Coalition Agents eXperiment - The Coalition TIE

1

Supported by DARPA CoABS Program
Coalition Agents eXperiment (CoAX) The Coalition
TIE http//www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coax/ AFRL
Rome, AIAI, Boeing, Dartmouth, DERA Malvern,
Lockheed Martin ATL, Michigan, MIT Sloan,
Stanford, USC/ISI Support from GITI, ISX, Mitre
2
(No Transcript)
3
Scope

• Coalition TIE
• Coalition Scenario - Binni
• Technical Approach
• Initial Demonstration
• Plans and Timescales
• Management Plan
• Summary

4
Coalition TIE Overview

• Aim of demonstrations is to show
• interoperability between Coalition applications
  and information services (via the DARPA CoABS
  Grid) by using a heterogeneous agent community in
  multiple distinct domains.
• Aim will be met through a number of phased
  technical demonstrations of increasing complexity.

5
Coalition Scenario Features

• Different doctrine, decision making, rules of
  engagement and, in general, mission agendas.
• Different technology skill and equipment levels.
• Different cultures and languages.
• Questionable compatibility of respective national
  information systems.
• Limited models for coalition force operations.
• Command authorities - agreement and transfers.
• Variable reliability of components and
  infrastructures.
• Information systems resource sharing agreements
  and capacity.
• Different interpretation of situational
  information.
• Lack of compatible security architectures.

From LeRoy Pearce (Canadian MOD), 1999
6
Binni - Gateway to the Golden Bowl of Africa -
2011
Rathmell, R.A. (1999) A Coalition Force Scenario
'Binni - Gateway to the Golden Bowl of Africa',
in Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Knowledge-Based Planning for Coalition Forces,
(ed. Tate, A.) pp. 115-125, Edinburgh, Scotland,
10th-11th May 1999.
7
Key Technical Drivers

• Working with agents in multiple dynamic domains.
• Need for partial sharing of data and facilities.
• Cannot assume compatibility or complete
  reliability of functional capabilities,
  communications, security arrangements or
  information resources.
• Need to integrate and use legacy systems.
• Need for rapid formation and management of agent
  relationships.
• Need to respect national concerns, limitations,
  cultural and political differences, etc.
• Unclear and/or emerging objectives and tasking.

8
Research Issues

• Agent Domain Management.
• Dynamic agent organization formation and
  management.
• Inter-agent Task and Process Management.
• Come as you are capabilities and data sources.
• Detection and diagnosis of agent compatibility
  problems, protocol violations and other
  exceptions.
• Partial (secure) sharing of capabilities and
  information.
• Shared and local visualizations for processes and
  information.

9
Technical Approach
Grid-Aware Agent Frameworks EMAA/CAST Agents (LM
ATL) KAoS Agents (Boeing)
10
Multiple Areas of Concerns
Coalition
US
UK
Sub-US
X-Country Function (e.g. intelligence)
11
Dynamic Domain Management
1. Islands of Common Policy 2. Points of Common
Administration
Country X Domain
Country Y Domain
Subdomain A
Subdomain B
Coalition Domain
12
Demo Arrangements
Narrator
Domain Management Task Process
Management Incentives Management Robustness
Services
13
Month 1 - Initial Demo

• Demonstration involves AFRL Rome, DERA Malvern
  and LM ATL and is a first (risk reduction) step
  toward CoAX.
• Demo shows legacy applications can be usefully
  integrated into an agent framework.

14
MBP Situation Map (Blue View)
15
CoAX Management Plan

• 4 phased demos 1, 9, 18 and 30 months.
• 4 grid management services being explored
• Domain Management
• Task and Process Management
• Robustness and Exception Management
• Incentives Management.
• 3 types of involvement in TIE
• Coalition-driven Management Services AIAI,
  Boeing, DERA, MIT, Stanford
• Coalition-driven Capabilities AFRL, Dartmouth,
  DERA, LM ATL, Michigan, USC/ISI
• Coalition Scenario Usage others.
• Buddy System.
• 18 month demo is a focal point to engage other
  nations and research teams.

16
Plans and Timescales

• February 2000 (Month 1) - Initial AFRL/DERA/LM
  ATL demo.
• July 2000 (Month 6) - AFRL, AIAI, Boeing, DERA
  and LM ATL agents working together on the CoABS
  grid via KAoS on a simple agent task. Multiple
  domain design document. Scenario description.
• October 2000 (Month 9) - Demo incorporating MBP,
  EMAA/CAST, CAMPS and Ariadne.
• July 2001 (Month 18) - Coalition scenario demo
  with fixed domains to CoABS and TTCP
  Representatives.
• July 2002 (Month 30) - Larger scale demo with
  more domains and agents including dynamic domain
  management and dynamic tasking.

17
Planned Inputs

• February 2000 (Month 1) - AFRL, DERA, LM ATL
  responsible for demo.
• July 2000 (Month 6) All participants have
  provided input to scenario, all participants in
  month 9 demo are on-the-grid.
• October 2000 (Month 9) AFRL, AIAI, Boeing,
  DERA, LM ATL, USC/ISI responsible for core demo.
  Michigan, MIT and Stanford provide on-the-grid
  add-on demos and storyboards in agreed coalition
  scenario.
• July 2001 (Month 18) All current participants
  in joint demo.
• July 2002 (Month 30) Possible participation of
  other nations (especially TTCP) and CoABS
  participants.

18
Further Information

• See http//www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coax/
• coax_at_aiai.ed.ac.uk, coax-info_at_aiai.ed.ac.uk
• Outstanding Issues follow.
• Spare slides.

19
CoAX Outstanding Issues

• Mike Kirton suggests that we seek to relate the
  list of coalition and technical objectives to
  the specific demonstrations we plan.
• Mike Kirton notes that discussion in the TIE is
  needed to establish how the scenario maps to I-X
  and that maps to KAoS Domain Management.

20
Types of Involvement in TIE

• Task management services
• Task and process management (AIAI)
• Incentive management (Stanford)
• Agent management services
• Domain management (Boeing)
• Robustness (MIT)
• Agent-management-aware capabilities
• MBP (DERA)
• CAMPS (AFRL)
• Ariadne (USC/ISI)
• Other Capabilities
• Ariadne (USC/ISI) unmodified
• EMAA/CAST (LM-ATL)
• O-Plan (AIAI)
• Multi-level Coordination Agent (Michigan)
• Intelligence Agent (Dartmouth)

21
Agent-Management-Aware Services Structure
Agent
Agent Capability
Agent Management Helper
Service requester
Come-as- you-are Agent
Agent Management Services provider
22
Jeffs Slide for Conceptual Architecture
Task- and Agent-Management-Aware Agent
Capabilities Combined with Human Capabilities
Agent
Agent Management Helper
Service requester
Service requester
Agent Management Services functionality
Agent Task Management Services functionality
Service provider
Service provider
23
Austins Slide for Conceptual Architecture
24
Agent Activity Triggers

• Examples of situations which will trigger the
  need for information exchange by the agents
  include
• User checks to see if air units are over tasked,
• Arrival of new information on the location /
  status of a SAM site,
• User creates a new package / mission and needs to
  know whether Coalition assets are available,
• Changes to plan details have to be disseminated
  to Coalition National HQs, wings, units etc,
• User checks to see if missions have completed
  their tasks.

25
Agent Activity - Information

• Examples of information to be collected,
  transformed and exchanged by the agents includes
• Entity attributes
• Location, status.
• Co-ordination information
• Timing - e.g. mission critical points
  (waypoints),
• Membership of missions / packages,
• Current 'parent' unit, etc
• 'Bean counting'
• Numbers over tasked, currently airborne etc,

26
AFRL/DERA/LM ATL Demo(2)
27
AFRL/DERA/LM ATL Demo Situation at Day 3

• TFM 95
• Based at RAF Leuchars
• Day 3 - 29th September
• Overland offensive, Iona
• Mythical opponent
• UNCLASSIFIED data ...