif-
ferent decisions will result. Each Planner in the CE is
made up of the following components.

Figure 1: Planner Architecture

3.2.1 World Database(DB)

The World Database contains information about the
battlefield. This is not a complete spatial representa-
tion of the battlefield (since the TA has this informa-
tion) but a simplified database which mainly contains
information that is known to the CE (and not known
to the TA). Since the TA does not have any informa-
tion regarding the location of enemy or friendly units
and will not keep track of the locations, the planner
needs to keep track of the locations and the status
of the units in the World Database. This database
is created as soon as the CE starts to exist. Initially
it contains its own location and will be updated with
new information as they become available to the CE
via Sitreps or Oporders.
The battlefield is divided into rectangular regions
and represented by elements of a matrix. This is a
very low resolution of the battlefield because the pur-
pose of this matrix is mainly to speed up the look up
time of unit locations and other information by orga-
nizing the linked lists into regions. Each element of
the matrix is linked to a linked list that contains all
the information the CE has about that region. Each
node will have more exact locations along with other
available information such as status of the unit.

3.2.2 Reactive Behavior

The Reactive Behavior module displays reactive be-
havior necessary for survival when immediate action

is required. This behavior may be different for differ-
ent types of entities. The module is initialized with
a generic set of behaviors at the start and may be
modified with any reactive behaviors provided by an

3.2.3 Planning Behavior

The Planning Behavior module has the ability to
generate orders for its subordinate entities from an
Oporder given by a higher level entity. This module
is made up of the following smaller modules where the
order in which they are presented actually coincides
with the algorithm steps of a typical planning process.
For each step we will give a general description and il-
lustrate via a sample mission. The mission in the sam-
ple Oporder given to the CE will be "SEIZE OBJ at
(32.5, 28.5). Friendly units at Assembly Area(AA) lo-
cated at (50.0, 52.5). Company UNITBOUNDARY is
((57.5, 22.5),(57.5, 57.5),(20, 22.5), (20, 57.5))." Fig-
ure 2 shows the terrain and the locations of the enemy
at OBJ and friendly forces at AA. There is a river that
runs through the middle of the terrain where there are
three crossable fords. There is a lake near the enemy
location. There are also some treelines and canopies
in the terrain.

1. Sitrep/Oporder Analyzer (SOA) parses the
Sitrep/Oporder to update the World DB.









S Lake



+ Tactical

Figure 2: Sample battlefield

The World DB will now contain locations of
the enemy and friendly forces.

Oporder: is further parsed to generate a
list of task(s) to be achieved. The Situation
Analyzer is called next with this list. The
generated list of subtasks to be achieved for
SEIZE mission will consist of the following
list where the first list of subtasks is neces-
sary to achieve the goal whereas the second
is optional.
1. MOVE to (ATTACK position) then AT-
tion) then FIRE (optional).
Sitrep: Sitrep is analyzed to decide if any
immediate action is required, if any replan-
ning is required, or if any Sitrep needs to be
generated. The Execution Monitor is called
with the decision. We will omit Sitreps in
this example.

2. Situation Analyzer(SA) is a collection of rules
that analyzes the given situation using the World
DB. Appropriate constraints for the ROUTE or
the DEF_TACT_POS call are generated. The de-
cision as to which of the two calls to call ini-
tially depends on problem size reduction. In other

words, in a given situation, the call to ROUTE
may produce many possible routes whereas a
call to DEF_TACT_POS may produce only a few
number of tactical positions. In this case, we can
first call DEF_TACT_POS to acquire a set of tac-
tical positions and then call ROUTE with these
tactical positions which reduces the number of re-
turned routes due to the given constraints. Thus,
the SA performs some alternate calls of ROUTE
and DEF_TACT_POS to produce an appropriate
number of alternate routes. The Course of Ac-
tion(COA) Tree Generator is called with these
alternate routes. Following are the set of calls
that are made for our sample mission. Figure 2
shows the the tactical positions as ''.

Type of position ATTACK,
Type of mission SEIZE,
OPFOR position 32.5, 28.5
TA returns position Al, A2 and A3 as AT-
TACK positions.
Type of position SUPPORT_BY_FIRE,
Type of mission SEIZE,
OPFOR position 32.5, 28.5
TA returns position S1 and S2 as SUP-
PORT_BY_FIRE positions.




S Lake



+ Tactical

Figure 3: Sample battlefield

Using the generated tactical positions, the plan-
ner makes ROUTE calls to the TA as follows.
Figure 3 shows the routes that are generated from
these calls.

