Table of Contents Table of contents are roughly in

0 downloads 0 Views 16MB Size Report
Mar 24, 2010 - currently located at Brooks City-Base: the United States Air Force. School of ... RFP release: Dec 2007. • Contract ...... HFES, Santa Monica, CA.
Table of Contents Table of contents are roughly in order of presentation. Papers in the proceedings are roughly in order of submission. Whole 2010 proceedings as pdf . I. TUTORIALS 10-BRIMS-117 Cognitive Crash Dummies: Here today, look toward tomorrow Bonnie John. 85-86. 10-BRIMS-009 Systems social science: A design inquiry approach for stabilization and reconstruction of social systems Barry Silverman. 18. II. PLENARY SPEAKERS 10-BRIMS-001 The shape of things to come: An emerging constellation of interconnected tools for developing the right cognitive model at the right scale Wayne Gray. 1-2. 10-BRIMS-002 When hatred is bred in the bone: The psychocultural foundations of contemporary terrorism Jerrold Post. 3. 10-BRIMS-003 Representing human behavior: Where to next? LCDR Joseph V. Cohn. 4. 10-BRIMS-004 Intertemporal behavior: How people discount the future— Experimental data and formal representation Robert Axtell. 5. III. SPONSOR PRESENTATIONS 10-BRIMS-005 Army Research Lab John Lockett. 6-7. 10-BRIMS-006 Air Force Research Lab Kevin Gluck. 8-9. 10-BRIMS-007 Ministry of Defence (UK) Bharatkumar Patel. 10-13. 10-BRIMS-008 NASA Brian Gore. 14-17. IV. PAPERS 10-BRIMS-119 Reducing the variability between novice modelers: Results of a tool for human performance modeling produced through human-centered design Bonnie John. 95-102. 10-BRIMS-153 Plan, replan and plan to replan: Algorithms for robust courses i

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Report Documentation Page

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE

MAR 2010

00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

BRIMS Society, Inc,3126 Alexander Pl # 208,Dayton,OH,45431 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. REPORT

b. ABSTRACT

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

unclassified

unclassified

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

Same as Report (SAR)

332

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

of action under strategic uncertainty Maciej Latek & Seyed Mussavi Rizi. 289-295. 10-BRIMS-111 Projecting grammatical features in nominals: Cognitive processing theory & computational implementation Jerry Ball. 55-62. 10-BRIMS-128 Modeling the control of attention in complex visual displays Kelly Steelman-Allen & Jason McCarley. 140-145. 10-BRIMS-131 Modeling behavioral activities related to IED perpetration Lora Weiss, Elizabeth Whitaker, Erica Briscoe & Ethan Trewhitt. 162-169. 10-BRIMS-108 Modeling complex social behavior: A system dynamics approach John Sokolowski & Catherine Banks. 37-46. 10-BRIMS-142 Process modeling for the study of non-state political violence Olivier Georgeon, Jonathan Morgan, John Horgan & Kurt Braddock. 240-247. 10-BRIMS-138 A hybrid model of ethnic conflict, repression, insurgency and social strife Stacy Lovell Pfautz & Michael Salwen. 211-215. 10-BRIMS-113 Dynamic data and modeling services suite Tina Chau, Alexander Moore, Richard Mullikin & Janet Wedgwood. 65-72. 10-BRIMS-103 Identification and application of neurophysiologic synchronies for studying the dynamics of teamwork Ronald Stevens, Trysha Galloway, Chris Berka & Adrienne Behneman. 21-28. 10-BRIMS-140 Improving usability and integration of human behavior representation engineering across cognitive modeling, human factors, and modeling and simulation best practices Sylvain Pronovost & Robert West. 224-231. 10-BRIMS-152 Extracting the ontological structure of OpenCyc for reuse and portability of cognitive models Bradley Best, Nathan Gerhart & Christian Lebiere. 282-288. 10-BRIMS-144 Taxonomy and method for handling large and diverse sets of interactive objects in immersive environment David Pietrocola & Barry Silverman. 256-262. 10-BRIMS-136 Shifts of critical personnel in network centric organizations Craig Schreiber, Kathleen Carley & Jeffrey Hansberger. 195-202. 10-BRIMS-151 An agent-based model of conflict in East Africa and the effect of watering holes William Kennedy, Atesmachew Hailegiorgis, Mark Rouleau, Jeffrey Bassett, Mark Coletti, Gabriel Balan & Tim Gulden. 274-281. 10-BRIMS-143 Resistance is futile: Winning lemonade market share through metacognitive reasoning in a three-agent cooperative game David Reitter, Ion Juvina, Andrea Stocco & Christian Lebiere. 248-255. 10-BRIMS-126 Modeling the theory of planned behavior from survey data for action choice in social simulations Jonathan Alt & Stephen Lieberman. 126-133. ii

10-BRIMS-137 Social identity modeling: Past work and relevant issues for socio-cultural modeling [Best paper award] Jonathon Kopecky, Nathan Bos & Ariel Greenberg. 203-210. 10-BRIMS-130 Cognitive model exploration and optimization: A new challenge for computational science [Recommended Read] L. Richard Moore Jr. 154-161. 10-BRIMS-145 Sailing to the model’s Edge: Testing the limits of parameter space and scaling [Recommended Read] Amy Santamaria & Walter Warwick. 263-269. 10-BRIMS-139 Modeling situation awareness for Army infantry platoon leaders using fuzzy cognitive mapping techniques [Best paper award] Rashaad Jones, Erik Connors, Mary Mossey, John Hyatt, Neil Hansen & Mica Endsley. 216-223. 10-BRIMS-134 Modeling human eye-movements for military simulations [Recommended Read] Patrick Jungkunz & Christian Darken. 179-186. 10-BRIMS-155 Adapting the taxon-task-taxon methodology to model the impacts of chemical protective gear [Best paper award] Shane Mueller, George Anno, Corey Fallon, Gene McClellan, & Owen Price. 304-309. 10-BRIMS-129 Collaboration and modeling support in CogLaborate [Best paper award] Reuben Cornel, Robert St. Amant & Jeff Shrager. 146-153. V. SHORT TALKS 10-BRIMS-125 Cognitive flexibility through learning from constraint violations Dongkyu Choi & Stellan Ohlsson 118-125. 10-BRIMS-122 Human capacity development through simulations: Constructive simulations as a basis for understanding competency requirements in initiative based tactics Bruno Emond. 110-117. 10-BRIMS-135 Rapid development of intelligent agents in first/third-person training simulations via behavior-based Contro George Alexander, Frederick Heckel, G. Michael Youngblood, D. Hunter Hale & Nikhil Ketkar. 187-194. 10-BRIMS-106 Developing a cognitive model of expert performance for ship navigation maneuvers in an intelligent tutoring System Jason Wong, Susan Kirschenbaum & Stanley Peters. 29-36. 10-BRIMS-110 Plan ahead: Pricing ITS learner models Jeremiah Folsom-Kovarik, Sae Schatz & Denise Nicholson. 47-54. 10-BRIMS-157 Subjective logic for composing utility functions from Maslow models Nathan Denny. 312-316. 10-BRIMS-154 Data-driven coherence models Peter Danenberg & Stacy Marsella. 296-303. iii

10-BRIMS-127 Agent frameworks for discrete event social simulations Jonathan Alt & Stephen Lieberman. 134-139. 10-BRIMS-118 Cultural geography model validation Lisa Jean Bair, Eric Weisel & Richard Brown. 87-94. 10-BRIMS-141 Procedure design and validation by cognitive task model Simulations Tina Mioch, Tomasz Mistrzy & Frank Rister. 232-239. VI. SYMPOSIA/PANELS 10-BRIMS-159 Human behavior modeling in network science Chairs: Sibel Adali & Jeffrey Hansberger; Panelists: William Wallace, Wayne Gray, Ching-Yung Lim & David Hachen. 317-318. 10-BRIMS-146 Results and lessons learned from the 2009 DSF Model Comparison Challenge Chair: Walter Warwick; Panelists: Varun Dutt, Kevin Gluck & David Reitter. 270-271. VII. POSTERS 10-BRIMS-112 Modeling a visual search task with a secondary task in IMPRINT Carolyn Buck-Gengler, William Raymond, Alice Healy, & Lyle Bourne, Jr. 63-64. 10-BRIMS-147 Applying the Human Behavior Architecture in the simulation of a networked command, control and communication structure Walter Warwick. 272-273. 10-BRIMS-156 Prediction intervals for future performance Kelly Addis, Michael Krusmark, Tiffany Jastrzembsk, Kevin Gluck & Stuart Rodgers. 310-311. 10-BRIMS-161 Evaluating behavior modeling toolsets Jennifer Pagan, Beth Wheeler Atkinson & Melissa Walwanis Nelson. 319-320. 10-BRIMS-114 Dynamic Data and Modeling Services Suite Tina Chau, Alexander Moore, Richard Mullikin & Janet Wedgwood. 73-74. 10-BRIMS-166 Policy analysis using Q-learning Ceyhun Eksin. 321-326 10-BRIMS-115 Tactical behavior composition Evan Clark, Joel Eichelberger & Jeffrey Smith. 75-82. 10-BRIMS-121 Levy Distributed Search Behaviors for mobile target locating and tracking William Lenagh & Prithviraj Dasgupta. 103-109. 10-BRIMS-133 Imperfect situation awareness: Representing error and uncertainty in modeling, simulation & analysis of small unit military operations Victor Middleton. 170-178. VIII. DEMONSTRATIONS 10-BRIMS-116 CogTool: Predictive human performance modeling by demonstration iv

Bonnie John. 83-84. 10-BRIMS-101 Creating realistic human behavior in physical security systems simulation Volkan Ustun & Jeffrey Smith. 19-20. Papers can be cited as: Georgeon, O. L., Morgan, J. H., Horgan, J., & Braddock, K. (2010). Process modeling for the study of non-state political violence. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 10-BRIMS-142. 240-247. BRIMS Society: Charleston, SC. BRIMS CONFERENCE COMMITTEE 2010 Conference Chair: Tiffany Jastrzembski, Air Force Research Laboratory Executive Committee: Joe Armstrong, CAE, Publicity Committee Sheila Banks, Calculated Insight Brad Best, Adaptive Cognitive Systems, Technical Program Co-Chair Brad Cain, Defence Research and Development Canada, Publicity Committee Andrew Cowell, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Nathan Denny, 21st Century Systems, BRIMS Wiki Co-Lead Uwe Dompke, NATO C3, Publicity Committee Avelino Gonzalez, University of Central Florida Coty Gonzalez, Carnegie Mellon University, Paper Review Co-Chair Jeff Hansberger, Army Research Laboratory, Troy Kelley, Army Research Laboratory Bill Kennedy, George Mason University, Technical Program Co-Chair Christian Lebiere, Carnegie Mellon University, Publicity Committee Bharat Patel, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, UK Frank Ritter, Pennsylvania State University, Technical Program Co-Chair Barry Silverman, University of Pennsylvania, Tutorial Chair Lt Col David Sonntag, Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development, BRIMS v

Wiki Lead Webb Stacy, Aptima, Publicity Committee Michael Van Lent, SoarTech Walter Warwick, Alion, Paper Review Co-Chair Poster & Exhibits Program-Jeanne Eury/Lodestar Group SPONSORS The BRIMS Conference thanks the following sponsors for their continued support for this year’s Conference. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Army Research Institute (ARI) Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Office of Naval Research (ONR) Natick Soldier Research, Development, & Engineering Center (NSC) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Copyright 2010, BRIMS Society, Inc. Permission is hereby granted to quote any of the material herein, or to make copies thereof, for non-commercial purposes, as long as proper attribution is made and this copyright notice is included. All other uses are prohibited without written permission from the BRIMS Society, Inc. Additional copies of this material can be obtained from the BRIMS Society, Inc., or from the BRIMS's web site at www.brimsconference.org. BRIMS would like to thank the following sponsors...

vi

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Wayne Gray Wayne Gray is a researcher in the fields of computational cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, interactive behavior, cognitive task analysis, cognitive workload, and human error. Since earning his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley he has worked for government and industry research laboratories, as well as universities. He is currently a Professor of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Wayne is a Fellow of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (HFES), the Cognitive Science Society, and the American Psychological Association (APA). In 2008, APA awarded him the Franklin V. Taylor Award for Outstanding Contributions in the Field of Applied Experimental & Engineering Psychology. He is a past Chair of the Cognitive Science Society and the founding Chair of the Human Performance Modeling technical group of HFES. At present he is the Executive Editor for the Cognitive Science Society’s first new journal in 30 years, Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Shape of Things to Come: An Emerging Constellation of Interconnected Tools for Developing the Right Cognitive Model at the Right Scale There are at least three major problems with the current state of cognitive modeling. First, modeling is too hard and takes too long. There is a paucity of tools that allow you to set up a cognitive model at the same high level of abstraction that tools such as SPSS™ or SAS™ allow you to set up a complex statistical model for data analysis. Rather, most modeling formalisms require some computer science or mathematics training and typically each new model takes just as long to build as the last model. Second, cognitive modeling seems to engender the “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” syndrome. Once a modeling technique is mastered, too many people try to apply it to every situation whether or not it is the best tool for the current task. Third is scale inflexibility and a concomitant lack of interconnectedness. Modeling with any given technique locks you into a certain level of analysis. Popping up or down a level of analysis, say from a model of reading with understanding to a model of the perception, eye movements, and memory involved in reading requires abandoning one model and building another. I will describe the shape of things to come by introducing two modeling tools and the emerging constellation that has resulted from their interconnectedness with each other and with the ACT-R (Anderson, 2007) architecture of cognition. The two tools, CogTool (John, Prevas, Salvucci, & Koedinger, 2004) and the Stochastic Analysis Network Laboratory for Cognitive Modeling (SANLabCM, Patton & Gray, 2009) do not require the average user to have a background in computer science or mathematics. In contrast, modeling in ACT-R requires learning a specialized programming language. Although prior computer science or mathematics background is not strictly necessary, few modelers get very far without some training in these disciplines. CogTool allows the modeler to create Keystroke Level Models (KLM, Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983) by demonstrating a sequence of moves in a storyboarded version of the task environment. The KLMs predict the performance times of expert users. It makes these predictions by creating and running a simple ACT-R model that uses default ACT-R parameters and the constraints imposed by the task environment. SANLab-CM is the first tool designed to facilitate the development, manipulation, and comparison of activity network models for cognitive modeling. Examples of this type of modeling include CPM-GOMS (Gray, John, & Atwood, 1993; John, 1990) and the critical-path scheduling of mental processes (Schweickert, 1980; Schweickert, Fisher, & Proctor, 2003). Additionally, SANLab-CM is the first modeling tool that we know of specifically designed to explore the influence of stochasticity on cognitive outcomes. Whereas past CPM-GOMS models enabled the modeler to assign a fixed time to each operation, SANLab-CM enables the modeler to assign means and distributions of times. (Different types of operations may be assigned different default mean times and/or different default distributions. This is a

