Simulating battle management is an essential technique used in planning and mission rehearsal as well as training. Simulation development costs tend to be high due to the complexity of cognitive system architectures in such applications. Due to this complexity, it takes significant effort for a simulation developer to comprehend the problem domain enough to capture accurately in a simulation code. Domain-specific languages (DSL) play an important role in narrowing the communication gap between the domain user and the developer and hence facilitate rapid development. In command and control (C2) applications, the coalition battle management language (C-BML) serves as a DSL for exchanging battle information among C2 systems, simulations, and autonomous elements. In this article, we use a rapid prototyping framework for cognitive agents and demonstrate deployment of agent systems by adopting the model driven engineering approach. To this end, we extend the use of C-BML and automatically transform it in a cognitive agent model, which is then used for adaptive decision making at runtime. As a result, during a simulation run, it is possible to initialize and modify an agent’s goal reasoning model. The cognitive agent models are based on the deliberative coherence theory, which provides a goal reasoning system in terms of coherence-driven agents.
US DoD. Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, 2017.
2.
KellySTolvanenJP.Domain-Specific Modeling Enabling Full Code Generation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
3.
SISO. Standard for Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) Phase 1. 10th ed.Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2014.
4.
StahlTVolterM.Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engneering, and Management. London: Wiley, 2006.
5.
ThagardPMillgramE.Inference to the Best Plan: A Coherence Theory of Decision. In: RamALeakeDB (eds). Goal-driven Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, pp. 439–454.
6.
BezivinJ.On the Unification Power of Models. J. Softw. Syst. Model2005; 4(2): 171–188.
7.
SchmidtDC.Model-Driven Engineering. IEEE Computer2006; 39(2): p. 25–32.
8.
KleppeAWarmerSBastW.MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture, Practice and Promise. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2003.
9.
LedezciABakayAMarotiMVolgvesiPNordstormGSprinkleJ, et al. Composing Domain-Specific Design Environments. Computer2001; 34(11): 44–51.
10.
TopçuODurakUOğuztüzünHYılmazL.Distributed Simulation: A Model Driven Engineering Approach. 1st ed. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
11.
ThagardP.Coherence in Tought and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.
12.
ThagardPVerbeurgtK.Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction. Cognitive Science1998; 22(1): 1–24.
ThagardP.Explanatory Coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences1989; 12(3): 435–502.
15.
McClellandJLRumelhartDE.Explorations in Parallel Distributed Processing: A Handbook of Models, Programs, and Exercises. 1st ed. Cambaridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1989.
16.
McClellandJL.Explorations in Parallel Distributed Processing: A Handbook of Models, Programs, and Exercises. 2nd ed.Stanford, 2015.
17.
RumelhartDEMcClellandJL.An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception: Part 2. The Contextual Enhancement Effect and Some Test and Extensions of the Model. Psychological Review1982; 85(1): 60–94.
18.
HaykinS.Neural Networks a Comprehensive Foundation Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
19.
TopçuO.Using situational awareness for adaptive decision making in agent-based simulation. In: Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2017), Las Vegas, NV, 2017. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1276–1287.
20.
TopçuO.Adaptive decision making in agent-based simulation. Journal of Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International2014; 90(7): 815–832.
21.
IşçiSTopçuOYılmazL.Extending the Jadex Framework with Coherence-Driven Adaptive Agent Decision-Making Model. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2014), Warsaw, 2014, pp. 48–55.
BraubachLLamersdorfWPokahrA. Jadex: Implementing a BDI-Infrastructure for JADE Agents. EXP. In: Search of Innovation (special issue on JADE)2003; 3: 76–85.
CareySAKleinerMSHiebMRBrownR. Standardizing Battle Management Language - A Vital Move Towards the Army Transformation. In: Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Fall SIW), Orlando, FL, 2001, SISO.
KundeDOrichelTTolkASchadeUHiebMR. Harmonizing BML Approaches: Grammars and Data Models for a BML Standard. In: Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Spring SIW), San Diego, CA, 2009, SISO.
28.
GustavssonPMWemmergardJJonssonF. Object-Orientated implementation of Grammar Based Battle Management Languages. In: Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Spring SIW), Orlando, FL, 2012, SISO.
29.
KhayariREAKnollFOverloopPvLotzHB. C2SIM Challenges for a Comprehensive Command Post Training. In: 22nd International Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium (ICCRTS17), Los Angeles, CA, 2017.
30.