Start, end position AA, Al,
Unit boundary ((57.5,22.5), (57.5,57.5),
(20,22.5), (20,57.5)),
Type of mission MOVE
Any parameters that are missing are as-
sumed to be unspecified by the TA. TA re-
turns Route #1.(Note that more than one
route may be returned by the TA for such a
Start, end position AA, A2,
Unit boundary ((57.5,22.5), (57.5,57.5),
(20,22.5), (20,57.5)),
Type of mission MOVE
Route #2 is returned.
ROUTE(AA, A3, unit boundary, MOVE).
Route #3 is returned.
ROUTE(AA, S1, unit boundary, MOVE).
Route #4 is returned.
ROUTE(AA, S2, unit boundary, MOVE).
Route #5 is returned.

ROUTE(A1, OBJ, unit boundary, AT-
TACK). Route #6 is returned.
ROUTE(A2, OBJ, unit boundary, AT-
TACK). Route #7 is returned.
ROUTE(A3, OBJ, unit boundary, AT-
TACK). Route #8 is returned.

3. COA Tree Generator uses the set of alternate
routes produced by the SA and generates a COA
Tree. The COA tree is a tree of alternatives. It
is a tree that contains every possible combina-
tion of alternative choice or action of the com-
pany. Figure 4 shows the COA tree built from
our example. It is partially drawn since many
of the branches are redundant. The 1st level
of the tree allows the choice of splitting or not
splitting the company in achieving the mission.
If the company is to be divided, it means that
one or more platoons are to support the attack-
ing unit. For this example, the supporting role
is SUPPORT_BY_FIRE. The second level con-
tains the alternate routes available for the units.
Note that the available alternate routes for the
case of not splitting the company, the routes that
lead to SUPPORT_BY_FIRE positions (#4,#5)
is not considered. The next level contains alter-
natives for different formation such as Tactical
Road March and Bounding Overwatch. The next

alternate routes
platoons ,


Figure 4: Sample C(

level contains other alternatives such as varying
the role of platoons in different formations. Also
note that after the choices are made for route #1,
the next level starts by choosing the next connect-
ing route (from #1 to the OBJ which is #6 in this
case). Similarly for #2 and#3, #7 and #8 will
be the connecting routes respectively. We can ex-
tend the tree as much as we want with any other
possible alternatives. Some alternatives can be
omitted at this stage and later generated during
the Simulation step.
After such a tree is generated, the tree is pruned
using various methods and rules before it is
passed onto the COA Simulator. Many alterna-
tives can be pruned away by using a military ex-
pert knowledge system. However, we must not
prune away too much since many alternatives
should be left to be explored via simulation. Oth-
erwise the purpose of using simulation may be lost
since most of the choice would have been made
already. Next, the COA Tree Simulator is called
with the COA Tree.

4. The COA Tree Simulator is invoked to sim-
ulate the set of COA trees that have been gen-
erated. This is done by creating a Simulated
World and performing the simulation of friendly
and enemy units by time slicing between actions
(move, look, fire) and observation by each unit.
It is also time sliced between friendly and enemy
units. Different methods can be used in simu-
lating friendly and enemy units. One method is
to allow the enemy units to have the same plan-
ning capabilities as the friendly units but with
different tactics. This method would be quite re-
alistic, but it can be quite time consuming. In

Iternate roles

)A tree

general, a complete simulation is more time con-
suming than a temporal projection using rules. If
computing capabilities are limited, we can per-
form simulation at different levels of abstraction
[12, 7] where each higher level will use less com-
putational power. Another solution is to let the
enemy units follow a less sophisticated planning
process allowing limited intelligence. This is the
approach we are taking for this particular appli-
cation due to limited computing capabilities. In
our example (figure 3), the enemy unit at OBJ
is simulated to react to the friendly units by ei-
ther moving to location OBJ1 or OBJ2. The cir-
cle centered at OBJ1 represent the area of firing
range of enemy when enemy is at OBJ1. It is
the same case for OBJ2. Thus, when the two op-
posite forces are inside the circle, engagement is
likely when the enemy has line of sight to our unit.
The actual simulation algorithm is as follows:

While (planner active) do
Update entity state variables
Perform line of sight (LOS) check
Engagement check
Update current clock time by AT
End While

For each course of action, the simulator operates
as follows. State variables defining an entity's po-
sition and orientation are updated at each time
slice. In low mobility areas or areas with a steep
terrain gradient, the movement will change over
time. Also, for some terrain features, as with
fords or chokepoints, a simple queuing model can
be executed to keep track of entities that must

wait for entities that are blocking the path. Ser-
vice times and speed values are obtained by sam-
pling from a probability distribution appropriate
for the blocked area. A line of site (LOS) check
and range calculation is done between the en-
tity being simulated and known enemy locations.
If the enemy is within range of certain weapons
(such as a HEAT or Sabot round), an engagement
will ensue. The circles around OBJ1 and OBJ2
represent this range for each location, given that
the enemy is predicted to have moved to either
OBJ1 and/or OBJ2. We are unsure as to the level
of detail required to simulate the engagement for
planning purposes. Initially, our method will be
to use attrition or combat result tables (CRTs);
however, these will be extended as behaviors such
as -.. 1I:.,, ..- are integrated into the planner.
The simulation proceeds, while updating the sim-
ulation time by AT until either the plan has been
fully simulated, or the planner is interrupted.
There are several advantages to using Simulation
to predict the results of plan execution.