1

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Wayne Gray feature, not a limit, as it is possible to assign times and distributions to individual operations.) When the resulting model is run, multiple critical paths are produced along with predictions of expected minimum and maximum response times. The utility of SANLab-CM will be demonstrated by comparing SANLabCM models of Telephone Operator-Customer-Workstation interactions to the nonstochastic models of the same task built by Gray and John (Gray, et al., 1993). CogTool, SANLab-CM, and ACT-R are interconnected. Whereas SANLab-CM can be used alone, it is possible to build a SANLab-CM model by importing the trace produced by running an ACT-R model. Once imported, SANLab-CM can be used to quickly explore the influence of different distributions (e.g., Gaussian versus gamma), different parameters of the distribution, or (to a limited degree) different designs of the task environment. Likewise, SANLab-CM can be used in conjunction with CogTool. Running CogTool’s simplified ACT-R model produces the KLM’s predicted expert performance times. The trace produced by that model can be imported into SANLab-CM. Once in SANLab-CM it can be inspected, edited, manipulated, assigned various distributions, and run to inspect the various critical paths that would be produced by the stochastic activity network. This is the shape of things to come. CogTool and SANLab-CM require no mathematical or computer science expertise to produce a model. Indeed, whereas SANLab-CM requires cognitive science expertise, CogTool does not. Each of these three tools, CogTool, SANLab-CM, and ACT-R can be used to develop models at different temporal scales so that a modeler who starts with one type of model can quickly develop another. The interconnectedness of SANLab-CM enables an emerging constellation of tools for developing the right model at the right scale. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gray, W. D., John, B. E., & Atwood, M. E. (1993). Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS analysis for predicting and explaining real-world performance. Human-Computer Interaction, 8(3), 237–309. John, B. E. (1990). Extensions of GOMS Analyses to Expert Performance Requiring Perception of Dynamic Visual and Auditory Information. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York. John, B. E., Prevas, K., Salvucci, D. D., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Predictive human performance modeling made easy ACM CHI'2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 455-462). New York: ACM Press. Patton, E. W., & Gray, W. D. (2009). SANLab-CM: A tool for incorporating stochastic operatons into activity network modeling. submitted for publication. Schweickert, R. (1980). Critical-Path Scheduling Of Mental Processes In A Dual Task. Science, 209(4457), 704-706. Schweickert, R., Fisher, D. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Steps toward building mathematical and computer models from cognitive task analyses. Human Factors, 45(1), 77–103.

2

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Jerrold Post Dr. Jerrold Post is Professor of Psychiatry, Political Psychology and International Affairs and Director of the Political Psychology Program at The George Washington University. Dr. Post has devoted his entire career to the field of political psychology. Dr. Post came to George Washington after a 21 year career with the Central Intelligence Agency where he was the founding director of the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. He played the lead role in developing the "Camp David profiles" of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat for President Jimmy Carter and initiated the U.S. government program in understanding the psychology of terrorism. In recognition of his leadership at the Center, Dr. Post was awarded the Intelligence Medal of Merit in 1979. He served as expert witness in the trial in the spring of 2001 for the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, since 9/11, has testified on terrorist psychology before the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the United Nations. He is a widely published author, whose most recent book is “The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorist from the IRA to al-Qaeda.” Dr. Post is a frequent commentator on national and international media on such topics as leadership, leader illness, treason, the psychology of terrorism, suicide terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il.

When Hatred is Bred in the Bone: The Psychocultural Foundations of Contemporary Terrorism After an introduction to the broad spectrum of terrorist psychology, this presentation will focus on nationalist-separatist and radical Islamist terrorism. We are seeing an increasing broadening and deepening of values and behavior associated with terrorism within mainstream society, as the new heroes and role models are the shahids, the martyrs, carrying out acts of suicidal terrorism. These do not represent acts of psychopathologically disturbed youth, but socially valued acts of mainstream individuals responding to powerful social forces. The manner in which radical Islamist leaders have reframed suicide as martyrdom and the social psychology of the assembly line producing suicide bombers will be explicated. The centrality of the core identity of belonging to a valued social movement and the role of the new media in creating a virtual community of hatred will be emphasized. Quotations from interviewed incarcerated terrorists will be used to illustrate the psychology of the terrorists. Implications for counter-terrorism, including the role of psychological operations will be considered.

3

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

LCDR Joseph V Cohn LCDR Joseph Cohn is an Aerospace Experimental Psychologist (AEP) in the U.S. Navy's Medical Service Corps and serves as a Program Manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in the Defense Sciences Office. His efforts are focused on developing projects that emphasize maintaining human performance/human effectiveness and optimizing the symbiosis between humans and machines. LCDR Cohn has a doctorate in neuroscience from Brandeis University and a bachelor's degree in biology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He has authored more than 60 publications, served as guest editor on three professional journals, is co-editing a three-volume series of books focusing on all aspects of training system development, and is co-editing a book on warfighter performance. In addition to his military decorations, he received the Navy Modeling and Simulation Award, Training Category, from the ASN (RD&A) Chief Systems Engineer and was chosen as the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies' Lewis and Clark Fellow, exploring the legal and ethical issues associated with using performance enhancing technologies and developing policies and guidelines to ensure their effective —and appropriate—use. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Representing Human Behavior: Where to next? Advances in neuroscience have contributed to a strong growth in understanding how the human brain effectively processes information leading to behavior. Traditional approaches to representing human behavior for such uses as informing more effective human machine symbiotic systems, have focused on engineering or machine learning techniques to establish couplings between humans and their machines. For example, many of the cognitive architectures that are intended to allow the machine to infer human intention are based on computer processing metaphors, not on actual brain dynamics. This is a partly a result of the levels of technology available to understand and represent the processes through which the human brain transforms information into action. Until very recently, neither the imaging technologies nor the analytic capabilities were available to truly link actual brain activity to behavior. As a result, when one wished to represent human behavior, one was forced to do so using observed behaviors as a starting point, and building predictive models of human behavior on these observed behaviors. One important goal of neuroscience is to develop techniques for representing the link between observed behavior and underlying neural action. Just as understanding the equations of motion provides a much broader set of capabilities than inferring these equations from a limited set of observations, so too understanding and modeling the dynamics of neural activity as it leads to behavior should provide a much richer and more robust set of models than those based on the actual observed behavior alone. Today, advances in neuroscience and engineering provide the basis for building these ‘equations of motion’ for the brain and for using brain-based techniques to create and maintain very robust human behavior representations.

4

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Robert Axtell Robert Axtell is the Professor and Chair, George Mason University, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, Department of Computational Social Science; External Professor, Santa Fe Institute Dr. Axtell works at the intersection of economics, behavioral game theory, and multi-agent systems computer science. His most recent research attempts to emerge a macroeconomy from tens of millions of interacting agents. He is Department Chair of the new Department of Computational Social Science at George Mason University (Fairfax, Virginia, USA). He teaches courses on agent-based modeling, mathematical modeling, and game theory. His research has been published in "Science," "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA," and leading field journals. Popular accounts have appeared in newspapers, magazines, books, online, on the radio and in museums. His is the developer of Sugarscape, an early attempt to do social science with multi-agent systems, andco-author of "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up" (MIT Press 1996). Previously, he was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C. USA) and a founding member of the Center on Social and Economic Dynamics there. He holds an interdisciplinary Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, USA).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Intertemporal Behavior: How People Discount the Future--Experimental Data and Formal Representation A mathematical formalism is developed for the existence of unique invariants associated with wide classes of observed discounting behavior. These invariants are ‘exponential discount rate spectra,’ derived from the theory of completely monotone functions. Exponential discounting, the empirically important case of hyperbolic discounting, and so-called sub-additive discounting are each special cases of the general theory. This formalism is interpreted at both the individual and social levels. Almost every discount rate spectrum yields a discount function that is ‘hyperbolic’ with respect to some exponential. Such hyperbolic discount functions may not be integrable, and the implications of non-integrability for intertemporal valuation are assessed. In general, non-stationary spectra lead to discount functions that are not completely monotone. The same is true of discount rate spectra that are not proper measures. This formalism unifies theories of non-constant discounting, declining discount rates, hyperbolic discounting, ‘gamma’ discounting, and related notions.

5

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

ARL submission to BRIMS sponsor panel ARL’s neuroergonomics program seeks to assess Soldier cognitive and neurophysiological function, understand Soldier behavior, and develop nonsubjective, operationally relevant cognitive metrics through the translation of laboratory techniques. The goal is to enable the Army to match the capabilities of Soldiers and advanced technologies to maximize investments in systems development. Given recent interest and investment in this area, challenges for BRiMS are well known by the community however additional emphasis should be given to two topics to meet Army needs. BRiMS must be generalizable to militarily relevant settings, conditions and functions i.e. outside the laboratory setting. Also, schema and corresponding BRiMS must be developed to deal efficiently but validly with aggregating from individuals to populations. The Department of Defense may define (aggregate) its members in various ways for example job specialty, rank, mental category, skill level, or gender.

Mr. John F. Lockett U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

The US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) provides fundamental underpinning research and development for the Army Materiel Command and supplies innovative science, technology, and analysis to enable full-spectrum operations. The Army relies on ARL for scientific discoveries, technologic advances, and analyses to provide Warfighters with capabilities to succeed on the battlefield. The Human Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) of ARL conducts a broad-based program of scientific research and technology development directed toward optimizing Soldier performance and Soldier-machine interactions to maximize battlefield effectiveness. ARL HRED provides the Army with human factors leadership to ensure that Soldier performance requirements are adequately considered in technology development and system design. Although ARL is not part of the Medical, Personnel, Training and Doctrine, or Test and Evaluation Commands; we collaborate with our colleagues there and throughout the Department of Defense to address Human Systems Integration issues.

ARL’s social/cognitive network science research area involves applying principles from the cognitive, computer, and social network sciences to the conduct of complex dynamic network-enabled operations. Decision makers are not able to use the sheer volume of information available over the network effectively. The goal is to align Warfighter and system capabilities. Specific topics of focus are situation awareness, decision making in environments characterized by information overload, information uncertainty, trust in automation, or joint and multinational operations. Efforts include computer models, tool development, data collection in exercises, and data collection in controlled experimentation. Expected benefits are information to assist the proper design of units and the development of methods to support distributed collaborative planning and decision making at the tactical and operational levels. BRiMS particularly those that are predictive and can underlie intuitive commander planning and decision support tools are of interest to ARL. Social and cultural modeling, as noted in a 2007 BRiMS symposium conducted by Allender and Sutton, continues to be of interest to the Department of Defense. Social and cultural factors should be included across the full spectrum of modeling and simulation research and applications. In this area the emphasis is on using M&S to support ongoing operations of all types.

ARL HRED high priority research areas include Soldier Performance, Neuroergonomics, Social/Cognitive Network Science, Human Robotic Interaction, and Human Systems Integration. Opportunities and challenges for BRiMS exist in each of these areas. Addressing them entails empirical data collection, development of theoretical frameworks, algorithm development, validation, and usability testing as well as code development. Many of the issues have been presented by sponsors at earlier BRiMS conferences (notably those by Surdu 2007 and Allender 20071) and remain relevant. The goal of ARL’s Soldier performance research is to optimize sensory, perceptual, and physical demands on the Soldier and the Soldier-system to improve survivability, sustainment, efficiency, and performance effectiveness. While much progress has been made on modeling and simulation of human locomotion and to a lesser extent load carriage, challenges remain in representing cooperative team and group tasks. M&S of sensory and perceptual processes exist but compelling cross sensory modality presentations are lacking. Empirical data collection and often as a result BRiMs does not address the combined effects of performance moderators particularly those combinations in which moderators counteract each other at different levels.

The purpose of ARL’s Human Robotic Interaction effort is to reduce workload and improve combat performance for the Soldier-robot team through a better understanding of the human dimension. The expected result is improved interface and adaptive Soldier support technologies scalable to dismounted and 6

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

mounted warrior systems in multi-mission environments. In this area, BRiMS is needed as an enabler for exploration, analysis and empirical data collection of concepts for human-robot interaction, human robot teams and interaction with robot-robot teams. M&S that represent perception, management of concurrent tasks, operator control units, adaptive automation, social and cultural norms, and group behaviors are important to this research area. ARL’s mission in Human Systems Integration includes developing tools and analytic methodologies for cost effective insertion of human factors criteria into early acquisition (pre-milestone A) requirements to optimize Soldier-system performance and cost at the systems of systems level. ARL also conducts Soldier-centered analyses to ensure manpower requirements, workload, and skill demands are considered collectively and systematically, avoiding information and physical task overload and taking maximum advantage of aptitudes, individual and collective training, and numbers of Soldiers for an affordable future force. Given this mission, BRiMS is useful in informing system design tradeoff decisions and has proven an effective means of convincing acquisition managers that human factors issues need to be addressed. Improvements in BRiMS already mentioned will help ARL’s HSI mission. Attention to verification, validation and accreditation as well as decreasing the resource requirements for using predictive BRiMS will make it more feasible for HSI practitioners to employ this technology. Another aspect of HSI tool development and analysis is the importance of relating human and system component performance to mission performance. To be useful for HSI, BRiMS must be scalable and able to account for the effect of changes in that state of components (including human operators) on mission goals and vice versa. Links that cross classes and application of models are important to decreasing resource requirements for employing M&S and to increasing collaboration with other design fields such as systems engineering. ARL has recently awarded or will soon award several Collaborative Technology Alliances (CTAs) with Industry and Academia that are expected to advance BRiMS in several of ARL’s high priority research areas. A CTA about network science was awarded in September 2009 and two other CTAs – one about Robotics and another about Cognition and Neuroergonomics – are still in competition.

Footnote: 1 Available online at http://brimsconference.org/archives/2007/abstract/07bri ms-203.htm

7

711th Human Performance Wing

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

World Leader for Human Performance

711th Human Performance Wing Mr. Thomas S. Wells, SES, Director The historic activation of the 711th Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base culminated two years of inspired strategic planning. Standup of the Wing creates the first humancentric warfare wing to consolidate research, education, and consultation under a single organization. The 711 HPW merges the Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate with functions of the 311th Human Systems Wing currently located at Brooks City-Base: the United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (including functions of the former Air Force Institute for Operational Health that are merged into USAFSAM) and the 311th Performance Enhancement Directorate (renamed Human Performance Integration Directorate). The Wing’s primary focus areas are aerospace medicine, human effectiveness science and technology, and human systems integration. In conjunction with the Navy Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (NAMRL) moving to WPAFB, and surrounding universities and medical institutions, the 711 HPW will function as a Joint Department of Defense Center of Excellence for human performance sustainment and readiness, optimization and effectiveness research. AFRL

th

711 Human Performance Wing Mr. Thomas S. Wells, CL Col Richard E. Bachmann, Jr., DV Col Jon C. Welch, OM, DS

Human Effectiveness Directorate 711 HPW/RH Mr. Jack Blackhurst

USAF School of Aerospace Medicine USAFSAM/CC Col Charles R. Fisher, Jr.

