Skip to main content
Log in

Building a Tool for Battle Planning: Challenges, Tradeoffs, and Experimental Findings

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Use of knowledge-based decision aids can help alleviate the challenges of planning complex operations. We describe a knowledge-based tool capable of translating a high-level concept for a tactical military operation into a fully detailed, actionable plan, producing automatically (or with human guidance) plans with realistic degree of detail and complexity. Tight interleaving of planning, adversary estimates, scheduling, routing, attrition and consumption processes comprise the computational approach of this tool. Although originally developed for Army large-unit operations, the technology is generic and also applies to a number of other domains, particularly in critical situations requiring detailed planning within a constrained period of time. In this paper, we focus particularly on the engineering tradeoffs in the design of the tool. An experimental comparative evaluation indicated that the tool's performance compared favorably with human planners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • H. Wass de Czege and J.D. Biever, “Six compelling ideas on the road to a future army,” Army Magazine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 43–48, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Army, “Field Manual 101-5, Staff Organization and Operations,” Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 1997.

  • R. Rasch, A. Kott, and K. Forbus, “AI on the Battlefield: A case of an experimental exploration,” IEEE Intelligent Systems (forthcoming).

  • C.C. Hayes and J. Schlabach, “FOX-GA: A planning support tool for assisting military planners in a dynamic and uncertain environment,” in Integrating Planning, Scheduling and Execution in Dynamic and Uncertain Environments, edited by R. Bergmann and A. Kott, AAAI Press, 1998.

  • A. Tate, J. Levine, P. Jarvis, and J. Dalton, “Using AI planning technology for army small unit operations,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, 2000.

  • D.E. Wilkins and R.V. Desimone, “Applying an AI planner to military operations planning,” in Intelligent Scheduling, edited by M. Fox and M. Zweben, Morgan Kaufmann: CA, pp. 685–709, 1994.

  • A. Kott and V. Saks, “A multi-decompositional approach to integration of planning and scheduling—an applied perspective,” in Integrating Planning, Scheduling and Execution in Dynamic and Uncertain Environments, edited by R. Bergmann and A. Kott, AAAI Press, 1998.

  • W.E. Bohman, “STAFFSIM, An interactive simulation for rapid, real time course of action analysis by U.S. Army brigade staffs,” Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 1999.

  • R. Kewley and M. Embrecht, “Fuzzy-genetic decision optimization for positioning of military combat units,” in Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October 11–14, La Jolla, California, 1998, pp. 3658–3664.

  • M.S. Atkin, D.L. Westbrook, and P.R. Cohen, “Capture the flag: Military simulation meets computer games,” in Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium Series on AI and Computer Games, 1999, pp. 1–5.

  • A. Kott, G. Agin, and D. Fawcett, “Configuration tree solver. A technology for automated design and configuration,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 187–195.

  • N. Sathi, M. Fox, R. Goyal and A. Kott, “Resource configuration and allocation: A case study of constrained heuristics search,” IEEE Expert, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 26–35, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Kott, V. Saks, and A. Mercer, “A new technique enables dynamic replanning of aeromedical evacuation,” AI Magazine, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • T.N. Dupuy, Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War, Hero Books: Fairfax, VA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Wass de Czege, “Using information technologies to reduce the Army's echelons,”Army, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 8–10, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • E.W. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 1, pp. 269–271, 1959.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • G.S. Patton, “War as I Knew it,” as quoted in, Department of the Army, “Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do,” Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 1999, Chapter 6, Organizational Leadership.

  • Department of the Army, “Field Manual 71-123, Tactics and Techniques for Combined Arms Heavy Forces: Armored Brigade Battalion Task Force,” Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 1992.

  • A. Blum and M. Furst, “Fast planning through planning graph analysis,” In Proceedings of IJCAI-95, Morgan Kaufmann, 1995, pp. 1636–1642.

  • D.E. Wilkins and M. des Jardins, “A call for knowledge-based planning,” AI Magazine vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 99–115, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • D.E. Wilkins and K.L. Myers, “A multiagent planning architecture,” in Proceedings of AIPS-98, 1998, pp. 154–162.

  • D.E. Wilkins and K.L. Myers, “A common knowledge representation for plan generation and reactive execution,” Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 731–761, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Applegate, C. Elsaesser, and J. Sanborn, “An architecture for adversarial planning, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, 1990.

  • C.E. Martin and D. Schreckenghost, “Helping humans: Agents for distributed space operations,” in The 7th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space, Nara, Japan, 2003.

  • J.B. Cruz, Jr., M.A. Simaan, A. Gacic, and Y. Liu, “Moving horizon game theoretic approaches for control strategies in a military operation”, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 989–999, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Stilman, Linguistic Geometry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

  • D. Smith, J. Frank, and A. Jonsson, “Bridging the gap between planning and scheduling,” Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 2000.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Budd.

Additional information

Alexander Kott is a Program Manager at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While performing the research described in this paper, he was the Director of R&D at Carnegie Group, Inc., and a Technical Director at BBN Technologies in Pittsburgh, PA. His work included development of algorithms and decision aids for dealing with dynamic planning and scheduling in constrained, uncertain and adversarial environments, and research in dynamic distributed decision-making systems, such as in military command and control. He earned his PhD from the University of Pittsburgh where he explored the use AI techniques for innovative design of systems. He can be reached at DARPA, 3701 N Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203.

Raymond Budd is a member of the technical staff at BBN Technologies. His areas of interest include knowledge representations, knowledge engineering, and planning and scheduling. He received a BS in computer science from the University of Pittsburgh. Contact him at BBN Technologies 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209.

Larry Ground is a senior analyst with Green River Associates, Inc. His research interests include development of tools for analysis and decision support of Army maneuver and logistics planning. Retired from the US Army as a Lieutenant Colonel, he served in a variety of command and staff positions and taught at the US Army Command and General Staff College. He is a Certified Professional Logistician by the International Society of Logistics. Contact him at Green River Associates, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA.

Lakshmi Rebbapragada is a senior computer engineer at US Army CECOM Research, Development and Engineering Center (RDEC). Her research interests include application of advanced technologies to tactical planning, execution-based replanning, VA Standards for Ontology based Knowledge sharing re-use, and Network Centric Infrastructure for Command and Control. She is a member of the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) Working Group. She has a Ph.D in High Energy Physics from Bristol University U.K. She can be contacted at PM UA NSI Battle Command, Bldg. 2405, Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703. John Langston is a senior analyst with Austin Information Systems. He served in a variety of command and staff positions in the US Army, including extensive combat experience in the Republic of Vietnam. Retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, he is widely recognized for his extensive research and knowledge in the areas of military leadership and decision making and has contributed significantly to the development of automated battle planning tools. Contact him at Austin Information Systems, Whispering Woods Cove, Parkville, MO 64152.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kott, A., Budd, R., Ground, L. et al. Building a Tool for Battle Planning: Challenges, Tradeoffs, and Experimental Findings. Appl Intell 23, 165–189 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-005-4606-z

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-005-4606-z

Keywords

Navigation