(a) Simulation provides a uniform method with-
out resorting to adhoc solutions. In simula-
tion, each entity in the environment is simu-
lated in a uniform and consistent manner by
using models that represent both the phys-
ical and behavioral properties. Thus, sim-
ulating a plan is a natural consequence of
simulating each of the entities by itself with-
out having to worry about the global state
change as a result of each entities action. In
some ways, simulation can be viewed cor-
responding to object-oriented programming
methods. Thus, each object is simulated us-
ing its own model.
(b) Because there is no central reasoning node
for the simulation but many individual sim-
ulation models for different entities, scalabil-
ity is a natural consequence. Extendibility is
another advantage simulation provides. For
example, the effects of adding a new type of
entity will be clear, only the behavior models
of each entity must be updated to recognize
and reason about this new entity.
(c) Similar to how simulation is used for visu-
alization, simulation can be easily used to
perform visual playback of how a plan was
simulated to explain the planner's decision.

Initially, the Simulated World is created from the
World DB and then the status of the world is up-
dated as entities are being simulated. The simu-

lator uses the TA to update the Simulated World.
The outcome of the simulation is then fed into the
COA Tree evaluator.

5. The COA Evaluator evaluates the simulation
of different plans produced by the Simulator by
using measures such as success/failure, number of
casualties and equipment loss. The evaluation is
done by rules. A point to note however is that
the data on which the evaluation is performed
is produced through simulations and not rules.
Using the evaluation, a plan is chosen based on
a combination of user's criteria such as degree of
success, minimal loss, randomness. Finally, the
Execution Monitor is called with the chosen plan.

6. The Execution Monitor
The Execution Monitor is the main driver of the
Planning Behavior module only.

(a) Issue the set of chosen subtasks in the plan
to each units in an Oporder format.
(b) Execute its own subtask if any.
(c) If any Sitrep is received,
i. Call the Sitrep/Oporder Analyzer.
ii. If the decision returned calls for
immediate action, it is handled by
the REACTIVE behavior module
which accesses the mini Expert Sys-
tem to react accordingly. In do-
ing so, the REACTIVE module also
takes into account any Engagement
Criteria given in the Oporder.
replanning, the SA is called to start
a planning process with the newly
updated World DB.
giving up planning at the current
level, the CE sends Sitrep to its
higher unit reporting of its current
status and waits for further orders.

3.2.4 Expert System

The mini Expert System module contains rules to
aid the planning process in making decisions such as
choosing routes, choosing best COA tree, performing
analysis of situations, Oporders and Sitreps.

4 Future work

Our future work is best divided into two parts: near
term and long term. For the near term (next 2-3
months), we are in the process of taking the detailed

planner design and implementing it within the IST
CGF testbed which is SIMNET-compliant and oper-
ates using the IBM PC architecture. The approach
will be deemed effective if the trainee learns appro-
priate maneuvers against the plan-driven CGF adver-
sary. Also, we are simplifying the plan generation in
that the enemy's actions are not being fully simulated.
The planner architecture, however, allows for concur-
rent enemy simulation while CGF courses of action
are being simulated. In the long term, we plan on
adding more capability to the planner once the skele-
ton architecture has been implemented. We want to
run experimental designs on the planner to carefully
measure the effectiveness of training. If possible, we
would like to measure this quantity against other ex-
isting planners. Another key long-term feature of a
future planner is machine learning. That is, the plan-
ner should be able to observe example engagements to
learn rules that can be used to prune the COA data
structure. Also, once multiple simulations have been
run, the planner should be able to "abstract out" rules
which capture the simulation information in a more
compact form.

5 Conclusions

We have shown how we are able to perform AI plan-
ning with fewer rules by using simulation to project
and evaluate potential plans. Simulation allows the
planner to project a broader class of results in a
uniform manner. In the mission planning aspect,
simulation-based planning is useful because it is eas-
ily scalable, extendible and explainable. As discussed
in section 2, explanation can be done by simply play-
ing back the simulations that were performed inter-
nally during the evaluation phase and seeing what
led the planner to choose a particular plan. Finally,
simulation-based planning makes designing of multi-
agent adversarial planning systems more feasible and
simplifies the reasoning procedures by allowing many
details to be left out and be considered later during
the evaluation phase. A drawback of simulation-based
planning is that it can be computationally intensive if
plans were to be simulated at considerable level of de-
tail. If machine power permits, we can use simulation
for all phases of planning; however when we have a
limited computing resource, the best practical alter-
native is to combine rule-based with simulation-based
elements as we have done here, or to perform simula-
tion at different levels of abstraction [12].