TurnitsaCTolkA. Battle management language: A triangle with five sides. In: Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Spring SIW), Huntsville, AL, 2006, SISO.
31.
LovlidRAAlstadAMevassvikOMReusNdHendersonHVechtBvd, et al. Two Approaches to Developing A Multi-Agent System for Battle Command Simulation. In: PasupathySHKATRHaMEK R (ed) Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, DC, 2013. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1491–1502.
32.
GonzalesAJStensrudBSBarrettG. Formalizing Context-Based Reasoning - A Modeling Paradigm for Representing Tactical Human Behavior. International Journal of Intelligent Systems2008; 23(7): p. 822–847.
33.
HeffnerKHassaineF. Towards Intelligent Operator Interfaces in Support of Autonomous UVS Operations. In 16th International Command & Control Research & Technology Symposium (ICCRTS);2011, Quebec, QC Canada.
34.
RemmersmannTSchadeUSchlickCM. Interactive multi-robot command and control with quasi-natural command language. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Diego, CA, 2014. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. pp. 470–475.
35.
RemmersmannTSchadeUReinKTiderkoA. BML for Communicating with Multi-Robot Systems. In: Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Fall SIW), Orlando, FL, 2015, SISO.
36.
US DoD. Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038. Report, 2013. Report No.: 14-S-0553.
37.
ÜnalÖTopçuO. Modeling Unmanned Surface Vehicle Patrol Mission with C-BML. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology. In: Special Issue: Novel Approaches to Defense and Military Modeling and Simulation 2014; 11(3): 277–308.
38.
AtkinsonCKuhneT. Model-driven development: A metamodeling foundation. IEEE Software2003; 20(5): 36–41.
JouaultFBezivinJ. KM3: a DSL for Metamodel Specification. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (IFIP), Bologna, 2006, pp. 171–185.
ISIS. GME Manual and User Guide. 15th ed.Nashville, TS: Institute for Software Integrated Systems Vanderbilt University, 2015.
45.
ClarkTEvansASammutPWillansJ. An eXecutable metamodelling facility for domain specific language design. In: TolvanenJPSprinkleJRossiM. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th OOPSLA Workshop on DomainSpecific Modeling, (DSM’04), 2004, Vancouver.
46.
ÖzgürT. Comparison of Microsoft DSL Tools and Eclipse Modeling Frameworks for Domain-Specific Modeling in the Context of Model-Driven Development. MSc Thesis. Sweden, 2007. Report No.: Thesis no: MSE-2007:07.
47.
BezivinJHillairetGJouaultFKurtevIPiersW. Bridging the MS/DSL Tools and the Eclipse Modeling Framework. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA’05, San Diego, CA, 2005.
CookSJonesGKentSWillsAC. Domain-Specific Development with Visual Studio DSL ToolsBoston, MA: Addison-wesley, 2007.
50.
SISO. Guide for Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) Phase 1 Version 1.0.Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2017.
51.
SayarO. Improving Decision Making with Increased Situational Awareness. MSc Thesis. Istanbul: Naval Science and Engineering Institute, C4I, 2015.
52.
NATO. Overview of the Joint C3 Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM Overview). MIP Technical Interface Design Plan, MIP Steering Group (MSG), 2011.
BowersABlaisCLGalvinKGuptonKHeffnerKKhimecheL, et al. A Systems Engineering Approach to M&S Standards Development: Application to the Coalition Battle Management Language. In Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Spring SIW). San Diego, CA: SISO.
55.
PullenMJCornerDWittmanRBrookAGustavssonPMSchadeU, et al. Multi-Schema and Multi-Server Advances for C2-Simulation Interoperation in MSG-085. In: Nato Modelling & Simulation Group (NMSG) Multi-Workshop, MSG-111, 2013: NATO. p. 4/1-16.
56.
OdellJParunakHVDBauerB. Extending UML for Agent-Based Systems. In: Practical Foundations of Business System Specifications, 2003, pp. 245–270. Berlin: Springer.
57.
BeydounGLowGCHenderson-SellersBMouratidisHGomez SanzJJPavonJ, et al. FAML: A generic metamodel for MAS development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering2009; 35(6), p. 841–863.
58.
HahnCMadrigal-MoraCFischerK. Interoperability through a Platform-Independent Model for Agents. In: Enterprise Interoperability II, 2007, pp. 195–206. London: Springer.
59.
PavonJGomez-SanzJFuentesR. Model Driven Development of Multi-Agent Systems. In RensinkAWarmerJ. (eds) Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2006, pp. 284–298.
