This paper describes a replication model of human operators’ situation assessment and decision making in a simulated area reconnaissance wargame. A variety of factors that affect human operators’ threat assessment and decision making were identified and categorized based on interviews with Subject Matter Experts and a review of defense doctrine on area reconnaissance. By combining these factors with the capabilities of existing synthetic environments, a schema consisting of a set of Bayesian networks and associated joint probability distributions for human operators’ situation assessment and decision making was developed. To verify and validate the proposed schema, a software system was designed and implemented, and then used for analyzing the consistency between the replicator’s decisions and human players’ decisions. Results showed that the proposed approach replicated human operators’ situation assessment and movement-based decision making in the wargame with high consistency.
LawsonJS.Command and control as a process. IEEE Contr Syst Mag1981; 16: 86–93.
3.
HollnagelE.Human reliability analysis: context and control. London: Academic Press. 1993.
4.
RasmussenJ.The human data processor as a system component: Bits and pieces of a model. Report No. Riso-M-1722. Roskilde: Danish Atomic Energy Commission, 1974.
5.
SmalleyJ.Cognitive factors in the analysis, design and assessment of command and control systems. In: HollnagelE (ed.) Handbook of cognitive task design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp.223–253.
6.
StantonNABaberCWalkerGH. Development of a generic activities model of command and control. J Cognit Technol Work2008; 10: 209–220.
7.
EndsleyM.Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors1995; 37: 31–64.
8.
EndsleyM.Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors1995; 37: 65–84.
9.
CaoTCouttsALuiF. Acombined Bayesian belief network analysis and system architectural approach to analyse an amphibious C4ISR System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference of the Australian Society for Operations Research, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013.
10.
LampinenTRopponenJLaitinenT.Joint threat assessment with asset profiling and entity Bayes net. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on information fusion (FUSION ‘09. Seattle, WA, USA: International Society of Information Fusion, IEEE, 2009), pp.420–427.
11.
MaJFuYF.Research on the dynamic assessment of battlefield forces based on Bayesian networks. Am J Eng Technol Res2011; 11: 262–266.
12.
WangLWangM.Modeling of combined Bayesian networks and cognitive framework for decision-making in C2. J Syst Eng Electron2010; 21: 812–820.
13.
BladonPDayPSHughesT. High-level fusion using Bayesian networks: applications in command and control. In: Proceedings of the information fusion for command support (RTO-MP-IST-055) (4–1–4–18), 2006. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: RTO.
14.
HicksJDMyersGStoyenA. Bayesian-game modeling of C2 decision making in submarine battle-space situation awareness. In: 2004 command control research and technology symposium – the power of information age concepts and technologies, 15–17 June 2004, San Diego, California, USA.
15.
BrynielssonJArnborgS. Bayesian games for threat prediction and situation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on information fusion (FUSION 2004), 2004, pp.1125–1132. Stockholm, Sweden: International Society of Information Fusion.
16.
JonesRETConnorsESMosseyME. Modeling situation awareness for army infantry platoon leaders using fuzzy cognitive mapping techniques. In: Proceedings of the 19th conference on behavior representation in modeling and simulation, Charleston, SC, USA, 2010.
17.
GilmourDAKrauseLSLehmanLA. Intent driven adversarial modeling. In: Proceedings of the 11th international command and control research and technology symposium: the future of C2, 2005. McLean, Virginia, USA: Command and Control Research Program (CCRP).
18.
JohanssonFFalkmanG. Implementation and integration of a Bayesian Network for prediction of tactical intention into a ground target simulator. In: 2006 9th international conference on information fusion, 10–14 July 2006, Florence, Italy.
19.
JohanssonFFalkmanG.A Bayesian network approach to threat evaluation with application to an air defense scenario. In: 2008 11th international conference on information fusion, 30 June—3 July 2008, Cologne, Germany.
20.
BellBSantosEJrBrownSM.Making adversary decision modeling tractable with intent inference and information fusion. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference on computer generated forces and behavioral representation, 2002. Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO).
21.
SantosEJr. A cognitive architecture for adversary intent inferencing: structures of knowledge and computation. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 17th international symposium on aerospace defense sensing and controls (AeroSense 2003), 2003. Orlando, FL: SPIE.
22.
SantosEJrNegriA.Constructing adversarial models for threat/enemy intent prediction and inferencing. In: TrevisaniDASistiAF (eds) In: Proceedings of SPIE: enabling technologies for simulation VIII, 2004, 5423, pp.77–88.
23.
SurmanaJMHillmanaRGSantosEJr.Adversarial inferencing for generating dynamic adversary behavior. In: SistiAFTrevisaniDA (eds) Proceedings of the SPIE: enabling technologies for simulation science VIII, 2003, 5091, pp.184–201.
24.
BrownSMSantosEJrBellB.Knowledge acquisition for adversary course of action prediction models. AAAI Technical Report #FS-02–05, 2002. Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
BellDERaiffaHTverskyA.Decision making: descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
29.
SimonHA.A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ1955; 69: 99–118.
30.
CohenMDMarchJPOlsenJP. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Admin Sci Q1972; 17: 1–25.
31.
BeachLRMitchellTR.A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Acad Manag Rev1978; 3: 439–449.
32.
BeachLRMitchellRT.Image theory: a behavioral theory of decisions in organizations. In: StawBMCummingsLL (eds) Research in organization behavior. Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1990.
33.
EinhornHJ.The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Br Psychol Soc Bull1970; 73: 221–230.
34.
TverskyA.Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev1969; 76: 31–48.
35.
TverskyA.Choice by elimination. J Math Psychol1972; 9: 341–367.
36.
KleinGA.Recognition-primed decisions. In: RouseWB (ed.) Advances in man-machine system research. Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1989, pp.47–92.
37.
KleinGVeinottESSieckWR.Advancing our understanding of battlefield decision making. In: McDermottPAllenderL (eds) Advanced decision architectures for the warfighter: foundation and technology. The Army Research Laboratory Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance, 2009, pp.325–340.
38.
BaronJ.Normative models of judgment and decision making, In KoehlerDJHarveyN (eds), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. London: Blackwell, 2001, pp.19–36.
39.
PewRWMavorAS (eds). Modeling human and organizational behavior—application to military simulations. Washington, DC: National Research Council. National Academy Press, 1998.
40.
ThalerRHSunsteinR.Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.
41.
RiabckeM.A prescriptive approach to eliciting decision information. PhD dissertation. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences. Stockholm University. www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:516277/FULLTEXT03.pdf
(2012, accessed 20 June 2014).
42.
WarwickWSantamariaA. A computational model of naturalistic decision making and the science of simulation. In: McDermottPAllenderL (eds) Advanced decision architectures for the warfighter: foundations and technology. Adelphi, MD: Army Research Laboratory Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance, 2009, pp.273–288.
43.
WarwickWMcllwaineSHuttonRMcDermottP.Developing computational models of Recognition-Primed Decision Making. In: Proceedings of the 10th conference on computer generated forces. Norfolk, VA: SISO Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2001, pp. 232–331.
44.
PattersonRFournierLPierceBWinterbottomMTrippL.Modeling the dynamics of Recognition-Primed Decision Making. In: Proceedings of the 9th bi-annual international conference on naturalistic decision making (NDM9). Swinton, UK: British Computer Society, 2009.
45.
HintzmanDL. MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers1984; 16: 96–101.
46.
HintzmanDL. “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review1986; 93(4): 411–428.
47.
WarwickWArcherS.Incorporating aspects of human decision making in task-network simulation tools. Presented at the NATO RTO NMSG Conference on “Future Modeling and Simulation Challenges”. Breda, the Netherlands: NATO Research and Technology Organisation, 2001.
48.
ZacharyWRyderJMHicinbothomJH. Cognitive task analysis and modelling of decision making in complex environments. In: Cannon-BowersJASalasE (eds) Making decisions under stress: implications for individual and team training, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998, pp.315–344.
49.
RevelloRMcCartneyRSantosEJr.. Multiple strategy generation for war gaming. In: TrevisaniDASistiAF (eds) Proceedings of the SPIE: enabling technologies for simulation science VIII. Orlando, FL: The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2004, pp.232–243.
50.
SieckERKleinG.Decision-making. In: DursoR (ed) Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp.95–218.
51.
MoffatJWittyS. Bayesian decision making and military command and control. Journal of the Operational Research Society2002, 53, 709–718.
52.
MoffatJ. Modelling human decision-making in simulation models of conflict. The International C2 Journal2007; 1(1): 31–60.
53.
PerrinXChavarriagaRSiegwartRMillanJdelR.Bayesian controller for a novel semi-autonomous navigation concept. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on mobile robots (ECMR’07). Freiburg, Germany: University of Freiburg, Autonomous Intelligent Systems, 2007.
54.
BrynielssonJ. Using AI and games for decision support in command and control. Decision Support Systems2007; 43(4): 1454–1463.
55.
EnderwickTMcNaughtK.Decision support for asymmetric urban warfare. In: Proceedings of the specialists’ meeting on information fusion for decision support. The Hague, the Netherlands: NATO/RTO, 2006.
56.
MiddlebrooksSEStankiewiczBJ. Applying models of decision under uncertainty to simulations of military command and control systems. Paper presented at the 2006 11th International Command and Control Research Technology Symposium (11th ICCRTS), September 26–28, 2006, Cambridge, UK.
57.
MiddlebrooksSEStankiewiczBJ. Toward the development of a predictive computer model of decision making during uncertainty for use in simulations of U.S. Army Command and Control Systems. Report No. ARL-TR-3719, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443462.pdf (2006, accessed 24 November 2015).
58.
MiddlebrooksSEStankiewiczBJ. The application of models of decision making during uncertainty to simulations of military command and control systems. Report No. ARL-TR-4192, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD= ADA470286 (2007, accessed 9 July 2013).
59.
CassandraAR. Extract and approximate algorithms for partially observable Markov decision process. PhD thesis. Brown University, Department of Computer Science, Providence, RI. http://www.pomdp.org/pomdp/papers/index.shtml (1998, accessed 9 July 2013).
60.
CassandraAKaelblingLKurienJ.Acting under uncertainty: discrete Bayesian models for mobile robot navigation. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 1996.
61.
GonzalezC. Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process2005; 96: 142–154.
62.
GillGASohalJA.Battlefield decision making: a neural network approach. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology2008; 4: 697–699.
63.
LovellMGuoRKramerCLaiG.Conceptual study: an AI-driven wargame replication model. DRDC CORA Contract Report (#5181-002 Version 04), 2011.
