For combat simulation, the simulation scenario serves as the foundation and data source. It is not, however, easy to develop military simulation scenario because the developing process of these texts was time-consuming. To solve this problem, in this paper, we propose a distant supervised method for developing military simulation scenarios based on named entity recognition (NER) method. This method consists of three phases: extracting the key elements of simulation scenario, recognizing named entities of the text, and generating an executable simulation scenario. First, we analyze the two types of scenarios involved in the development process of military simulation scenarios: operational scenario and executable scenario. Second, we train a NER model on operational scenario corpus. Then, we compare our distant supervised-based NER method with the other NER methods, and we achieve an overall improvement of F1 score of 9.01%. Finally, to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach, we use a case study to implement a combat simulation scenario development progress.
HaddixFO’BrienLMightR, et al. Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS) technical framework. Technical Document USD/A&T-DMSO-CMMS-0002. Alexandria, VA: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, 1997, pp. 1–3.
2.
KaragözNZorbaHOAtunM, et al. Developing Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS): an experience report. In: Proceedings of the fall simulation interoperability workshop, America, October 2008, pp. 1–10.
3.
WittmanRLJr. Defining a standard: the military scenario definition language version 1.0 standard. In: Proceedings of the 2009 spring simulation multiconference, San Diego, CA, March 2009, pp. 1–5.
4.
TolkA.Engineering principles of combat modeling and distributed simulation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
5.
TolkA.Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation: philosophical foundations for intelligent M&S applications, vol. 44. Berlin: Springer, 2012.
6.
GustavssonPMHiebMRMooreP, et al. Operations intent and effects model. J Def Model Simul2011; 8: 37–59.
7.
HiebMPowersMPullenJ, et al. A Geospatial Battle Management Language (geoBML) for terrain reasoning. In: 11th International Command and Control Research Technology Symposium, Cambridge, UK, September 2006, pp. 1–25.
8.
SchadeUFreyM.A linguistic foundation for communicating geo-information in the context of BML and geoBML. Technical Report, Fraunhofer Society, Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics, Wachtberg, 2010.
9.
Wu LijuanCLPengLYiboG.Military scenario description method based on conceptual knowledge tree. Modern Def Technol2013; 41: 174–179.
10.
NagleJARichmondPWBlaisCL, et al. Using an ontology for entity situational awareness in a simple scenario. J Def Model Simul2008; 5: 139–158.
11.
GonzalezAJCastroJGerberW.Automating the acquisition of tactical knowledge for military missions. J Def Model Simul2005; 2: 145–160.
12.
BlaisCSchadeUSikorskiL, et al. A transformation process for generating an extensible markup language (XML) schema from a formal ontology for practical application in C2SIM implementations. In: 2019 winter simulation innovation workshop, Orlando, FL, 10–15February2019, pp. 1–14. Monterey, CA: Dudley Knox Library.
13.
AronssonSArtmanHMitchellM, et al. LVC allocator: aligning training value with scenario design for envisioned LVC training of fast-jet pilots. J Def Model Simul. Epub ahead of print 7October2020. DOI: 10.1177/1548512920958079.
14.
Ünal Topçu ÖO. Modelling unmanned surface vehicle patrol mission with Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML). J Def Model Simul2014; 11: 277–308.
15.
QuimbayaAPMúneraASRiveraRAG, et al. Named entity recognition over electronic health records through a combined dictionary-based approach. Proc Comp Sci2016; 100: 55–61.
16.
HanischDFundelKMevissenHT, et al. Prominer: rule-based protein and gene entity recognition. BMC Bioinformatics2005; 6(Suppl. 1): S14–S19.
17.
ChengJGuanYHeB.De-identification on electronic medical records using a two tier classifier based on SVM and CRF. Intell Comp Appl2016; 6: 17–19.
18.
LiYLinHYangZ.Incorporating rich background knowledge for gene named entity classification and recognition. BMC Bioinformatics2009; 10: 1–15.
MingyangLFangK.Combined self-attention mechanism for named entity recognition in social media. J Tsinghua Univ (Sci Tech)2019; 59: 461–467.
21.
SongXChenKLiX, et al. Pedestrian trajectory prediction based on deep convolutional LSTM network. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Sys2020; 22: 3285–3302.
22.
MayhewSChaturvediSTsaiCT, et al. Named entity recognition with partially annotated training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:190909270, 2019, pp. 1–11.
23.
ShangJLiuJJiangM, et al. Automated phrase mining from massive text corpora. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng2018; 30: 1825–1837.
24.
CallahanAFriesJARéC, et al. Medical device surveillance with electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med2019; 2: 94–10.
25.
LinTMausamEtzioniO. Entity linking at web scale. In: Proceedings of the joint workshop on automatic knowledge base construction and web-scale knowledge extraction (AKBC-WEKEX), pp. 84–88, https://aclanthology.org/W12-3016/
26.
HeW.Autoentity: automated entity detection from massive text corpora. MS Thesis for Computer Science of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL, 2017, pp. 2319–2320.
27.
PenningtonJSocherRManningCD. Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp. 1532–1543, https://aclanthology.org/D14-1162/
28.
WangXZhangYRenX, et al. Cross-type biomedical named entity recognition with deep multi-task learning. Bioinformatics2019; 35: 1745–1752.
29.
ShangJLiuLRenX, et al. Learning named entity tagger using domain-specific dictionary. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03599, 2018, pp. 2054–2064.
30.
SunJYuHFengY.Recognition of nominated fishery domain entity based on deep learning architectures. J Dalian Ocean Univ2018; 33: 265–269.
31.
PullenMCornerDSingapoguS, et al. Command and control system to simulation system interoperation: development of the C2SIM standard. J Def Model Simul2019; 1–14.
32.
DeitzPHMichaelisJRBrayBE, et al. The missions & means framework (MMF) ontology: matching military assets to mission objectives. In: 21st International Command & Control Research & Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), London, UK, September, 2006, pp. 1–30.
JaferSChhayaBZeiglerBP, et al. SES and ecore for ontology-based scenario modeling in aviation scenario definition language (ASDL). Int J Aviat Aero Aerospace2018; 5: 4.
36.
LiaoXSunZh. Research on combat deduction platform technology for intelligent operational decision. In: DengZ (ed.) Chinese intelligent automation conference. Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–13.
37.
LiXFanJ. Entity relationship extraction method based on dependency syntax analysis and rules. In: Proceedings of the 2019 international conference on robotics systems and vehicle technology, Wuhan, China, 16–18 October, pp. 27–32. New York: ACM.
38.
VoMHLHoangQ. Transformation of UML class diagram into owl ontology. J Inf Telecom2020; 4: 1–16.
39.
MintzMBillsSSnowR, et al. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP, pp.1003–1011, https://aclanthology.org/P09-1113