6 Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by a sub-contract,
under the direction of Mikel Petty of IST, to the Uni-
versity of Florida for mission planning. We would
like to acknowledge conversations with Clark Karr and
Doug Reece of IST. They really helped us to under-
stand many of the issues connected with military plan-
ning. Also, we would like to thank Dan Mullally for
serving as the resident expert on military maneuvers
and terrain reasoning.


[1] W. Braudaway. A Blackboard Approach to Com-
puter Generated Forces. In Proceedings of the
Third Conference on Computer Generated Forces
and Behavioral Representation, pages 11-20, Or-
lando, FL., 1993.

[2] M. Czigler and S. Downes-Martin. Fast Futures
Contingency Simulation: A "What If' Tool for
Exploring Alternative Plans. In Proceedings of
the 1994 SCS Simulation MultiConference, San
Diego, CA, 1994.

[3] T.L. Dean and K. Kanazawa. Persistence and
probablistic inference. Technical Report CS-87-
23, Brown University Department of Computer
Science, 1 ;.

[4] T.L. Dean and M.P. Wellman. Planning and Con-
trol. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

[5] R.E. Fikes, P.E. Hart, and N.J. Nilsson. Learning
and Executing Generalized Robot Plans. Aritifi-
cial Intelligence, 3, 1972.

[6] R.E. Fikes, P.E. Hart, and N.J. Nilsson. Some
New Directions in Robot Problem Solving. In
Machine Intelligence 7. Edinburgh University
Press, 1972.

[7] P. A. Fishwick. An Integrated Approach to Sys-
tem Modelling using a Synthesis of Artificial In-
telligence, Software Engineering and Simulation
Methodologies. AC if Transactions on Modeling
and Computer Simulation, 2(4):307 330, 1992.

[8] P.A. Fishwick. Simulation Model Design and Ex-
ecution: Building Digital Worlds. Prentice-Hall,
Inc, 1994.

[9] K. Hammond. Cased-based planning. In Perspec-
tives in Aritificial Intelligence, volume 1. Aca-
demic Press, 1989.

[10] K. Kanazawa and T. Dean. A Model for Pro-
jection and Action. In Proceedings of IJCAI-89,
pages i-"999, Detroit, MI, 1989.

[11] C.R. Karr, R.W. Franceschini, K.R.S. Perumalla,
and M.D. Petty. Integrating Aggregate and Vehi-
cle Level Simulations. In Proceedings of the Third
Conference on Computer Generated Forces and
Behavioral Representation, pages 231-239, Or-
lando, FL., 1993.

[12] J.J. Lee, W.D. Norris, and P.A. Fishwick. An
object-oriented mutlimodeling design for inte-
grating simulation and planning tasks. Journal
of Systems Engineering, 3:220-235, 1993.

[13] E.D. Sacerdoti. A Structure for Plans and Be-
haviour. Elsevier-North Holland, 1977.

[14] M. Schoppers. Universal Plans for Reactive
Robots in Unpredictable Domains. In Int. Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1 I .

[15] D.E. Wilkins. Domain Independent Planning:
Representation and Plan Generation. Artificial
Intelligence, 22:269-301, 1984.

7 Biographies

Jin Joo Lee received a B.S. degree in Computer Sci-
ence from Ewha University, Korea in 1988 and a M.S.
degree in Computer Science from Brown University
in 1991. After receiving the M.S. degree, she was
a research engineer at Human Computers Inc., Ko-
rea until 1992. She is a currently a PhD student at
the Computer and Information Sciences department
at University of Florida. Her research interests are in
AI planning, simulation and control.

Paul A. Fishwick is an associate professor in the
Department of Computer and Information Sciences
at the University of Florida. He received the BS in
Mathematics from the Pennsylvania State University,
MS in Applied Science from the College of William
and Mary, and PhD in Computer and Information Sci-
ence from the University of Pennsylvania in 1986. He
also has six years of industrial/government production
and research experience working at Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (doing CAD/CAM
parts definition research) and at NASA Langley Re-
search Center (studying engineering data base models
for structural engineering). His research interests are
in computer simulation modeling and analysis meth-
ods for complex systems. He is a senior member of
the IEEE and the Society for Computer Simulation.

He is also a member of the IEEE Society for Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, AC\I and AAAI. Dr. Fishwick
was chairman of the IEEE Computer Society techni-
cal committee on simulation (TCSIM) for two years
(1988-1990) and he is on the editorial boards of sev-
eral journals including the AC\I Transactions on Mod-
eling and Computer Simulation, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, The Transactions
of the Society for Computer Simulation, International
Journal of Computer Simulation, and the Journal of
Systems Engineering.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs