Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Title: Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes With LeaderSIM


1
Simulating Geopolitical Decision Making Processes
With LeaderSIM

• Barry Silverman
• Mike Johns
• Gnana BarthyEvan Sandhaus
• January 2006

2
PMFServ Architecture
3
PMFServ Architecture
4
Agents in Role Playing Game Simulations
Human

• Game
• World
• Territory
• Resources
• Groups
• Threats
• Tributes
• Bluffs
• Battles
• etc.

Actions Utterances
Actions Utterances
Actions Utterances
Agent
Agent
5
LeaderSim Architecture
XMLRPC
GameServer
Human Users
6
LeaderSim Game Elements
Actions
Acknowledge Legitimacy Open Embassy Acquire Black Market WMD Activate Biological WMD Activate Chemical WMD Activate Nuclear WMD Air Strike Appease Fanatics Bust Corporate Lobbying Covert Weapons Search Create Aid Project Create Biological WMD Create Chemical WMD Create Nuclear WMD Debt Forgiveness Destroy WMD
Do
Control
Affect
Have
7
(No Transcript)
8
Action Selection Algorithm
Power Vulnerability Scale
PaymentStrategy
Action
Alignment
WMD
Attacking/TargetResource Pairs
PMFServ
Goals Tree
ReservoirDifferences
RankedAttacking/TargetResource Pairs
RankedActions
Offensive / DefensiveActions
9
Power And Vulnerability

• Power
• Measurement of an agents ability to act upon the
  resources of others
• Vulnerability
• Measurement of the ability of other agents to act
  upon ones own resources

10
Goals, Standards And Preferences

• Goals
• Best envisioned as steps in a plan to accomplish
  a task
• Typically start with I will
• Standards
• Typically socially-imposed guidelines for
  behavior
• Typically start with People should or People
  should not
• Preferences
• Ideals about the desired state of the world
• Typically start with I like or I dislike

11
Goal Tree
Goals
Grow
Protect
Economy
Black Market
Foreign Aid
Military
Diplomacy
WMD Programs
Media
Zealots
People
Authority
Economy
Black Market
Foreign Aid
Military
Diplomacy
WMD Programs
Media
Zealots
People
Authority
12
Standards Tree
Standards
Military Doctrine
Treatment of Out Groups
SensitivityToLife
Scope OfDoing Good
Task RelationshipBalance
Exercise of Power
Be Relationship Focused
Look After Narrower Interests
Bring About Greater Good
Use Asymmetric Attacks
Use Conventional Attacks
Out Groups are Legitimate Targets
Treat with Fairness and Justice
Not Sensitive
Sensitive
Be Task Focused
Be Open
Be Controlling
Resolve Issues by Negotiation
Provide Help
Neutral is Out Group
Only Conventional
Also Conventional
Friend is Out Group
Enemy is Out Group
Help Enemies too
Help Neutrals
Help Friends
13
Preferences Tree
Preferences
- Home Territory
- Friendly Territory
- Neutral Territory
- Contested Territory
Enemy Territory
- Own Resources
- Allys Resources
- Neutrals Resources
Enemys Resources
- Authority
- People
- Zealots
- Media
- WMD Programs
Grow
- Diplomacy
Maintain
- Foreign Aid
Contain
- Black Market
Reduce
Economy
14
AI Perceptions
Leader 1
Territory 1
Territory 2
Leader 2
Leader 3
Territory 3
Leader 4
Territory 4
Light Asymmetric Stick
Leader 5
WMD Genocide
Asymmetric Stick
Political Sticks
Carrot
Self Organization
Territory 5
Military Stick
Light Mil Stick
Action 1
Action 2
Action 3
Action 4
15
Scope of LeaderSim
Prototype Territories (3) Resources (3) Actions
(5) Total (3x3x5xpayment levels) x no. of
plies x N leaders (3)
ScaleUp Territories (10) Resources (10) Actions
(70) Total (10x10x70xpayment levels) x no. of
plies x N leaders (10)

• References www.seas.upenn.edu/barryg/HBMR.html
• .Silverman, BG, Rees, R., Toth, J, et al., (2005,
  Jan).Athenas Prism A Diplomatic Strategy Role
  Playing Game for Generating Ideas and Exploring
  Alternatives, 1st Internatl Conf on Intel Anal
• Silverman, B.G., Johns, M., Bharathy, G. (2004,
  August). Agent-Based Simulation of Leaders.
  ACASA/UPenn, Tech Report.
• Silverman, B.G., Johns, M., et al. (2002, May).
  Constructing Virtual Asymmetric Opponents from
  Data and Models in the Literature." 11th BRIMS,
  SISO.

16
Prototype LeaderSim Results
Using threats, Yellow turns Red and Blue against
one another
Nash Equilib 2 winners in conflictual world
Rare 3 in endgame. Yellow specialized away from
Red and Blue.
Ys power is curtailed early. Y then uses
treaties to negotiate peace.