Transcript No Slide Title

Software Agents for Coalition Forces
Second International Conference on Knowledge Systems for
Coalition Operations,
23rd and 24th April 2002 Toulouse, France
By Zakaria Maamar, Paul Labbé, and Wathiq Mansoor.
Presented by Paul Labbé, P. Eng., IEEE Senior
Defense R & D Canada
[email protected]
Tel.: +1 (418) 844-4000 x 4479
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse France
This presentation reflects the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the plans and policies of the
Canadian Department of National Defence or of Zayed University
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 1
Abstract
The distributed, heterogeneity, and dynamic nature of the
coalition context has raised the need for new advanced
technologies. These technologies aim at managing the coalition
informational infrastructure, in terms of autonomy, adaptability,
and scalability. To achieve this support, Software Agents (SAs)
seem to be a promising approach. To develop this approach,
different aspects of a coalition has to be identified. These aspects
include the coalition structure; the roles and responsibilities held
by people within the coalition; the flow of information within the
coalition; the capabilities required or available within the
coalition; and the context in which the coalition operates. For
many of these aspects, SAs can be used; . For instance, the
coalition structure can be associated with several SAs of different
types and with different roles.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 2
Introduction
Allied warfare objective
The ultimate objective of Allied Warfare is to increase the
overall Joint/Coalition Force mission and task success rate
and geopolitical influence agreed by the driving Nations.
This objective imposes more difficult to meet requirements
for demanding operations as in littoral warfare theater.
The generation of the necessary conditions to increase the
speed and accuracy of Joint/Coalition command and control
include but are not limited to the material of this presentation.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 3
Requirement Specification
From live coalition exercises
• The Force Over the Horizon Track Coordinator (FOTC)
data base resulted in many large inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in the Global Command and Control
System- Maritime (GCCS-M) picture (identity attribute of
tracks (ID) jumping and time lateness)
• Operators believed picture to be accurate
• Stale data used to make decisions (Blue Force was
successfully ambushed by Orange ships)
• FOTC held correct ID on several Hostile Tracks while
LINK 11 reported them as Unknown for long periods
• Orange ships came within weapons range of high value
blue units (Kittyhawk) without being reported for long
periods of time
• Sanitization rules within Radiant Mercury strip vital data
(e.g. source data)
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 4
Agent-based architecture
How to deal with interoperability
issues?
Users' needs
issue
-a-
SAs
WFs
Interoperability
environment
Distribution
issue
-b-
Dis. Object
Computing
Information
disparity issue
-c-
Ontology
Code
Mobility
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 5
Three dimensions of
interoperability issues:
physical interconnectivity, application integration, and command collaboration
Coalition
mission
MAS 1
Military Forces 1
Headquarter
MAS i
Commandment level
use
Collaboration
use
rely on
Services
Application level
build on
Physical level
Military Forces i
Coordination
space
Commandment level
Headquarter
use
rely on
Services
Application level
Integration
invoke
invoke
Interconnectivity
build on
Physical level
Network
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 6
We propose a software agent
architecture and structure to
resolve some of these issues!
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meeting infrastructure
Information exchange control
Multi-agent environment
Security of execution and sharing
Shared decision-making
…..