Human Performance Integration 711 HPW/HP Col David L. Brown

The 711th Human Performance Wing mission is to advance human performance in air, space, and cyberspace through research, education, and consultation, accomplished through synergies created by the wing’s three distinct but complementary entities: the U. S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, the Human Effectiveness Directorate, and the Human Performance Integration Directorate.

Human Effectiveness Directorate Mr. Jack Blackhurst, Director The Human Effectiveness Directorate is leading the Air Force in human-centered research.

For more information on the 711 HPW organization contact: Mr. Thomas Rice, 711 HPW/XPB, (937) 656-5544 or visit the Air Force Link at: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/711HPW/ DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Document Number WPAFB 08-3180. 8

Rev. 14March2009

711th Human Performance Wing

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

World Leader for Human Performance

USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Colonel Charles R. Fisher, Jr., Commander First-call consultants in aerospace medicine, we find solutions to operational needs of today and tomorrow, and prepare new aeromedical experts for future global challenges.

Human Performance Integration Directorate Colonel David L. Brown, Director HP advocates, facilitates and supports the application of human systems integration principles to optimize operational capabilities.

BRAC Moves Relocating from Mesa Research Site, Brooks CityBase TX, and Holloman AFB NM to WPAFB OH

Related MILCON at WPAFB OH

 507 Military  349 Civilian  Total of 856 authorizations to WPAFB

   

AFRL Directed Energy Bioeffects mission to Ft. Sam Houston TX

Related MILCON at Ft. Sam Houston TX

 34 Military  48 Civilian  Total of 82 authorizations to FSH

   

$238M and 670,000 sq ft RFP release: Dec 2007 Contract Award: Apr 2008 BOD: 31 May 2011

$79.5M and 181,000 sq ft RFP release: Jan 09 Contract Award: Apr 09 BOD: Apr 2011

A Human Performance Center of Excellence based on the university model bringing together research, education/training and consultation.

 Aeromedical “Fit for Duty”  Occupational /

 Expeditionary Medicine  Initial / Advanced

Environmental Evaluation

Preventive Medicine

 Pipeline Tech School Education / Training

Human Performance Wing

 Communicable Disease Surveillance Consultation

 Bioeffects Exploitation and Protection  Cognitive, Organizational and Social Modeling  Air/Space/Cyber Decision Making Research For more information on the 711 HPW organization contact: Mr. Thomas Rice, 711 HPW/XPB, (937) 656-5544 or visit the Air Force Link at: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/711HPW/ DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Document Number WPAFB 08-3180. 9

Rev. 14March2009

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Behavioural Representation of People in Contemporary Operating Environments An UK Overview by Bharatkumar Patel, Dstl, UK MOD © Crown Copyright

1 Introduction 1.1

This overview focuses on the UK defence need to improve behavioural representation of people in contemporary operating environments in their modelling and simulation capability in order to provide better predeployment training and experimentation, and to enhance analysis for better decision-making. It addresses this need through: •

Making Computer Generated Forces Smarter



Dynamic Social Modelling to improve our decision making and predeployment cultural and social training.

2 Making Computer Generated Forces Smarter 2.1

The Integrated Human Behaviour Representation (IHBR) programme which was initiated in 2003 seeks to improve the realism and available variability of both Computer Generated Forces (CGF) cognition and behaviour. The initial phase (2003-2005) of the programme explored a means for explicitly differentiating CGF entity ‘cognition’ from entity ‘behaviour’ and improving CGF entity and unit cognition. The second phase (2006-2008) explored ways of making these improvements in realism and variability of cognition more available to and realisable in the behaviour generation capabilities of legacy, current, and developing CGF systems.

2.2

Given the level of investment in the IHBR programme, and its importance to future CGF application development, the follow-on work will examine and demonstrate how people within Contemporary Operating Environments (COE) 1 can be represented in CGF systems by invoking more realistic, flexible and variable (‘smart’) behaviours.

2.3

The work will address how to represent all types of people in current and anticipated operational theatres within simulation environments. It

A complex overall operational environment with state and non-state players that exists today and in the near future in conflicts of interest, security or war.

1

10

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

is to consider a broad range of factors, including behavioural reasoning, physiological and psychological representation, cultural and societal influencers, and specific threat representations. The demonstration objective is to integrate and assess a comprehensive cognitive system for the purpose of representing all types of people in the COE. 2.4

Specifically the work will: •

Identify and qualitatively evaluate existing and emerging behavioural techniques against defined attributes that would be applicable for representing people in current and anticipated operations, either within CGF systems (e.g. JSAF ClutterSim or CultureSim, OneSAF composable-behaviour, etc), or available as “plug-ins” to other simulation tools (e.g. B-HAVE plug in for VR Forces, AI Implant, CoJACK2, etc)



Explore the composable-behaviour mechanisms available within OneSAF, and demonstrate OneSAF’s ability to represent civilians and insurgents in current COE



Identify and qualitatively evaluate available Belief, Desire, Intent (BDI) cognitive platforms or architectures (GOTS 2 , COTS 3 open source or freeware), and select and demonstrate the architecture that is most beneficial



Develop an initial ontology for a couple of CGFs to demonstrate how the same BDI agent plan library can be re-used to drive behaviour in CGFs with very different behaviour repertoires (e.g. VBS2 and OneSAF)



Demonstrate the ability to integrate smart behaviours in VBS2, initially enabling the expression of subtle, important, culturallydependent, non-verbal behaviours (including body language) of civilians and insurgents.

3 Dynamic Social Modelling 3.1

UK is currently developing a research strategy to support Dynamic Social Modelling (DSM) in order to improve cultural and social representation for better decision making and pre-deployment training.

2

Government-Off-The-Shelf

3

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

11

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

3.2

The DSM term is used to describe all software modelling approaches that include social factors. DSM approaches may be incorporated into existing models and simulations or provide stand-alone capabilities to address specific social issues.

3.3

A series of workshops and roadmapping exercise were conducted to define the scope of DSM and its relevance and need to support COE.

3.4

The output of the workshop recommended a number near term and long term challenges and the strategy for developing and exploiting DSM capability.

3.5

The short term requirements identified were for: • Operational quick-wins for socio-cultural training and education •

3.6

3.7

Development of deployable social factors operational analysis capability.

The long term requirements identified were for a DSM capability comprising a suite of compatible or integrated methods and models that address the full range of effects and cover both military and nonmilitary levers of power. These models would ensure that defence functions are more financially efficient and more effective, through supporting: • Training and education •

Course of action development



Policy development



Balance of investment decisions.

The strategy to develop and exploit the DSM capability includes the following enablers: • Build customer and stakeholder awareness and ownership of DSM •

Conduct a near-term stocktake of DSM capability



Develop internal and external supply base for DSM



Ensure availability of data for DSM



Establish practical guidance for fit-for-purpose use of DSM



Relate DSM developments to COE developments.

4 Concluding Remarks 4.1

The key challenge for behavioural representation in COE is timeliness. The methods for human representation in defence models and simulations need to be agile and responsive if they are to be relevant

12

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

to COE. Furthermore, they will need to include complex cultural and social dynamic representation.

13

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

The Use of Behavior Models for Predicting Complex Operations Brian F. Gore, PhD San Jose State University Research Foundation/NASA Ames Research Center MS 262-4 PO Box 1 Moffett Field, CA 94035-0001 650-604-2542 [email protected] Keywords: NASA, Ames Research Center, HSI Division, Human Performance Model, Integrated Models, MIDAS v5 ABSTRACT: Modeling and simulation (M&S) plays an important role when complex human-system notions are being proposed, developed and tested within the system design process. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as an agency uses many different types of M&S approaches for predicting human-system interactions, especially when it is early in the development phase of a conceptual design. NASA Ames Research Center possesses a number of M&S capabilities ranging from airflow, flight path models, aircraft models, scheduling models, human performance models (HPMs), and bioinformatics models, among a host of other kinds of M&S capabilities that are used for predicting whether the proposed designs will benefit the specific mission criteria. The Man-Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) is a NASA ARC HPM software tool that integrates many models of human behavior with environment models, equipment models, and procedural / task models. The challenge to model comprehensibility is heightened as the number of models that are integrated and the requisite fidelity of the procedural sets are increased. Model transparency is needed for some of the more complex HPMs to maintain comprehensibility of the integrated model performance. This will be exemplified in a recent MIDAS v5 application model and plans for future model refinements will be presented. capability termed the Man-Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) is highlighted because of its relevance to the field of human behavior representation.

1. Introduction Complex system integration issues require that the model development process generally follow an iterative design philosophy that collaboratively leverages empirical human data (i.e., either human in the loop, HITL, simulations or real-time measurements) and concurrently feeds information to HITL simulation processes. Many organizations are faced with the goals of completing research as efficiently as possible while maintaining acceptable levels of safety to successfully complete a mission. NASA is no exception. Modeling and simulation techniques, particularly human behavior models, play an important role when complex human-system notions are being proposed, developed, and tested across many of the ten NASA centers. For instance, NASA Johnston Space Center (JSC) utilizes M&S to represent environments, physical structures and equipment components, crew stations, planets and planetary motions, gravitational effects, illumination, human anthropometric and biomechanics, among a host of other domains. NASA Ames Research Center also possesses a number of M&S capabilities ranging from airflow, flight path models (e.g., Airspace Concept Evaluation System, - ACES), aircraft models, scheduling models (e.g., Core-XPRT, Science Planning InterFace to engineering - SPIFe), human performance models (HPMs), and bioinformatics models, among many other kinds of M&S capabilities. One of the many NASA M&S capabilities, an ARC-related HPM

1.1 Human Performance Models (HPMs), Concept Development and Testing Modeling can play a role in all phases of the concept development, refinement, and deployment process. Hybrids
of
continuous‐control,
discrete‐control
and
 critical
 decision‐making
 models
 represent
 the
 ‘internal
 models
 and
 cognitive
 function’
 of
 the
 human
 operator
 in
 complex
 control
 systems,
 and
 involve
a
coupling
among
humans
and
machines
in
 a
shifting
and
context
sensitive
environment.
These
 models,
 known
 as
 HPMs,
 have
 arisen
 as
 viable
 research
 options
 due to decreases in computer costs, increases in representative results, and increases in model validity. They are especially valuable because the computational predictions can be generated early in the design phase of a product, system or technology to formulate procedures, training requirements, and to identify system vulnerabilities and where potential human-system errors are likely to arise. The model development process allows the designer to formally examine many aspects of human-system performance with new technologies to explore potential risks brought to system performance by the human operator (Gore & Smith, 2006). Often this can be accomplished before the notional technology exists for human-in-the14

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

loop (HITL) testing (Gore, 2000). This method possesses cost and efficiency advantages over waiting for the concept to be fully designed and used in practice (characteristic of HITL tests). Using HPMs in this manner is advantageous because risks to the human operator and costs associated with system experimentation are greatly reduced: no experimenters, no subjects and no testing time (Elkind et al., 1989; Gore, 2000).
 Hooey and Foyle (2008) outline that HPMs can be used to conduct system robustness testing to evaluate the system from the standpoint of potential deviations from nominal procedures to determine the impact on the performance of the human and the system (“what-if” testing).
 1.2 The Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis Systems (MIDAS) MIDAS is a dynamic, integrated human performance modeling and simulation environment that facilitates the design, visualization, and computational evaluation of complex man-machine system concepts in simulated operational environments (Gore, 2008). MIDAS combines graphical equipment prototyping, dynamic simulation, and HPMs to reduce design cycle time, support quantitative predictions of human-system effectiveness, and improve the design of crew stations and their associated operating procedures. HPMs like MIDAS provide a flexible and economical way to manipulate aspects of the operator, automation, and task environment for simulation analyses (Gore, 2008; Gore, Hooey, Foyle, & Scott-Nash, 2008; Hooey & Foyle, 2008).

Figure 1. MIDAS’ Environment, Anthropometric Models.

Task,

and

MIDAS can be used as a cognitive modeling tool that allows the user to obtain both predictions and quantitative output measures of human performance, such as workload and SA and as a tool for analyzing the effectiveness of crew station designs, information display concepts, operator roles and responsibilities from a human factors perspective (Gore, 2008). MIDAS has proven useful for identifying general human-system vulnerabilities and cross-domain error classes and for recommending mitigation strategies and job re-designs to account for the vulnerable areas, or risks, in system design (Gore & Smith, 2006). Fundamental design issues can therefore be identified early in the design lifecycle, prior to the use of hardware simulators and HITL experiments. In both cases, MIDAS provides an easy to use and cost effective means to conduct experiments that explore "what-if" questions about domains of interest.

Gore & Smith (2006) outline that MIDAS links a virtual human, composed of a physical anthropometric character, to a computational cognitive structure that represents human capabilities and limitations. The cognitive component is composed of a perceptual mechanism (visual and auditory), memory (short term, long term-working, and long term), a decision maker and a response selection architectural component. The complex interplay among bottom-up and top-down processes enables the emergence of unforeseen, and non-programmed behaviors (Gore & Smith, 2006). MIDAS can suggest the nature of pilot errors, and highlight precursor conditions to error such as high levels of memory demand, mounting time pressure and workload, attentional tunneling or distraction, and deteriorating situation awareness (SA).

1.3 The MIDAS Comprehensibility

User

Interface

Assists

MIDAS v5 has a graphical user interface1 (GUI) that does not require advanced programming skills to use. The GUI brings many of the previously embedded functions to the surface so that the model analyst can observe the underlying structure as well as the model’s operation as it is run. The integrated GUI enables the user to build human procedures from MIDAS primitive tasks, create their own tasks, incorporate a series of nested procedures, change the SA context during the simulation and manipulate visual and auditory 1

MIDAS uses Microsaint Sharp as its GUI which uses the C-Sharp programming language 15

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

attributes of equipment components. The MIDAS analyst can organize the human-system interactions visually, thereby greatly improving the model’s transparency. Other features of MIDAS v5 include dynamic visual representations of the simulation environment, support for multiple and interacting human operators, distributed simulation, montecarlo/stochastic performance, HPM timelines, task lists, workload, and SA, performance influencing factors (such as error predictive performance, fatigue and gravitational effects on performance), libraries of basic human operator procedures (how-to knowledge) and geometries for building scenarios graphically (that leverage heavily from Siemens' Jack software).

the relationships that exist among the models being used in an application, the performance of the models in the application, which models are being triggered in the model architecture, and whether the model is behaving as the model analyst would expect. MIDAS v5’s comprehensibility was greatly improved with the transparent model architecture (Gore, 2008). The operation of this complex model was verified throughout development and was validated according to SME evaluations. The verification phase of the model was improved given the visibility into the model’s operations at any given point in simulation time combined with the cross checking of the jack visualization and the simulation runtime data that was output. The comprehensibility of this model would not have been possible without such a transparent architecture.

1.4 MIDAS Approach and Land Applications The current air traffic control (ATC) system will not be able to manage the predicted two to three times growth in air traffic (JPDO, 2009). The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is a future aviation concept that has as its goals to significantly increase the capacity, safety, efficiency, and security of air transportation operations (JPDO, 2009).

This MIDAS v5 effort lead to a greater awareness of potential parameters that should be included in system designs and enabled the research program to visualize the interactions that will be likely in future NextGen operations. It is anticipated that a formal validation approach will be developed and applied to the VCSPA model in an upcoming Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) task. This FAA task will require model refinement and validation, an increased number of alternative closely spaced operations for additional what-if scenarios including alternative pilot roles and responsibilities, and information requirements.

MIDAS v5 has been applied to examine a NextGen approach to land concept termed the very closely spaced parallel approach (VCSPA). In order to evaluate this concept, two MIDAS v5 models were generated. The first was a current day Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA) model that contained the current day procedures and the second was a NextGen VCSPA model that contained predictive displays in the cockpit and a modification to the roles and responsibilities of the flight crew and ATC modeled operators. This simulation involved over 500 tasks and culminated in a verifiable model of approach and land operations (vetted by Subject Matter Experts - SMEs). The SA model was augmented within MIDAS to represent how a cockpit crew builds SA of traffic, terrain, and weather information given the accessibility of sources of information. This model effort illustrated the “what-if” simulation capability within MIDAS. The “what-if” approach was completed when MIDAS was exercised with one set of displays and procedure sets designed to represent current day operations and roles followed by a second simulation with an alternate set of displays and procedures encoded to represent the NextGen displays and expected procedures. The model underwent an iterative verification/validation process that included examining: (1) the task sequences and the performance of the model as it executed; (2) the visual fixations, task timings, and workload relative to expected performance given the inputs to the model; and pilot performance according to SME evaluations.

2. Conclusion A number of significant challenges exist for the state of the art in HPMs, two of which will now be highlighted. Transparency. The first challenge relates to model transparency. Model transparency refers to the ability to comprehend the relationships that exist among the models being used in the simulation, the performance of the models in the simulation, which models are triggering in the model architecture, and whether the model is behaving as the model developer would expect (Gore, 2008). Other researchers refer to this as model traceability, model behavior visibility, model verifiability, and model interpretability (Elkind et al., 1989; Napiersky, Young, & Harper, 2004; Gluck & Pew, 2005; Hooey & Foyle, 2008). Transparency in integrated HPMs is needed to support model verification, validation, and credibility. However, model transparency can be difficult to attain because of the complex interactions that can exist among the cognitive, physical, environment and crew station models, and because the cognitive models embedded within integrated HPMs produce behaviors that are not directly observable. Three types of transparency that the MIDAS researchers have found useful to understand, interpret, and increase the confidence in

Model comprehensibility is defined as understanding 16

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, July 14-17, Las Vegas, Nevada.

the complex models’ output include transparency of the input, transparency of the integrated architecture, and transparency of the output (Gore, Hooey, Foyle, & Scott-Nash, 2008). This paper illustrates how the augmentation to the MIDAS GUI has improved model transparency that has led to better model comprehensibility.

Gore, B.F., & Smith, J.D. (2006). Risk assessment and human performance modeling: the need for an integrated approach. In K.A. Malek (Ed.) International Journal of Human Factors of Modeling and Simulation, 1(1), 119-139.

Validation. The second challenge facing the HPM community is validation. Validation remains a very large challenge for the HPMs community because statistical validation is oftentimes seen as the Holy Grail for determining whether a model is suitable but when models are deemed statistically valid, they are less generalizable, and less re-usable for applications in new contexts. This places the field of modeling into the conundrum of making models that are statistically valid (correlation, r=.99) but that lack the ability to generalize to other tasks or scenarios. When the generalizability of the model is limited, then its value as a cost-effective approach to predict complex humansystem interactions is reduced.

Gluck, K.A., & Pew, R.W. (2005). Modeling human behavior with integrated cognitive architectures: Comparison, evaluation and validation, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Hooey, B.L., & Foyle,, D.C. (2008). Chapter 12: Advancing the State of the Art of Human Performance Models to Improve Aviation Safety. In D. Foyle, and B. Hooey (eds.), Human performance modeling in aviation, (pp.321-349), Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). Concept of operations for the next generation air transportation system, Version 3, Joint Planning and Development Office, Washington, DC: JPDO.

Validation is further challenged when modeling future technology concepts where no or little HITL data exists upon which to statistically validate a model (as in the NextGen aviation systems or concepts being designed for the Space program). It is argued that our definition of model validation must be expanded beyond that of statistical results validation to be more representative of a model develop-model verify-model manipulate – model validate iterative process.

Napierski, D., Young, A., & Harper, K. (2004). Towards a common ontology for improved traceability of human behavior models. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Arlington, VA, May.

3. References Author Biography

Elkind, J., Card, S.K., Hochberg, J. & Huey B. M. (1989). Human performance models for computer-aided engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Dr. BRIAN GORE is a Principal Investigator for San Jose State University Research Foundation, and NASA’s Technical Lead for the Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) at the NASA Ames Research Center. Dr. Gore manages the MIDAS applications and provides the direction for MIDAS’ development.

Gore, B.F. (2008). Chapter 32: Human performance: Evaluating the cognitive aspects. In V. Duffy (ed.), Handbook of digital human modeling, (pp.32-1-32-18), Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)/NASA Inter Agency Agreement DTFAWA-10-X-80005 (POCs Dr. T. McCloy, FAA; and Dr. D. Foyle, NASA).

Gore, B.F., Hooey, B.L., Foyle, D.C., & Scott-Nash, S. (2008). Meeting the challenge of cognitive human performance model interpretability though transparency: MIDAS v5. In the 2nd International

17

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Systems Social Science -- Tutorial On: “Ethno-Political Modeling for Training and Analysis” Barry G. Silverman, PhD Electrical and Systems Engineering Department University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315 [email protected] March 2010

ABSTRACT This tutorial explores how a model of models or models library may be useful for profiling and emulating social systems. We begin by exploring challenges for domain specialists, modelers, and social scientists in representing social dilemmas so they may be modeled and simulated. The lack of tools and models for supporting this enterprise are explored as 3 challenges facing the BRIMS community. “Systems social science” is then presented as a mesoscale model of models methodology for design inquiry that synthesizes systems science, agent modeling and simulation, knowledge management architectures, and domain theories and knowledge. The goal is to focus computational science on exploring underlying mechanisms (white box modeling) and to support reflective theorizing and discourse to explain social dilemmas and potential resolutions. To support one in collecting a large library of models, several software design patterns are then explored and illustrated. The tutorial then describes an illustrative agent modeling and simulation library (model of many models from the literature). Two gameworld applications that utilize this library are discussed (a VillageSim and a StateSim). These serve as an example of the new types of instruments useful for systems social science. The conclusions wrapup by reviewing lessons learned about criteria that have guided this research and the types of validity assessment efforts that have been attempted. Tutorial Outline: • Challenge: 3 Universal Dilemmas (in Human Socio-Cultural Behavior M&S) • Domain Specialists’ Challenge • Modelers’ Challenge • Social Scientists’ Challenge • Response: Systems Social Science Defined • Software Design Patterns To Think About (Model View Controller, Model Factory, Model Driven Architecture) • Example Model of Models Library • Case Studies: Training & Analysis • Conclusions, Lessons Learned, Next Steps

Keywords: social systems, systems approach, socio-cognitive agents, design inquiry

18

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Creating Realistic Human Behavior in Physical Security Systems Simulation Volkan Ustun School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA [email protected] Jeffrey S. Smith Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering Auburn University Auburn, AL, 36832, USA [email protected]

Keywords: Human Behavior Representation, Physical Security Systems, Cognitive Simulation, Agent-Directed Simulation

1. Introduction

The complex interactions among guards, intruders, and neutral entities as well as the interactions between these entities and the environment, complicate analysis of these systems (for instance, a fundamental problem in PSS is to distinguish an intruder from a neutral based on behavior) which is often limited to static "line of sight" and "field of view" models designed to help with camera placement and guard patrol path determination. Existing simulation-based analysis methodologies include only crude and often hard-coded implementations of behavioral responses to predetermined situations for the guards, intruders, and neutrals. This limits the analysis capabilities of these models and makes creating them very time consuming and expensive.

Physical security systems (PSS) are designed to prevent access to a facility by intruders, detect the presence of intruders, or facilitate the capture or neutralization of intruders once they are detected, without negatively impacting the intended users of the facility, or neutrals. The application domains for PSS include banks, retail stores, schools, airports, subway stations and military installations, where the intention of the intruder can range from simple theft, to kidnap or mayhem to total facility destruction, and intruder mitigation can range from discouraging (in the case of shoplifting, e.g.) to alerting (in the case of burglary, e.g.), to capture and confinement or neutralization (in the case of facility destruction). These systems generally include a combination of physical barriers, human guards, and sensor-based detection systems such as video surveillance systems. Furthermore, the tactics and policies for the security personnel are also integral to the overall PSS. The primary goal here is to assess the effectiveness of a PSS (both the sensor placement and the security policy of the personnel) for detecting intruders and mitigating their impact in compliance with the organization’s goals (e.g. deterrence, detection etc.). Other questions of interest that contribute to the primary goal include but are not limited to: • Is the PSS robust and effective against different tactics used by intruders (e.g. stealth, deceit, and force)? • What will be the effect of a change in physical security design on intruder behavior? • What should be the rules of engagement for security personnel to best mitigate the risks imposed by intruders?

Models for PSS analysis are intended to estimate the system performance in settings which resemble real life situations. A realistic model of human reasoning should incorporate the shortcomings and fallacies of human reasoning as well as its ability to generate quick solutions that are “good enough”. Subsequently, realistic and credible simulations of PSS require incorporation of human behavior models that involve situation awareness, cooperative team behavior, planning, and deliberative decision making processes of human agents. We have demonstrated a proof-of-concept for a novel approach to simulating PSS, comprised of three principle components: • A spatial model which formally represents the static features of the environment in a simulation-friendly structure;

19

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010





Simulations. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, 958-964. Ustun V., Yilmaz L., and Smith J.S. (2006). A Conceptual Model for Agent-based Simulation of Physical Security Systems: A Study on Shoplifting. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACMSE Conference, 365-370. Ustun V. and Smith J.S.. (2008). Mental Simulation for Creating Realistic Behavior in Physical Security Systems Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference, 879-885. Ustun V. (2009). Human Behavior Representation in Physical Security Systems Simulation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auburn University. Marechal T.M.A., Smith A.E., Ustun V., Smith J.S., and Lefeber A.A.J. (2009). Optimizing a physical security configuration using a highly detailed simulation model. In Marlin U. Thomas and Adedeji B. Badiru (Eds.), Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering. CRC.

An agent-based behavioral framework which realistically represents the decision making activities of the agents using models of perception and heuristics to represent human intuition and decision making; and A formal representation of the application domain; for example, which behaviors constitute an intrusion and how an intrusion is detected vary between different domains.

The success of the proposed approach results from the realism and the variety of behaviors generated by the behavioral framework. The behavioral framework is extendable since it uses heuristics to model human intuition. Introduction of different heuristics directly relates to the emergent behavior. In addition, applying these heuristics on the perceived environment (the mental representation of the environment as the agent perceives it) creates interactions and behaviors that are difficult to anticipate in advance. Therefore, even with a limited number of heuristics, it is possible to observe a wide variety of potential activity sequences and interactions between agents that cannot be easily foreseen.

Author Biographies VOLKAN USTUN is a postdoctoral research fellow in the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial Engineering from Middle East Technical University (METU) in 1997 and 2000, respectively and the Ph.D. degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering from Auburn University in 2009. Prior to the Ph.D. degree, he has also worked as a research engineer at The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). His research interests mainly include discrete-event and agentbased simulation models and frameworks for complex systems.

We have discussed the conceptual models for this application in various publications. Ustun (2009) provides the details for the whole computational framework. Ustun et al. (2005) introduces the spatial model. Ustun and Smith (2008) discuss a novel aspect in the agent based behavioral framework. Ustun et al. (2006) has a conceptual introduction to a sample application domain: retail store security systems. Marechal et al. (2009) uses a part of the proposed computational simulation framework in an optimization application. In this interactive demo, we will demonstrate the several aspects of the proposed computational framework using a poster and a partially live demonstration of the developed computer application. The poster will be primarily used to present the conceptual features and several animations from the sample retail store application will be shown to provide insights on the interesting interactions between the virtual participants of the simulation experiments.

JEFFREY S. SMITH is a professor in the Industrial &Systems Engineering department at Auburn University.Prior to joining Auburn, Dr. Smith was an associate professor in the Industrial Engineering Department at Texas A&M University. He received the B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Auburn University in 1986 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial Engineering from Penn State University in 1990 and 1992, respectively. In addition to his academic positions, Dr. Smith has held industrial positions at Electronic Data Systems and Philip Morris U.S.A. Dr. Smith is an active member of IIE and INFORMS.

2. References Ustun, V., Yapicioglu H., Gupta S., Ramesh A., and Smith J.S.. (2005). A Conceptual Architecture for Static Features in Physical Security

20

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Identification and Application of Neurophysiologic Synchronies for Studying the Dynamics of Teamwork Ronald H. Stevens Trysha Galloway UCLA IMMEX Project 5601 W. Slauson Avenue #255 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 649-6568 [email protected], [email protected] Chris Berka Adrienne Behneman Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. 2237 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 720-0099 [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: Teamwork, Neurophysiologic Synchrony, Artificial Neural Networks, EEG ABSTRACT We describe a process for collecting and combining neurophysiologic signals derived from individual members of a team to develop pattern categories showing the normalized expression of these signals at each second for the team as a whole. The expression of different neurophysiologic synchrony patterns is sensitive to changes in the behavior of teams over time and perhaps to the level of expertise. The utility and limitations of using this approach are demonstrated for three tasks including a team emotion recall research study, an educational study where teams of high school students solved substance abuse simulations and a complex training study where Submarine Officer Advanced Candidate trainees performed submarine piloting and navigation exercises. teamwork interactions although the dynamics of team function are known to be complex (Mathieu et al, 2008) with temporal models of teamwork suggesting that some processes transpire more frequently in action phases and others in transition periods (Canon-Bowers et al, 1993; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Cooke et al, 2003; Mohammed et al, 2000).

1. Introduction Research on teamwork and cooperative behaviors often adopts an input-process-output framework (IPO). In this model the interdependent acts of individuals convert inputs such as the member and task characteristics to outcomes through behavioral activities directed toward organizing teamwork to achieve collective goals. These activities are termed team processes and include such activities as goal specification, strategy formulation, systems and team monitoring (Marks et al, 2001). Much of this teamwork research has made use of externalized events focusing on who is a member of the team, how they work together and what they do to perform their work. The studies often rely on post-hoc elicitation of the subjective relationships among pertinent concepts. There have been fewer studies looking at the when of

Our hypothesis is that as members of a team perform their duties each will exhibit varying degrees of cognitive components such as attention, workload, engagement, etc. and the levels of these components at any one time will depend (at least) on 1) what that person was doing at a particular time, 2) the progress the team has made toward the task goal, and 3) the composition and experience of the team. Given the temporal model of team processes, we believe that the balances of these metrics across the members of the

21

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

class model was constructed using absolute and relative power spectra variables from the 1-40 Hz bins of EEG channels Fz-POz and Cz-POz. The model was created using stepwise regression on a database of over 100 participants under fully rested and sleep-deprived conditions, and validated on an additional 100 subjects.

team will not be random, but will be in rhythm with the team’s changing activities and awareness of the situation. In this study we provide a direct confirmation of this hypothesis.

2. What Are Neurophysiologic Synchronies?

Three 5-minute baseline conditions were used to derive the DFA coefficients used to individualize the model for each participant: The first 5 min of a 3-choice vigilance task, eyes open paced response task, and eyes closed paced response task. EEG collected during these conditions was used to establish the model for output classes High Engagement, Low Engagement, and Distraction, respectively.

We define neurophysiologic synchronies (NS) as the second-by-second quantitative co-expression of the same neurophysiologic / cognitive measures by different members of the team. Figure 2.1 shows an illustration of a neurophysiologic measure being simultaneously detected at a particular point in time from the members of a hypothetical six person team where team members 3 and 5 expressed above average levels of this particular measure while team members 1, 2, 4 and 6 expressed below average levels.

In prior studies with individuals performing complex tasks the raw EEG-E levels were used for studying the problem solving dynamics (Stevens et al, 2007, 2008). Studying team processes using EEG measures; however, requires a normalization step, which equates the absolute levels of EEG-E of each team member with his own average levels. This allows the identification not only of whether an individual team member is experiencing above or below average levels of EEG-E or EEG-WL, but also whether the team as a whole is experiencing above or below average levels.

Figure 2.1. Example Expression of a Generic Neurophysiologic Measure by Individual Members of a Six-Person Team

3. How are Neurophysiologic Synchronies Detected and Analyzed? The data processing begins with the eye-blink decontaminated EEG files containing second-bysecond calculations of the probabilities of High EEGEngagement (EEG-E), Low EEG-E, Distraction and High EEG-Workload (EEG-WL) (Levendowski et al, 2001, Berka et al, 2004). Most of the studies to date have used the High EEG-E and EEG-WL metrics.

Figure 3.1. Normalization of Neurophysiologic Measures into Quartile Ranges. In this normalization process (outlined for one individual in Figure 3.1.) the EEG-E levels are partitioned into the upper 25%, the lower 25% and the middle 50%; these are assigned values of 3, -1, and 1 respectively, values chosen to enhance subsequent visualizations. The next step combines these values at each epoch for each team member into a vector representing the state of EEG-E for the team as a

The EEG engagement (EEG-E) index is related to processes involving information-gathering, visual scanning, and sustained attention (Berka, 2004). EEGE was derived using a four-class quadratic DFA representing the continuum Sleep Onset,  Distraction, Low Engagement, and High Engagement. The four-

22

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

whole, (this is shown for a team of 3 persons in Figure 3.2.).

EES Engagement Nodal Map

Figure 3.2. Creation of Team Performance Vectors. While the process is illustrated for three-member teams it can be expanded to include larger or smaller teams. Figure 4.1. Neurophysiologic Synchronies for EEG-E and EEG-WL During Emotion Recall

The second-by-second normalized values of team EEG-E for the entire episode are then repeatedly (502000 times) presented to a 1 x 25 node unsupervised artificial neural network. During this training a topology develops such that the EEG-E vectors most similar to each other become located closer together and more disparate vectors are pushed away. The training results in a linear series of 25 team EEG-E patterns termed neurophysiologic synchronies (NS).

The time course of EEG-E expression for the session is shown in Figure 4.2. at each second of the exercise. The epochs in black indicate resting periods and those in gray indicate recall of emotions.

4. A Simple Example: Emotion Recall by a Team A simple exercise in emotion recall by three team members illustrates the application and applicability of neurophysiologic synchronies for studying the dynamics of teamwork. In this exercise three team members were asked to recall different emotions while wearing an ABM wireless EEG sensor headset. The emotions included anger, grief, hate, joy, romantic love, platonic love, reverence and good learning and bad learning. Each three minute period of emotion recall was separated by 1-2 minutes of rest time before the next emotion was elicited. During both the emotion recall and the rest periods there was minimal talking and the subjects tended to focus on a region of space and / or object. EEG-E and EEG-WL were collected at 1 second epochs, normalized as described in Figures 2.1. & 3.1. and used to train unsupervised ANN. The resulting EEG-E NS patterns are shown in Figure 4.1. The most common NS was pattern 22 representing the epochs where all individuals expressed low levels of EEG-E and this was followed by node 20 where only individual #1 showed elevated EEG-E.

Figure 4.2. Neurophysiologic Synchronies for EEG-E During Emotion Recall Neurophysiologic Synchronies # 20 and 22 were associated with most of the emotion expression shown during epochs 600-2500 and these were characterized by below normal expression of EEG-E by all members of the team. The exceptions to this pattern were for the emotions anger and hate. During these epochs individual #2 showed above average expression of EEG-E while individuals 1 & 3 were still average / below average in EEG-E expression. These NS were also not associated with the Resting period or the Unknown periods; the Unknown period was a resting

23

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

of team members and of the team as a whole.

period that was extended for 7 minutes. The epochs where 2 or more members of the team showed elevated EEG-E levels were primarily found during the resting periods.

5. A More Complex Teamwork Simulation: Substance Abuse Decision Making.

Thus, in a simple teamwork task with little interaction among the team members a consistent pattern of NS expression could be observed which varied with the properties of the task. Interestingly, periods of low EEG-E expression were associated with the active portion of the task suggesting that these low levels do not indicate lack of engagement, but rather the lack of external involvement of each individual.

The second task represents an educational activity where teams of three high school students explored an online IMMEXTM problem space where the goal was to make a decision whether the simulated person should seek help for substance abuse. One member of the team accesses physiologic and neurophysiologic data, one member examined social issues such as school / job performance, difficulties with the law, interactions with peers, etc, and the third person leads the group interactions and guided the decision.

From the perspective of neurophysiologic synchronies and teamwork, the emotion recall results are important as they show that the different members of the team consistently entered a particular neurophysiologic state during the elicitation of emotions and they consistently exited that state during the rest periods. This was observed both for EEG-E and EEG-WL although it was more pronounced with the EEG-E. As the team was not engaged in verbal communication, it also indicates that the state that was entered into during emotion recall was not dependent on active communication among the team members but was more related to the internal representation of the task being generated by each of the team members. Thus NS expression may be a reflection of the internal state

During the task audio and video recordings were made of each student enabling a reconstruction of team member actions and the interactions of the group, allowing a mapping of NS expression to team events. An example of this mapping for one of six groups is shown in Figure 5.1. Here two segments of the team discussions are highlighted, one where EEG-E levels were low and another where they were high. During the period where EEG-E NS was low the team conversation focused on determining how to spell ‘psychiatrist’ whereas when high, the team was involved in a formulation of a final decision. Figure 5.1. Mapping Different NS Expressions to Collaboration Events and Discussions. The NS patterns for the group are shown in the upper left corner and their expression is shown for each epoch. The highlighted segments represent areas where particular NS patterns are expressed at higher or lower levels by cross tabulation. Two segments of the discussions are highlighted where particular NS were either high or low.

24

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

members are at below average levels of engagement (Figure 6.1). Node 4 indicates a pattern where the Contact Coordinator (Position 3) is below average in EEG-E expression and the team members at the other positions have high levels.

6. A Very Complex Teamwork Simulation: Submarine Piloting and Navigation The final example shows the application of the approach to a very complex training task which is the safe piloting of a submarine. These studies were conducted with navigation training tasks that are integral components of the Submarine Officer Advanced Course (SOAC) where Junior Officers train to become department heads and ship drivers. The task the trainees performed is a high fidelity Submarine Piloting and Navigation (SPAN) simulation that contains dynamically programmed situation events which are crafted to serve as the foundation of the adaptive team training. Such events in the SPAN include encounters with approaching ship traffic, the need to avoid nearby shoals, changing weather conditions, and instrument failure. There are also taskoriented cues to provide information to guide the mission, and team-member cues that provide information on how other members of the team are performing / communicating. Finally there are adaptive behaviors that help the team adjust in cases where one or more members are under stress or are not familiar with aspects of the unfolding situation.

Figure 6.1. The Neurophysiologic Synchrony and Frequency Map for a Submarine Piloting and Navigation Team. The neurophysiologic synchrony patterns are shown by the histograms in the boxes representing each neural network node, and the frequency of occurrence of each neurophysiologic synchrony is shown by the degree of fill in the hexagons. An expanded view of patterns 21 and 4 are shown in the lower portion of the figure.

Each SPAN session begins with a briefing detailing the navigation mission including a determination of the static position of the ship; weather conditions; potential hazards; and overall plan of the mission. This section is followed by the simulation which can last from 20 – 60 minutes or more. The simulation is then paused and a debriefing session begins that helps teams monitor and regulate their own performance based on the dimensions of teamwork deemed critical for effective team performance: From a cognitive perspective this teamwork task is complex, requiring not only the monitoring of the unfolding situation and the monitoring of one’s work with regard to that situation, but also the monitoring of the work of others.

The neurophysiologic synchronies so defined, can then be applied to explore multiple dynamics of teamwork such as: 1) Does the quantitative and qualitative expression of NS patterns change with varying task demands? 2) Is the team’s convergence toward shared situation awareness reflected in NS patterns? 3) Do preferred NS patterns change with team experience? The following example shows how the expression of different neurophysiologic synchrony patterns changes over the course of a SPAN task by one team (Figure 6.2.) with the pre-briefing epochs (0-4 minutes), simulation epochs (4-35 minutes), and the debriefing epochs (35-55 minutes) highlighted.

Each neurophysiologic synchrony shows a pattern of EEG-E for each member of the team and provides a snapshot of the overall team engagement. As an example, NS 21 indicates a pattern where the Contact Coordinator (Position 3) and Primary Recorder (Position 5) are highly engaged and the other 4 team

25

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

7. Discussion One of the challenges for extending the measurement of team behavior is the development of unobtrusive and real-time measures of team performance that can be practically implemented (Salas et al, 2008). We believe that the approach we have described begins to address some of these challenges and can be applied to a wide variety of team tasks. Neurophysiologic synchronies represent a low level data stream that can be collected and analyzed in real time and in realistic settings. Our goal for studying NS expression is to be able to rapidly determine the functional status of a team in order to assess the quality of a teams’ performance / decisions, and to adaptively rearrange the team or task components to better optimize the team. The neurophysiologic measure we have used for this study is a measure of engagement in the sense that high levels represent a state of external awareness while low levels better represent an introspective state.

Figure 6.2. Distribution of Neurophysiologic Synchrony Patterns during a SPAN Performance. The NS expressed at each second of the session are plotted vs. the task time. The initial segment on the left is the briefing period, the darkened section in the middle is the simulation itself, and the final segment to the right is the de-briefing segment. The most noticeable difference was the near absence of NS 1-10 expression during the debriefing section; instead these were replaced by NS 11-25 which are those NS where the majority of team members expressed low EEG-E levels. These appeared as soon as the debriefing began, and it is interesting that they are expressed infrequently during the simulation suggesting a difference in team coordination across these two task segments. After several minutes of the debriefing there was elevated expression of NS 21-25 which represents moments where the team members, especially the contact coordinator, are expressing above average levels of EEG-E.

The usefulness of this approach will depend on the cognitive indicator chosen. In parallel studies we have similarly modeled an EEG-derived measure of workload and the NS with the same teams show very different dynamics from those described here with EEG-E. An important challenge will be relating the dynamics of any new cognitive measure to the team task to best determine what aspects of team cognition are being measured. Three examples were presented, one from a research perspective, one from an educational perspective, and one from a training perspective. In all three examples extended periods of time (minutes or more) were observed where NS patterns were preferentially expressed.

The differences between the pre-briefing and the simulation are less striking, perhaps due to the relatively short briefing period, but statistical comparisons (cross tabulation) showed that NS 1, 9 and 10 were underrepresented during this segment (this is where the common feature is the Navigator and Primary Recorder have high EEG-E levels) and synchrony 16 was over represented (this is where the VMS and Radar Operators had elevated EEG-E). These results suggest that neurophysiologic synchronies can change rapidly in response to changing task situations and that the changed synchrony patterns can persist over periods of 10 minutes or more.

Analogous to the long memory phenomena embedded in some communication and other data streams (Gorman, 2005), there may also be information contained in the sequence of the neurophysiologic stream over longer time frames which may reflect more aspects of team cognition rather than individuals’ immediate concerns with the task. Some suggestion that may be so comes from earlier autocorrelation studies where positive autocorrelations can be observed over 20 seconds or more (Stevens et al, 2009).

26

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Process. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26, No. 3. pp 356-376.

The second and third studies with the high school students in classrooms and the SOAC trainees in the SPAN similarly demonstrated that the techniques can be practically implemented in a variety of real-world situations. These studies also indicate that the approach can be flexibly scaled from three-person teams to teams with at least six team members.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management. Vol. 34, No. 3. Pp. 410-476.

Combined, these findings suggest that neurophysiologic indicators measured by EEG may be useful for studying team behavior not only at the milliseconds level, but at more extended time frames.

Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J. (2000). The Measurement of Team Models: We Have No Shared Scheme. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 123-165.

8. References

Salas, E., Cook, N. J., Rosen, M. A. (2008) On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Vol. 50 (3): 540-547.

AlZoubi, O., Calvo, R. A., & Stevens, R. H. (2009). Classification of EEG for Affect Recognition: An Adaptive Approach. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. A. Nicholson, X. Li (Eds.) SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. 5866, pp 52-61.

Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., and Berka, C. (2007). Allocation of Time, Workload, Engagement and Distraction as Students Acquire Problem Solving Skills in ”Foundations of Augmented Cognition”, 4th Edition, D. Schmorrow, D. Nicholson, J. Drexler and L. Reeves (eds). pp. 128-137.

Berka, C., Levendowski, D. J., Cvetinovic, M. M., Petrovic, M. M., Davis G. et al. (2004). Real-Time Analysis of EEG Indexes of Alertness, Cognition, and Memory Acquired With a Wireless EEG Headset. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 17(2), 151-170.

Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., and Berka, C. (2007). EEG-Related Changes in Cognitive Workload, Engagement and Distraction as Students Acquire Problem Solving Skills. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. User Modeling 2007. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. Volume 4511/2007, pp 187196.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In J. N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making: 221-246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., and Berka, C. (2007). Exploring Neural Trajectories of Scientific Problem Solving Skill Acquisition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. Volume 4565/2007, pp 400-408.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290. Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., Salas, E., & Stout, R. 2003. Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7: 179-199.

Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., and Berka, C. (2007). Integrating Innovative Neuro-educational Technologies (I-Net) into K-12 Science Classrooms. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. Volume 4565/2007, pp 47-56.

Levendowski, D.J., Berka, C., Olmstead, R.E., Konstantinovic, Z.R., Davis, G., Lumicao, M.N., Westbrook, P. (2001). Electroencephalographic indices predict future vulnerability to fatigue induced by sleep deprivation. Sleep 24 (Abstract Supplement): A243-A244.

Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., and Berka, C., & Sprang, M. (2009). Can Neurophysiologic Synchronies Be Detected during Collaborative Teamwork?

27

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

of seven patented and seven patent-pending technologies and is the principal investigator or co investigator for grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health, DARPA, ONR and NSF. She has 10 years experience as a research scientist with publications on the analysis of the EEG correlates of cognition in healthy subjects and patients with sleep and neurological disorders.

Proceedings: HCI International 2009, July 19-24, San Diego, CA. pp. 271-275. Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., Berka, C., Johnson, R. & Sprang, M. (2008). Assessing Student’s Mental Representations of Complex Problem Spaces with EEG Technologies. Proceedings: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting, September 22-26, 2008, New York.

TRYSHA GALLOWAY directs the EEG studies for The Interactive Multi Media Exercises (IMMEX™) laboratory and is co-author on eight peer reviewed published studies. Her research interests blend the population based advantages of probabilistic performance modeling with the detection of neurophysiologic signals to help personalize the learning process in complex education and training activities.

9. Acknowledgments This work was supported by The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under contract number(s) NBCHC070101, NBCHC090054. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article/presentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Department of Defense.

  ADRIENNE BEHNEMAN is a Project Manager at Advanced Brain Monitoring. Since 2007, she has played a key leadership role in the Accelerated Learning, RAPID and ANITA projects. She is interested in the development of neuroscience-based tools to enhance training and education. Her current focus is on researching the psychophysiology of expertise in domains including marksmanship, deadly force decision making and team function, as part of the Accelerated Learning project.

Special thanks to John Stallings for preparing the illustrations and to the Officers and Staff of the Submarine Learning Center for their participation in these studies, to Dr. Marcia Sprang and the students at Esperanza High School for their continued participation, and to Dr. Rafa Cavalio for the emotion recall studies. Author contact: [email protected]

10. Author Biographies RON STEVENS, PH.D. is a Professor of Microbiology, and member of the Brain Research Institute at the UCLA School of Medicine. He is the director of the internet-based IMMEX problem solving project which has engaged over 150,000 students and teachers in computational education and professional development activities that span elementary school through medical school. Most recently (2007) Dr. Stevens received the ‘Foundations of Augmented Cognition’ award from the Augmented Cognition Society. His current interests are the use of machine learning tools and electroencephalography (EEG) to model the acquisition of scientific problem solving skills. CHRIS BERKA, CEO and Co-Founder of Advanced Brain Monitoring has over 25 years experience managing clinical research and developing and commercializing new technologies. She is co-inventor

28

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Developing a Cognitive Model of Expert Performance for Ship Navigation Maneuvers in an Intelligent Tutoring System Jason H. Wong1, Susan S. Kirschenbaum1, Stanley Peters2 1 Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI 2 Stanford University, Stanford, CA [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: expert performance, ship navigation, perceptual heuristics, intelligent tutor, cognitive task analysis ABSTRACT: The goal of this project is to develop a cognitive model of expert ship-handling performance. This model was integrated with an intelligent tutoring system and an immersive visual simulation used by the U.S. Navy. This intelligent tutor and expert cognitive model (written in a Java-based version of ACT-R) provides feedback to the student based on the student actions in order to reduce workload on the instructors. The nature of ship navigation and the requirements for the intelligent tutor presented unique challenges for development. This paper describes how the resulting cognitive model balances a need for expert performance while compensating for student error, uses perceptual heuristics when the ACT-R vision module is not feasible, and how these and other issues affected model development. Future plans for system test and evaluation are also discussed in the context of improving training. The requirement that the model represent human performance led to the selection of ACT-R (Anderson, et al., 2004; Anderson, 2007) as choice of cognitive architecture to implement the specific cognitive and perceptual operations used in completing an evolution. The use of a cognitive architecture guides the creation of a system that represents human cognition (and its limits) instead of a computer-based algorithmic solution that ignores the constraints of cognition.

1. Project Overview The Conning Officer Virtual Environment (COVE) is a ship-handling simulation system used by the U.S. Navy to train officers in how to complete ship navigation maneuvers (known in the U.S. Navy as ship-handling “evolutions”). These can include docking a ship, getting a ship underway, or twisting a ship about its axis. This training occurs after students undergo classroom instruction, so this simulation provides a hands-on practice environment for novices. COVE, which is based on the Virtual Ship software (Computer Sciences Corporation, 2009), is used to provide students with ship-handling training without the cost or risk to equipment of at-sea exercises. One downside to this system is that an expert instructor is required to constantly monitor progress and provide feedback, no matter how basic the exercise.

The expert model was designed to provide the tutor with a sense of how an expert would perform the navigation evolution, including the actions taken, rules followed, and perceptual cues that are used. The entire system would then be able to give feedback to the student based on the actions taken and visual cues examined. While some cognitive models have been developed to operate with other components, few have been developed to support an intelligent tutoring system, and this presents a unique set of challenges.

In order to reduce the overall workload on instructors, the goal of this project was to develop a system consisting of a set of new components that interact with each other. One component is an intelligent tutor (Bratt, Schultz & Peters, 2007) that monitors student progress and provides appropriate feedback. The second component, and the subject of this paper, is a cognitive model (developed using a Java-based implementation of ACT-R; Harrison, 2009) of expert performance. This model is designed to represent expert performance in various ship navigation evolutions to provide a point of comparison against the actions taken by the student.

2. Description of System Components The task environment that the cognitive model operates in consists of multiple pieces. The primary component is the COVE simulation software itself. The simulation strives for realism in many important areas (Smallman & St. John, 2005), including elements in the visual environment such as hydrodynamics, weather, currents, piers, buoys, and ships. Some ships are also modeled in high-fidelity; that is, the physics of the engine and rudder are accurately modeled instead of the ship following a 29

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

monitors student progress and compare the student’s actions with those of the expert model in order to provide feedback. The expert model needs to accomplish various navigation evolutions and inform the tutor as to what actions were taken and why.

simple speed and course. All of these elements are rendered in an immersive environment that can be displayed on a single monitor, in a more complex multiple monitor setup, or using a head-mounted display. A screenshot of the rendered scenario can been seen in Figure 1 (top). The multi-monitor setup is complete with head-tracking, control through voice recognition, text-to-speech capability, and a separate instructor console for monitoring performance. COVE scenarios are created using specially designed software that includes detailed real-world ports and realistic ships that are placed in the environment. Ships can be given a set of waypoints to follow, new physical objects can be added, and the weather can be changed using the scenario creator (Figure 1, bottom).

Figure 2. This intelligent tutor/cognitive model system is designed to be implemented in the complex multimonitor COVE simulators, which presented many challenges, including how vision is accomplished. The ACT-R vision component can only handle a single display, so a software solution was created to compensate for this shortfall and will be described in further detail later in the paper.

3. Ship Navigation Maneuvers Several different ship navigation tasks varying in complexity were modeled. One basic evolution is intersecting a range, where a ship is transiting and must make a turn to intersect a new heading. While this may seem trivial, there is much skill in knowing when to begin the turn, how hard to take the turn, and when to ease off the engines and rudder. Another basic evolution is twisting a ship in a box, which involves rotating the ship on its pivot point without moving the ship forwards or backwards. This is difficult because students often do not have previous experience performing this kind of maneuver, and managing the engines and rudder so that the ship does not move laterally is a challenge. Figure 1.

Advanced navigation evolutions are also going to be modeled. To a great extent, these use more basic evolutions as building blocks (Rigeluth, 2007). For example, getting underway from the dock involves twisting the ship away from the pier, transiting forward and then making a turn to go out to sea. There is more to keep track of with these complex tasks, but they still use basic maneuvers at their core.

The student interacts directly with the COVE simulation, issuing verbal commands, listening to responses and status reports, and viewing the environment and the ship under their command (known as “ownship”). The intelligent tutoring system adds two components into this dynamic – an intelligent tutor and expert model (Figure 2). The tutor 30

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

used was derived from a combination of expert interviews and observing ship-handling performance.

The intelligent tutoring system was not designed to replace the current ship-handling curriculum already in place. Instead, the system would augment training by supporting the scaffolding approach already taken by the course: begin by mastering simple maneuvers, then grow those into more complicated ones over the length of the training. The tutoring system supports both simple and complex maneuvers, so students can use the system throughout the course.

4. Expert Model Development ACT-R was a natural choice of cognitive architecture due to the requirement of cognitive plausibility of the expert ship-handling model. Due to the necessity for the cognitive model to communicate with COVE and the intelligent tutor, the model was developed in Javabased jACT-R (Harrison, 2009) instead of Lisp-based ACT-R. Using Java increased compatibility with other system components and was more easily modified by those unfamiliar with Lisp, since Java is a more accessible language. jACT-R was designed to be as similar to ACT-R as possible, especially in terms of retaining the aspects of cognitive plausibility in the architecture.

All of these tasks are difficult for students to grasp due to a number of factors. The hydrodynamics of maneuvering a ship can be difficult to understand, since students rarely have prior experience with shiphandling. Additionally, the tools available to affect the ship’s speed and heading (rudder, port and starboard engines, and a tugboat in some cases) work differently when used in different combinations. Finally, there is often a lag between issuing a command (e,g,, “All engines ahead full”) and observing the effect of that command (e.g., increased speed), so a comprehension of cause-and-effect can take time to develop.

The primary focus of developing a cognitive model for this project is the accurate modeling of several factors. One factor involves the possible actions that an expert could perform in order to maneuver the ship, and another is the perceptual monitoring and scanning behaviors that takes place to ensure successful completion of a navigation task.

Another factor is that there are many paths to accomplish the same goal. One expert may attempt to increase the rate of ownship turn by increasing engine speed while another may instead decide to set the rudder farther over. Both options are correct, and it was important to capture all the possibilities. Also, different experts may teach their preferred method of accomplishing a task, increasing the necessity of the cognitive model and tutor to accommodate all the action paths available to the student. Finally, if the student deviates from a given parameter, the expert model must still function even if the action was not one of an “expert.”

4.1 Task Analysis Foundations for the Model In order to develop a cognitive model of expert ship navigation, subject matter experts from the Naval Surface Warfare Officers School were consulted over multiple sessions. One phase of information collection involved watching students practicing using COVE and examining the feedback that instructors provided them. By analyzing the tone (positive or negative) and content of the feedback (pre-action advise or postaction critique), an understanding was developed of what aspects of ship-handling were emphasized and evaluated by human instructors. This influenced the development of the intelligent tutor as well as the expert model. For example, it became quickly apparent that the use of perceptual cues was critical to success. Also, a majority of the feedback came after an action was taken, so the student had to be allowed to make a mistake first.

Implementing these ship navigation maneuvers in a cognitive model was difficult due to the perceptual nature of these maneuvers. Intersecting a range requires starting a turn, assessing speed through visual cues such as motion parallax (the apparent displacement of objects caused by a change in observer position), and lining up two separate range markers to ensure that the ship is in the ideal position in a harbor channel. These perceptual judgments often occur in the form of heuristics. An example heuristic used by baseball outfielders is that they will keep a constant visual angle between themselves and the ball instead of performing complex calculations (McBeath, Shaffer & Kaiser, 1995). These heuristics also apply to ship navigation and were implemented into a cognitive model. Determining how these strategies are

Another phase of information collection centered around how course instructors performed various shiphandling maneuvers. Experts were interviewed and observed performing these tasks in the COVE simulator. These sessions were analyzed and distilled into cognitive task analyses. These took the form of a 31

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

aided in building the expert cognitive model. An example truncated CCI used for determining the rate of swing of the bow can be found in Table 1.

traditional task analysis (which lists a sequence of observable tasks). Additionally, internal cognitive processes were also taken into account (Zachary, Ryder & Hicinbothom, 1999) and included.

Table 1. The task analysis framework known as GOMS (goal, operator, method, selection; Card, Moran & Newell, 1983; John & Kieras, 1996) was selected for the task analysis because of the hierarchical nature of the tasks. There is a specific order as to which events happen, so representing tasks as a series of goals and sub-goals provided a great deal of benefit when translating these task analyses into cognitive models. For some navigation evolutions, GOMS-like task analyses were already completed (Grassi, 2000), so they were integrated into this project.

Critical Cue Inventory for: Determine Rate of Swing of Bow CUE DESCRIPTION Jackstaff Examine the rate of swing of the jackstaff compared to a fixed environmental object. Used when there is a physical landmark present. Rate of Turn indicator

Interpret the Rate of Turn visual indicator in the COVE instrument cluster.

However, navigation maneuvers do not lend themselves perfectly to GOMS modeling. GOMS does not take into account the perceptual cues that are used in ship navigation. As an example, Figure 3 shows two range markers (the orange and white boards) that serve as a visual cue for ownship heading when they are lined up with the bow jackstaff. While GOMS is able to support a goal such as “Monitor speed until desired heading achieved,” there are a number of perceptual cues that indicate heading (such as range markers) that may be used in various combinations, and GOMS does not include a method for incorporating these visual cues.

Change in heading

Determine how quickly the heading is changing over time using the various heading indicators. Used when there is a lack of landmarks.

4.2 Goal Stack Component The cognitive model built in jACT-R used many standard components in ACT-R models, including the goal and retrieval buffers. Nonetheless, there are several noteworthy characteristics of the model that arose from project requirements. The first is the implementation of a goal stack that drives the entire execution of the cognitive model. Due to the hierarchical nature of navigation evolutions, it is only natural to create a chunk that can hold multiple goal levels in the goal buffer. Various productions push and pop goals from the stack, and the state of the goal stack is checked during the conflict resolution process to determine which production to fire next. Certain steps in a navigation evolution must occur at a specific time, and properly utilizing the goal stack assisted with this need. Knowing when a turn is complete, for example, requires monitoring ownship heading or lining up the jackstaff with an environmental object. The production to stop the turn (i.e., “approaching-heading-NOW-stop-turn”) needs to fire when the goal stack matches specific conditions. The bottom of the goal-stack needs to match the basic goal of “make-turn,” and a goal at the top needs to match the goal of “monitor-until-desired-headingreached.” Once these conditions are met, the production “pops,” or removes, the old goal from the stack and “pushes” on a new goal which, presumably, would stop the turn by shifting the rudder or slowing

Figure 3. Due to this shortfall, a Critical Cue Inventory (CCI) was created to support a list of perceptual cue descriptions that could be used to accomplish a goal. The CCI could also include heuristics as to when a particular visual cue is more likely to be used, which 32

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

jACT-R buffer that is accessible to the model. Even a basic subgoal, such as visually scanning to assess ship status (speed, heading, etc.) required accurate cognitive modeling. Experts will often alternate between paying attention to the environment and to the ship status indicators while executing a navigation evolution, and cycling between these objects takes place frequently. This behavior was assessed in experts through interviews and head-tracking within the COVE system.

the engines. This implementation aids in creating generic productions that are needed by many different higherlevel goals and may occur multiple times throughout an evolution (e.g., “activate-rudder”). The entire goal stack does not need verification – instead, the production only needs to check the top goal. None of the other goals below need to be checked – for example, it does not matter whether a lower-level goal is “make-turn” or “twist-ship.” Either way, the rudder must be activated. Another advantage from being able to check specific goals within the goal stack is that multiple possible action paths to complete a task are easily implemented.

This scanning behavior was inserted into the model so the expert model’s current awareness of the situation correctly reflects the experience of a human expert. From this, the intelligent tutor can detect if the student is exhibiting similar scanning behavior. If this was not the case, the tutor can issue prompts to the student to check speed, heading, rudder status, and other important parameters.

Figure 4 contains a jACT-R pseudocode example that checks the goal stack. The top production is generic and may be called multiple times in an evolution. This production also does not need to verify the entire goal stack. The bottom production must occur at a specific time and checks each level of the goal stack.

Another example that demonstrates the criticality of the vision system is the monitoring of specific perceptual thresholds (e.g., to know when to begin and end turns, when ownship is far enough away or close enough to the dock, etc.). Experts do not intently stare at one location in the environment waiting for this threshold to be passed, nor are they able to focus on more than one area at once. Instead, scanning behavior is used (again derived from interviews and headtracking), and the expert model needed to accurately capture this behavior.

... ...

The standard vision module within jACT-R is able to gather visual information from a display using attentional and imagery constructs, and locations are represented by their x- and y-positional screen coordinates. This vision scheme has been implemented successfully in heavily perceptual tasks such as driving (Salvucci, Boer & Liu, 2001). However, the COVE simulation is too complex to use the relatively basic jACT-R vision module. This is because the visual scene is distributed amongst multiple monitors and computers, which the vision module cannot handle. Instead, information must be passed directly from the simulation to the Java core of jACT-R using a client-server model. This information is then inserted into a buffer created for this model.

Figure 4. 4.3 Use of Perceptual Cues There are many visual cues in the environment that an expert uses to properly execute ship maneuvers. It was necessary to pull this information from the COVE simulation directly instead of going through the jACTR vision module, but it was critical to maintain cognitive plausibility for vision in the model, so the software pulling information from the COVE simulation must act “behind the scenes” to fill a

The solution to this problem was to implement “vision” through external software. COVE generates the rendered environment and keeps track of some environmental objects (e.g., piers), the environmental conditions (e.g., current and wind speed), and the 33

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

cognitive model was different from many other models. The purpose of the expert model within the tutoring system is to act as an “answer key” to compare against student actions. Therefore, the expert is not supposed to commit errors. For example, there is no need to learn new actions, nor is there need for millisecond accuracy in cognitive function. Also, memory decay was not implemented. Instead, the expert model implemented visual scanning behavior between the environment and ownship status indicators to refresh memory. This reflects student behavior because they are often told not to trust their own memory.

status of all the ships (e.g., speed and course of ownship, tugs, etc.). The simulation does not keep track of objects such as buoys, and the locations of those objects had to be measured manually and inserted into a separate database. Together, these components possessed the information that the expert cognitive model would otherwise try and obtain through more traditional means of vision. It was more efficient and easier to retrieve the necessary information about the environment directly from COVE instead of attempting to adapt the jACT-R vision module. A technical necessity for the entire tutoring system was the separation of various system components. The COVE simulation needed to remain a separate entity. While the expert model is an important piece of the intelligent tutor, the tutor itself also needed the option to run as a standalone component. Due to the need for separation between each system component, software bridges were built to interface between the COVE software, the Java core of jACT-R, and the intelligent tutor. The bridge between COVE and jACT-R requests information from COVE and then fills a custom jACT-R buffer that is accessible by the cognitive model. This buffer was programmed as an Eclipse IDE plug-in and imported into jACT-R.

A plausible expert, especially one that is used as a yardstick to measure human students against, should always perform an evolution as flawlessly as possible. However, an expert model that is part of a tutoring system must also be able to adapt to student behaviors, which are not always optimal. The first iteration in creating a model for any ship-handling evolution represented optimal performance of a maneuver. Once this was achieved, multiple action paths were built out from this single path. For example, the expert model knows the optimal distance from a range in which to make a turn, and this behavior is the model default. If the student overshoots this range, the expert model was designed to compensate for the error. This action path may result in using a greater amount of rudder than is typically called for. While suboptimal, it was important that the model possess these behaviors both for some degree of cognitive plausibility and to be a useful components of the intelligent tutor.

A simple example will help illustrate this process. In the case of monitoring ownship speed, a human expert would look down at a console (on a monitor separate from the rendered environment) and read off the speed. For the cognitive model to do this, it would request the speed from the COVE-ship-state buffer (similar to requesting a particular chunk from the retrieval buffer) first. This buffer is refreshed by the COVE/Java bridge, which periodically queries the COVE software as to the state of the simulation, which includes ownship speed information.

One area where it was especially important to maintain cognitive plausibility was in visual scanning behavior. If a computer program was written that did not take into account the limits of human cognition, then a student would be compared to a computer instead of a simulated human expert. While a computer could monitor multiple information streams at once, this would not reflect human cognition. Instead, a reflection of expert human behavior would require scanning multiple sources of data in a serial manner.

This software bridge allows for the simulation of many of the visual cues utilized by human experts but is pulled directly from the simulation. Therefore, the perceptual cues and heuristics used by human experts are still present in the cognitive model because the software bridge is abstracted away from the model. This abstraction allows for the ability of the model to accomplish something akin to traditional vision in a cognitively plausible manner.

5. Empirical Validation Traditional validation of cognitive models seeks to match human performance with that of the model, typically on a temporal scale. For example, an accurate cognitive model of visual search should generate target detection times that are similar to

4.4 Cognitive Plausibility Defining

cognitive

plausibility

for

this

expert 34

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

integrated a cognitive model into a larger framework, these have mostly focused on training applications by creating a simulated teammate to work with other humans (Scolaro & Santarelli, 2002; Ball, et al., 2009). The project described here also works within a larger framework, but not in a team context. Instead, the model represents a single expert that changes its behavior in direct response to student actions.

human reaction times. Here, we are attempting to match the perceptual actions of an expert instead. The actions taken by the model do need to occur with some degree of temporal accuracy, but the millisecond modeling accuracy of jACT-R is not necessary for this application. An important first step of validation involves demonstrating a complete system to the instructors who will be using the system for instruction. This has already been done with the standalone intelligent tutor system, which only contained rudimentary knowledge about ship-handling (e.g., maximum limits on speed). The system was well-received by instructors, who noted that feedback on perceptual components of the task would add to the utility of the final product.

This project presents a unique application of the jACT-R cognitive architecture in many ways. The requirements for the project necessitated the development of an expert cognitive model that needed to balance cognitive plausibility with near-flawless expert performance, perceptual heuristics without actual vision, and multiple action paths with an emphasis on tutoring. As intelligent tutoring systems are becoming increasingly popular, it is important to understand how cognitive modeling can add to these systems in a useful way.

Further validation steps have not occurred but are currently being planned. One important step in this model validation plan will examine how the entire tutoring system performs when a novice student uses the simulation. This will be tested on actual students taking a ship-handling course, but can also be tested on non-student novices. The critical data to collect from these experiments is the performance of the expert model. This is to ensure that the model was able to traverse the multiple action paths in response to student performance. For example, if a novice stops a turn too late, the model should react by shifting the rudder in the opposite direction. If the model had direct control of the ship, this mistake should not have happened in the first place. However, the model does not have control and must compensate for many errors that a novice can make. This will require many novices and hours of testing, but will serve to make a more robust model.

While an expert model “answer key” cannot make mistakes such as memory retrieval failures, the model must compensate for student errors in order to remain useful. This required a far more extensive knowledge gathering period in order to explore task performance more fully, and also requires a greater testing period to ensure that many practical possibilities for behaviors that deviate from the optimum are accounted for. Intelligent tutoring systems are often used in complex environments, which requires ACT-R models to perceive information that cannot be retrieved through the current, primitive vision module. Instead, software bridges must interface between the simulation and ACT-R itself, but the simulation environment must remain abstracted away from the model to maintain cognitive plausibility. Overall, cognitive modeling has a great deal to offer intelligent tutoring systems, and an optimal methodology to create these models is currently being shaped.

A critical final test of the intelligent tutor and expert model system is to determine how training is improved with use of this system. Improvement will be measured along several factors, including performance in ship maneuvering (measured across several variables such as time to completion and deviation from optimal channel position), amount of training retention, and number of human instructor hours required during training. The hope is that the tutor can increase the number of students that a single instructor can supervise while maintaining the same level of (or improving) training effectiveness.

7. References Anderson, J. R. (2007). How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe? New York: Oxford University Press.

6. Conclusions

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060.

While there have been other projects that have

Ball, J., Myers, C., Heiberg, A., Cooke, N., Matessa, 35

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

M., & Freiman, M. (2009). The Synthetic Teammate Project. 18th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Sundance, UT.

Ergonomics in Design, 13(3), 6-13. Zachary, W. W., Ryder, J. M., & Hicinbothom, J. H. (1999). Building Cognitive Task Analyses and Models of a Decision-making Team in a Complex Real-time Environment. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. J. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp. 365-383). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

Bratt, E. O., Schultz, K., & Peters, S. (2007). Challenges in Interpreting Spoken Military Commands and Tutoring Session Responses. Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks 2007, Stanford, CA.

Acknowledgments

Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

The Office of Naval Research program of Training, Education, and Human Performance sponsored this research. Thanks to Alden Daley, Jia Huang, and Anthony Harrison for jACT-R and coding support.

Computer Sciences Corporation. (2009). Virtual Ship [Computer Software]. Retrieved December 1, 2009.

Author Biographies Grassi, C. R. (2000). A task analysis of pier-side shiphandling for virtual environment ship-handling simulator scenario development. Masters Thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School.

DR. JASON H. WONG is a Human Factors Scientist with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. He received his Ph.D. in 2009 from George Mason University and applies his research to projects that integrate cognitive theory and system design. He examines the humancomputer interaction aspects of complex systems, creates improved submariner training methodologies, and develops cognitive models to simulate human performance.

Harrison, A. M. (2009). jACT-R [Computer Software]. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://jactr.org/. John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques: Comparison and Contrast. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 320-351.

DR. SUSAN S. KIRSCHENBAUM is an Engineering Psychologist in the Combat Systems Department of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, Rhode Island and the Human Systems Integration (HSI) Lead for NUWCDIVNPT. She has continuing interests in expertise and in the effects of uncertainty and other information variables on decision making. Applications for her research are in the design of systems for decision support, humancomputer interaction, and display design.

McBeath, M. K., Shaffer, D. M., & Kaiser, M. K. (1995). How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science, 268(5210), 569573. Reigeluth, C.M. (2007). Order, first step to mastery: An introduction to sequencing in instructional design. In F. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. O’Shea (Eds.), In Order to Learn: How the Sequence of Topics Influences Learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Salvucci, D. D., Boer, E. R., & Liu, A. (2001). Toward an Integrated Model of Driver Behavior in a Cognitive Architecture. Transportation Research Record, 1779, 9-16. Scolaro, J., & Santarelli, T. (2002). Cognitive Modeling Teamwork, Taskwork, and Instructional Behavior in Synthetic Teammates. 11th Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Orlando, FL. Smallman, H. S., & St. John, M. (2005). Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays. 36

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Modeling Complex Social Behavior: A System Dynamics Approach John A. Sokolowski, Ph.D. Catherine M. Banks, Ph.D. Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center Old Dominion University 1030 University Blvd. Suffolk, VA 23435 757-686-6232, 757-686-6224 [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: human behavior modeling, system dynamics, causal loop diagrams, stocks and flows, insurgency, IRA

Abstract: System Dynamics (SD) will be used to facilitate a holistic representation of the British counter-insurgency (COIN) in Ireland with a view to events and relationships from a macro to micro perspective. SD modeling facilitates assessment of cause and effect factors, direct and indirect variables, and corresponding and correlative relationships of insurgency as a complex system. The model characterizes the relationships between and among inorganic and organic factors, i.e., events and human behavior / response. The purpose of the study is to better understand what served to unite the Irish insurgency, self rule, and what would have moderated the British COIN. Resultant model iterations allow for in depth analysis of case studies to explore hypothetical scenarios and what if questions.

1.

existence through the mutual interaction of their parts (Forrester, 1991). The methodology consists of: ƒ Identifying a problem or system to be modeled ƒ Developing a hypothesis to explain the cause of the problem or the behavior of the system ƒ Developing a model to capture causes/ behaviors ƒ Validating the model to show that it reproduces the real-world behavior ƒ Devising possible solutions to the problem or modification of the behavior ƒ Testing these solutions in the model to show the possible outcome or impact of the proposed solution

Introduction

The Systems Dynamics (SD) modeling paradigm is used for analyzing complex systems in many different areas. This modeling technique characterizes causal and correlative relationships between and among inorganic and organic factors, i.e., events and human behavior / response. Specifically, SD facilitates a holistic representation of those events, and it can progress from the macro to micro perspective. SD also allows for sensitivity and statistical output analysis. Resultant model iterations allow for in depth analysis of case studies to explore hypothetical scenarios and what if questions.

SD models are defined and represented by causal loop diagrams (that serve to identify factors and their relationships to explain how the system behaves) and stock and flow diagrams. Both are a critical in the modeling process as they serve as the foundation for capturing / explaining how the system behaves. Figure 2.1 is a causal loop diagram of factors that influence highway road construction.

The paper uses an SD to model complex social systems. First, is a discussion of SD as a modeling paradigm and the development of causal loops and stock and flows. SD will be used to explore the evolution and escalation of civil uprising (1916) and war (1919-1921) in Ireland specific to the relationship between and among the protagonists during this period. The significance of the research comes in the form of an analysis of the models and their outputs with comments on the model’s function in explaining and understanding the case study.

2.

System Dynamics

SD is a methodology for modeling and subsequently studying complex systems such as those found in political or other social systems as entities that maintains their

37

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Traffic Congestion

In Figure 2 the rectangular boxes represent the stocks; here interest is placed on how road capacity and driver satisfaction change over time. The large arrows represent the flows with a valve symbol characterizing an adjustable rate of road construction and driver satisfaction. The other variables control these rates and thus the levels of each stock variable.