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 7
Agent-based architecture
A software agent definition
• An autonomous entity having the abilities to assist
users when performing their operations, to
collaborate with each other to jointly solve different
problems, and to answer users' needs
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 8
Agent-based architecture
A simplified CCIS model
•
A structure and a set of functions and tasks
Users
CCIS
Planning
Data fusion
Functions
Communication
Resources (software,hardware)
Structure
External environment
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 9
Agent-based architecture
Architecture for interoperable CCISs
• Aspects to be dealt with
– Maintain the autonomy and independence of the CCISs
– Reduce the informational disparities of the
interconnected CCISs
– Protect the interconnected CCISs from the unauthorized
accesses
– Evaluate the communication channels performance,
particularly in low-bandwidth situations (QoS, CSNI)
– Help users satisfy their needs without worrying about the
characteristics of the CCISs
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 10
Agent-based architecture
CCIS 1
Function11
Interface-Agent
1
Function1i
CCIS-Agent
1
Resolution-Agent 1
MAS1
Control-Agent
1
SA-Supervisor
Advertisement Infrastructure
Autonomy management
Low -bandw idth&unreliable
netw ork
Remote interaction/Mobility
Control-Agent
2
MAS2
Interface-Agent
2
CCIS-Agent
Function21
2
Resolution-Agent 2
Function2j
CCIS 2
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 11
Agent-based architecture
Architecture main characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface-Agent
CCIS-Agent/Function-Agent
Resolution-Agent
Control-Agent
Supervisor-Agent
Advertisment infrastructure
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 12
Agent-based architecture
Interface-Agent
• It assists users in formulating needs, maps needs into
requests, forwards requests to the CCIS-Agent in
order to be processed, and provides users with
answers obtained from the CCIS-Agent.
Communication layer
User
Needs
Answ ers
Formulation
module
Requests
Answ ers
CCIS-Agent
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 13
Agent-based architecture
CCIS-Agent
• It processes user requests received from the
Interface-Agent, but only if these requests require the
involvement of the CCIS of this particular CCIS-Agent.
In the proposed architecture, a CCIS-Agent has the
ability to advertise its services by posting notes on
the Bulletin Board of the Advertisement Infrastructure.
To do so, the CCIS-Agent can either send a remote
request to the Supervisor-Agent or can migrate to this
infrastructure; the choice is based on the network
status. In both cases, i.e., remote request or softmobility, a security level associated with the CCISAgent is used to identify the services this CCIS-Agent
is authorized to advertise.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 14
Agent-based architecture
Turning CCISs into agents of MAS
• Purpose: making a CCIS to behave like a SA
– Build a SA on top of the CCIS
Other MASs
MAS 1
CCIS-Agent
1
Requests/Answ ers forw ards
Function-Agent
Function
Function-Agent
11
11
Requests/Results
CCIS
Function
1i
1i
1
Functions initiation
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 15
CCIS-Agent and
Function-Agent modules
Resolution-Agent
Answ ers
Sub-requests
Services
Communication layer
Adminsitrator
Requests
Sub-answ ers
Interface-Agent
Requests
Answ ers
Preprocessing
module
Definition
module
Services
Supervisor-Agent
Requests
CCIS
capabilities
Answ ers
Updates
Processing
module
Monitoring
module
Communication layer
CCIS functions
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 16
Agent-based architecture
Resolution-Agent
Communication layer
Browsing
module
Queries
CCISs
Bulletin Board
CCISs
Creation
(Help-Agent)
Communication layer
Queries
CCIS-Agent
Requests
Answ ers
Sub-answ ers
Preprocessing
module
Creation
Slave
module
Transfer
(Help-Agent)
Adv. Infra.
Route
Creation
(Route-Agent)
Answ ers
Sub-queries
Performance
module
Sub-queries
Sub-answ ers
CCIS-Agents
Communication layer
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 17
Agent-based architecture
Control-Agent
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 18
Agent-based architecture
Supervisor-Agent
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 19
Agent-based architecture
Advertisement Infrastructure
• In an interoperating environment, CCISs are generally
spread across networks and rely on low capacity and
unreliable channels for communication. Moreover, a
military user may use his Combat Net Radio to send and
request information or may rely on mobile devices, such
as portable computers, that are only intermittently
connected to networks. In the proposed architecture, to
avoid overloading the network, CCIS-Agents and
Resolution-Agents migrate to the Advertisement
Infrastructure in which CCIS-Agents advertise their
services by posting notes on the Bulletin Board, whereas
Resolution-Agents consult the Bulletin Board to identify
the CCISs that are required to satisfy user needs.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 20
Agent-based architecture
Advertisement Infrastructure
2. Security check
CCIS-Agent
1. Remote request
5. Acknow ledgment
SupervisorAgent
3. Registration
4. Posting
Repository
of Active
Agents
Bulletin Board
note 1
note i
Advertisement Infrastructure
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 21
Agent-based architecture
In actions
Users
Administrator
Initialization
Advertisement
Operation
Maintenance
Help
3. Security check
1. Help-Agent creation
Resolution-Agent
2. Transfer
6. Acknow ledgment
SupervisorAgent
4. Registration
5.