+ Driver Frustration

Time to build roads

-

Road Capacity +

B + Complaints to Government

New Road Plans

3.

Figure 2.1 Causal loop diagram for road construction

The Ulster Volunteers were countered in the south by Nationalist supporters of the Act who in 1913 organized, took arms, and called themselves the Irish Volunteers. The Act was never implemented due to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Britain’s commitments in this war gave way to the call for Allied support among citizens of the empire to include all Ireland; and many Irish enlisted. Members of the predominant Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) hoped to use this gesture of war support as a bargaining chip in that when the war was over arguing the institution of Home Rule based on the show of Irish goodwill and support for the allies. Not all Irish agreed with this political tactic; in fact, many in the south opposed fighting the war in general, and more specifically fighting the war for Britain. Concurrently, another organization, more radical in its ideals and approach to Irish self-rule, began to prepare for a domestic revolt against British governance in Ireland. The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), a secret society that came to be the most radical expression of nationalism, along with other Irish Volunteers planned an insurrection to establish an Irish Republic (Kostick, 1996).

time to satisfy time to dissatisfy Traffic Congestion

time to build roads New Road Plans

the

In 1912 the British House of Commons passed the Home Rule in Ireland Act. If approved Home Rule could serve to split northern and southern Irish. The ProtestantUnionist-Loyalist-Irish of the northeast resisted this measure believing they would become a minority population among the Catholic-Nationalist-Gaelic-Irish of the south. To combat this measure of devolution Unionists organized as a group of militant rebels, the Ulster Volunteers, men who had no qualms about takingup arms against the southern Irish or the King.

Causal loop diagrams provide a conceptual model of how the system behaves. To turn the model into a functional simulation of the system requires translating the causal loop diagram into a stock and flow representation. Stocks are system variables whose values can be accumulated over time. Flows are the rate variables that govern the changes to the stock levels. Figure 2.2 is a stock and flow diagram for the traffic congestion example.

Road Capacity

and

Civil uprising and insurgency are appropriate case studies to model as they are complex social systems that can be represented using SD. This study on Ireland looks at violence at the turn of the 20th century: the Easter Rising of 1916 and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921. The following is a succinct discussion of these events.

Each arrow in the diagram represents a causal link between two variables (e.g., as traffic congestion increases driver frustration increases; in turn causing more complaints to government; which leads to new road plans and more road capacity; with more road capacity traffic congestion decreases). The plus signs indicate the effect variable changes in the same direction as the cause variable. A negative sign (-) indicates an opposite change. The minus sign in the center of the loop shows this as a balancing relationship (the loop continues to feed on itself in a negative manner causing an exponential decrease in traffic congestion). Opposite this is a reinforcing loop indicated by a central plus sign. These behaviors describe an important concept in SD: feedback loops, which refer to situations where variable X affects variable Y and Y in turn affects X possibly through a chain of causes and effects. Studying these links independently to predict how the system will behave is not possible as only the study of the system with its multiple feedback loops connected to one another will lead to proper results.

Rate of Road Construction

British Counter-Insurgency Easter Rising 1916

Driver Rate of Change of Satisfaction Driver Satisfaction

Complaints to Government

In 1915 the Nationalists under the direction of charismatic leader Michael Collins p, with the help of Irish-American ties in New York, arranged for a shipment of arms from

Figure 2.2 Stock and flow diagram for traffic congestion

38

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Germany for the following spring. Both the Germans and the Volunteers knew that an Irish uprising aimed at the British could benefit both the German offensive in Europe and the uprising to lay claim to a Republic of Ireland.

rule because of their dissatisfaction with British dominance. This dissatisfaction was caused by the imposition of British rule and British culture, which was different than the Gaelic-Catholic heritage that had been suppressed. This socio-cultural factor was a catalyst for ripening longstanding conditions causing a call to insurgency and the 1916 Rising. These are variables that can be used to begin the causal loop diagram. This segment of the loop is shown in Figure 3.1.

An arms exchange was foiled as the German ship bringing arms was intercepted off the Kerry coast. The arms seizure signaled two things: the British were now aware of the covert activity taking place between the Irish and enemies of the realm and the Volunteers knew that without arms their planned Uprising was futile. Still, it was decided to go ahead with the Uprising as the Nationals sought to strike with what they had before the British had an opportunity to regroup and respond. Thus, a handful of Volunteers, reconciled to failure and willing to lose their lives, proceeded with the uprising. Some even believed a blood sacrifice was needed regardless of the odds against a victory (Walsh, 2009).

British Interference in Irish Life Irish Satisfaction with British Rule

On 24 April 1916 approximately 150 Volunteers marched into the Dublin’s General Post Office and ordered the staff to leave. The Volunteers took advantage of three things: Britain’s overseas commitments, Ireland’s tie to the Catholic Church and its condemnation of the war, and the threat of conscription.

Figure 3.1 Initial causal loop diagram segment Here, British interference in Irish life caused dissatisfaction with British rule leading to a growing number of insurgents. As the number of insurgents grew so did the threat of violent incidents. This culminated with the takeover of the Post Office on Easter Monday 1916. The British were now under pressure to respond. British soldiers retaliated with many acts of killing and brutality, which only caused the perception of more interference by the British on Irish civilian life. This chain of events will allow additions to the causal loop diagram of Figure 3.1 and it completes a reinforcing loop that continues to feed the rise of the insurgency in Figure 3.2.

The Easter Rising resulted in 1,351 wounded, 318 killed, 179 buildings destroyed, 3,430 men interned, and 92 death sentences (Kostick, 1996). The Rising lasted 6 days because it took that much time for British authorities to flood the city with troops. In Britain, the Rising was viewed as a stab in the back and it was believed that the Irish Volunteers were assisting the Germans. As such, British military policy and reprisals created many martyrs. British reprisals in the form of execution and severe treatment of any associated with the Rising effectively changed the mood of Irish Nationalists, civilians and Volunteers, as they became more amenable to a radical means to an end (Auguseijn, 1996). In fact, the failed rebellion resulted in an emotional response by the Nationalist population and it accomplished precisely what the Volunteers sought, a revived civilian support for an Irish Republic (Hart, 2003). 3.1

- Number of Insurgents

British Soldier Coercive Acts

+ British Interference in Irish Life

+

Pressure to Reduce Incidents +

B Insurgent Incidents +

Modeling the Easter Rising

Irish Satisfaction with British Rule

The above narrative highlights the cause, ideologies, events, protagonists, and results of the incident. These can be dissected to construct the causal loops and stocks and flows. The modeling effort begins with an analysis of the above narrative following the SD methodology outlined earlier in the paper. The task is to develop a model of the AngloIrish insurgency. In analyzing the above events one can see that the majority of the Irish citizens preferred self-

- Number of Insurgents

Figure 3.2 Insurgency creation loop Because dissatisfaction with British rule does not instantaneously create new insurgents, a delay symbol (two parallel lines) was added to the segment connecting

39

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

Irish Satisfaction with British Rule with Number of Insurgents to indicate this delay. This model now sets the stage for the Anglo-Irish War.

4.

British Counter-Insurgency Anglo-Irish War 1919-1921

and

conscription was the catalyst to a united cause. Many strikes and an anti-conscription rebellion resulted in the designation of 13 counties as Special Military Areas with large numbers of British troops deployed to keep the peace. At the close of 1918 this number exceeded 100,000 (Walsh, 2009). Sinn Fein membership increased from 66,000 in December 1917 to over 100,000 members in April 1918 (Hopkinson, 2002). Two things are significant regarding this crisis: 1) conscription was the catalyst to a united cause among civilians and Volunteers, and the Church contended that the Irish people had a right to resist; 2) the British were hard pressed by the various tactics (labor strikes and guerrilla operations) used in the resistance.

the

Modeling the next phase of the case study calls for a revised explanation of the ideology and intent of insurgency, the shifting populations among the protagonists, the structured tactics of the insurgents, and the formal counter-insurgency policy implemented. Importantly, since these are continuous events, the model must note the tipping points that result in desired or proscribed outcomes of the protagonists.

In March 1920 support was brought in to buffer RIC losses and the escalation of violence in the form of the Black and Tans. The British government placed 7,000 Tans under the administration of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The Tans conducted their affairs like a para-military force. A second quasi-military force was introduced that same summer, the Police Auxiliary Cadets. They, too, were to bolster the RIC, control the Tans, and avoid military conflict. They numbered 2,215 and were all too often just as bad as the Tans in their mistreatment of civilians; however, they focused on the IRA. By end of 1921 there were 17,000 RIC officers and 80,000 British troops in Ireland (Kostick, 1996). Collins estimated IRA membership during the war was 100,000 nominally, with 15,000 actively serving, and 3,000 who can be trusted to be drawn up at any time. The IRA benefited by the widespread civilian support throughout the counties primarily in civilian refusal to provide any information to the British.

For purposes of modeling the Anglo-Irish War the designations will follow as such: the post-1916 Nationalists are outraged by British reprisals after the Easter Rising and are much more amenable to using nefarious acts in a tit-for-tat environment; some Volunteers changed their ideology and consider themselves Republicans seeking a free Ireland with no political stipulations. By 1920 these Irish Volunteers reorganize and become the Irish Republican Army (IRA) under Michael Collins (Fitzpatrick, 1998). Coupled with a Republican posture, the IRA sought autonomy over the entire state and escalated the rebellion via guerrilla tactics throughout the pre-war, from postRising 1916 through 1919, and then during the heated battle which began in 1920 until the truce of June 1921. The executions that immediately followed the Easter Rising served to shift the support of many civilians to the Republican cause. All but one of the leaders of the Rising lost their lives. Irish politics now shifted: Parliamentary elections held in 1918 placed the IPP in low esteem and gave way to overwhelming wins for Sinn Fein (Augusteijn, 1996). This public support was the impetus for a provisional government, an Irish Parliament (Dail) which convened on 21 January 1919. It is with this selfproclaimed government that Collins reorganized the Volunteers into the IRA who swore allegiance to both the Republic and the Dáil.

As the war escalated two incidents took place that brought the conflict to levels beyond which the protagonists could tolerate: the 21 November 1920 killings that became infamously known as Bloody Sunday (the simultaneous assassination of fourteen officers, in eight Dublin locations). Bloody Sunday represented the microcosm of the whole conflict in respect to the role of intelligence, appalling violence, revenge, and propaganda. No set of incidents was so decisive in changing British attitudes of the Anglo-Irish War as corpses of assassinated British officers taken in succession through the streets of London to a massive funeral in Westminster Abbey (Hopkinson, 2002).

The IRA was perceived by some members of the Dail to possess a mandate for war against the British. As such, the IRA began a methodical campaign of guerrilla warfare by first targeting British soldiers. It benefited from public support in waging this campaign for the years between 1916 and 1918 were bloody; many Irish families suffered from British brutality. The most significant event during this period was the anti-conscription campaign.

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, attacks on property of Sinn Fein sympathizers became a regular occurrence with thirty-three documented cases and the destruction of 191 houses (Hopkinson, 2002). IRA arrests abounded: 1,478 in January increased to 2,569 in March a final total of 4,454 in July. On 25 May 1921 the Burning of the Custom House in Dublin resulted in additional political

By April 1918 conscription of Irishmen was enacted and it yielded much ill-will on the part of all Irish. As such,

40

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

damage for the Parliament and continued guerilla attacks against British forces. The British military saw the worst casualties during the summer of 1921 with forty-eight killed (Hopkinson, 2002). Internally, confusion existed in the form of military authority over police authority and the relationship of Martial Law to Civil Law. By July 1921 Parliament called for an end to the Anglo-Irish stalemate via a truce. 4.1

an investigation of what-if scenarios can be conducted to see what may have produced more favorable results.

British Troop Levels B British Soldier Coercive Acts +

Modeling the Anglo-Irish War + + British Interference in Irish Life

The synopsis of the Anglo-Irish War depicts the continued effort by the Irish insurgents to affect their will on the British government and the various actions taken by the British to counter that effort. The British employed military responses to get control of the insurgency and to destroy it continuing their interference with Irish life n an effort to end insurgency. This portion can now be added to the causal loop diagram of Figure 3.2 to represent the insurgent suppression loop. This update is shown in Figure 4.1.

R

-

British Government Perception + +

B

World Opinion

Insurgent Incidents +

-

-

Number of Insurgents

Irish Satisfaction with British Rule

Figure 4.2 Addition of British perception loop To begin the stock and flow diagram one must decide what variables to track from a quantitative standpoint. For the purpose of this example the Number of Insurgents and Irish Satisfaction with British Rule will be principal variables of interest. The Number of Insurgents is affected by an insurgent creation rate, an insurgent loss rate, and an insurgent retirement rate. Irish Satisfaction with British Rule is governed by the change in their satisfaction level. This initial stock and flow diagram is shown in Figure 4.3.

+

B

+

R

British Soldier Coercive Acts

+ British Interference in Irish Life

Pressure to Reduce Incidents

Pressure to Reduce Incidents +

Insurgent Incidents + Number of Insurgents

-

Insurgents

Irish Satisfaction with British Rule

Insurgent Creation Rate

Insurgent Loss Rate Insurgent Retirement Rate

Figure 4.1 Addition of insurgent suppression loop

Irish Satisfaction with British Rule

As a response to the continued pressure by the Irish insurgents to affect their will on Ireland, the British government felt pressure to regain control of the situation. This pressure came both from the internal violent acts that insurgents perpetuated and from external world opinion of the situation. As a result, Britain committed an increasing number of soldiers and other law enforcement personnel in an attempt to quell the violence and regain control of the situation. Figure 4.2 shows the addition of a British perception loop and its affect on British troop levels in Ireland.

Change in Satisfaction

Figure 4.3 Initial stock and flow diagram From the causal loop diagram of Figure 4.3 one can see that the rate at which insurgents are created is dependent upon Irish satisfaction level. However, it is also dependent upon the tendency of a small portion of the general Irish population to be drawn to an insurgency because of its inherent disposition. This would account for a core group of people who would be part of an insurgency no matter what the circumstances. The number in this group is dependent on the size of the population and the fraction of that population that would be predisposed to insurgency. This number would then be added to that portion of the population affected by British

Thus far the model has accounted for the major cause and effect relationships influencing the Irish insurgency for the period 1916 through 1921. With these relationships in place a stock and flow diagram can be constructed and a simulation developed to replicate this situation. With this

41

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21 - 24 March 2010

rule thus providing the overall contribution to the insurgent creation rate. Figure 4.4 shows the addition of these factors to the initial stock and flow diagram.

of simulation results of insurgent level and British troop level. Insurgents

Insurgents

baseline recruitment rate

recruited insurgents

time to join insurgency

20,000

Insurgent Loss Rate

Insurgent Creation Rate

Insurgent Retirement Rate

15,000

potential additional insurgent fraction population

effect on insurgent recruitment

initial population

annual growth rate