Installation
Repository
of Active
Agents
Service-Agent
Advertisement Infrastructure
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 22
Agent-based architecture
Satisfying a user
CCIS 1
Function11
Function-Agent11
0. Needs
6.a/16.b Answ ers
Function-Agent1i
3.a data/4.a results
MAS 1
Interface-Agent
1. Request
1
5.a/15.b
Answ ers
CCIS-Agent
3.b Request
1
14.b Answ ers
Resolution-Agent
1
7.b Route design
8.b Route-Agent
creation
2. CCISs identification
4.b Queries
6.b CCISs
MAS 2
9.b/13.b Mobility
10.b Local computing
(Route-Agent 1)
CCIS-Agent
2
5.b Notes
User
Function1i
Service-Agent
Bulletin Board
Advertisement Infrastructure
11.b Remote computing
(Route-Agent)
12.b Answ ers
MAS 3
CCIS-Agent
3
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 23
Improving Information Sharing
Preliminary analysis
• What information is to be managed, and what are the properties of
this information?
– Identify and categorize information items
– Specify source, destination, size, update period, comm paths,
security
• Under what circumstances will the information be used and
managed?
– Define: Context = Goal  Stable Conditions  Dynamic Conditions
– Specify the Importance (I) of each Context
• What a priori assessments can be made about the value of the
different types of information in specific circumstances?
– Potential (P): relevance of information for a Context
– Quality (Q): how accurate information should be for a Context
– Timeliness (T): how recent information should be for a Context
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 24
Improving Information Sharing
Prioritization rule set
OBJECTIVE: Optimize use of system resources (e.g., BW), and
ensure most valuable information is processed first
Priority(i,) = w I · ( wP Pi + wQ Qi + wT Ti + X )
i = information item
 = context
I = Importance of 
w, wP, wQ, wT = weighting factors
For example:
Pi 
Qi 
Ti  =
X =
= Potential of i for 
= Quality of i for 
Timeliness of i for 
accounts for other factors
(e.g., dynamic conditions)
X = f ( Qi , qi , Ti , i )
qi = measured quality of i
i = actual timeliness of i
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 25
Improving Information Sharing
Quality assignment rule set
OBJECTIVE: Assess the information attributes found in
Coalition databases with the aim of
integrating different data sources
• Maintain separate track position and ID quality measures
• Account for intrinsic sensor limitations (e.g., range,
environmental conditions) --> the best sensor does not
always have the best data
• Provide a systematic and consistent statistical definition
of error
• Allow degradation in position quality during DR
• Problem: For security reasons, information is often
sanitized or partially stripped (e.g., source) before
dissemination, making quality assessment difficult
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 26
Impact of changes on mission
N
N
N
N
N
H
CS
with prediction
H
H
IH-P
N
F
N
N
H
H
without prediction
H
N U
N
IH
IH
H
actual
target
model-based measures
CS
IH
IH-P
H
F
N
U
F
F F
- commander’s ship
- intended hostile target
- IH predicted position
- hostile
- friend
- neutral
- unknown
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 27
Cost of time to discover, deliberate/fuse
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
Value of the information presented
to a commander in hypothetical OTH
–T for the surface hostile contacts
reported.
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
Average Value
0.50
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
-0.5--0.3
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
This axis can be
interpreted as a
combination of positional
inaccuracies of surface
hostile contacts reported.
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
This axis shows the age or
delay since sensor time of
surface hostile contacts
reported after processing and
deliberation.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 28
Discovery/fusion gain (recipe)
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
0.50
-0.5--0.3
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 29
Gain in applying recipe to updates
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
0.3-0.5
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
0.50
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
-0.5--0.3
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 30
Loss in sharing the result
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
4 cost for
sharing
0.50
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
-0.5--0.3
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 31
Sharing recipe preserve gain + capacity
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
5 improvement by sharing
recipe instead of fusion results
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
4 cost for
sharing
0.50
-0.3--0.1
-0.5--0.3
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 32
Improving interoperability + sharing
• Must be able to measure value of local discovery or fusion.
• When a discovery or fusion improves own picture above the
received picture by a given threshold
– display this result locally
– send own data used in recipe
– send recipe with list of ingredients (track# used)
– responsible for sending own data for this recipe until
found inadequate locally or remotely.
• Eliminate data incest and does not require the sharing of
source identity (avoid loss of information required for
appropriate MSDF) but provide an improved confidence in
shared information. Provide “track pedigree”.
• First steps in developing agreed information quality schemes.
• Important unit and force effectiveness gain for various
missions.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 33
Cost of time to discover, deliberate/fuse
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
Value of the information presented
to a commander in hypothetical OTH
–T for the surface hostile contacts
reported.
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
Average Value
0.50
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
-0.5--0.3
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
This axis can be
interpreted as a
combination of positional
inaccuracies of surface
hostile contacts reported.
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
This axis shows the age or
delay since sensor time of
surface hostile contacts
reported after processing and
deliberation.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 34
Discovery/fusion gain (recipe)
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
0.50
-0.5--0.3
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 35
Gain in applying recipe to updates
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
0.3-0.5
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
0.50
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
-0.5--0.3
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 36
Loss in sharing the result
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
4 cost for
sharing
0.50
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
-0.1-0.1
-0.3--0.1
-0.5--0.3
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 37
Sharing recipe preserve gain + capacity
FOTC - Pertinence of engagement (POE)
5 improvement by sharing
recipe instead of fusion results
2 gain
from
discovery
Average Value
1 time to
discovery
cost
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
-0.1-0.1
4 cost for
sharing
0.50
-0.3--0.1
-0.5--0.3
3 gain
with
updates
0.30
0.10
0
-0.10
4
8
-0.30
12
-0.50
CUA radius (km)
16
0
10
20
30
Delay (min)
40
50
20
60
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 38
Improving interoperability + sharing
• Must be able to measure value of local discovery or fusion.
• When a discovery or fusion improves own picture above the
received picture by a given threshold
– display this result locally
– send own data used in recipe
– send recipe with list of ingredients (track# used)
– responsible for sending own data for this recipe until
found inadequate locally or remotely.
• Eliminate data incest and does not require the sharing of
source identity (avoid loss of information required for
appropriate MSDF) but provide an improved confidence in
shared information. Provide “track pedigree”.
• First steps in developing agreed information quality schemes.
• Important unit and force effectiveness gain for various
missions.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 39
Conclusions and recommendations
•The impact on mission effectiveness of adopting a
meeting infrastructure exploiting agent-based
architectures for CCISs need to be considered and be
accurately assessed.
•Presented major characteristics of the MAS
interoperability approach and the design of collaborative
environments for distributed and heterogeneous CCISs.
•Eight types of SAs exist in the architecture proposed for
coalition support (Interface-Agent, CCIS-Agent,
Resolution-Agent, Control-Agent, Function-Agent,
Supervisor-Agent, Help-Agent, Route-Agent) while four
stages describe this architecture operating (Initialization,
Advertisement, Operation, Maintenance).
•Further works need to be done for demonstrating the
value of the coalition embedded characteristics of the
proposed infrastructure.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 40
Conclusions and recommendations (cont’d)
Using information value for optimizing end users’
shared awareness is not simple but the potential
gains outweigh the effort required, by delivering
increases in mission precision and success rate
that guarantee long term benefits and would
increase public support.
An agent-based architecture would also provide
cost effective capabilities for future
improvements, measurability, maintainability and
support for training and simulation.
KSCO April 2002 Toulouse p. 41