Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flying Together: Modelling Air Mission Teams

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of modelling air missions is part of a larger problem—simulating possible war-like scenarios in the air, sea, and on land. In modelling such military systems one is required to model the behaviour of various actors and the resources that are available to them. One aspect of this problem is the modelling of a group of actors as a team and then modelling the coordinated behaviour of such a team to achieve a joint goal.

In the domain of air mission modelling the actors are pilots who control aircraft and their behaviour is referred to as tactics. In this paper we present the approach we adopted in modelling teams and team tactics as part of the development of the Smart Whole AiR Mission Model (SWARMM) for the Air Operations Division of the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organization. In our approach teams are composed of sub-teams and adopt organizational structures. Such structures define the responsibilities of the sub-teams towards the mission to be achieved as well as towards the control and coordination of the sub-teams. We also describe how communication is used when adopting a variety of control and coordination strategies and how one could reason about the choice of organizational structures for a given mission and situation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Appla, M. Selvestrel, C. Heinze, D. McIlroy, G. Tidhar, and A.S. Rao, “Small whole air mission model (SWARMM): Technical description,” Personal Communication, Air Operations Division, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Atkin and P.R. Cohen, “Monitoring strategies for embedded agents: Experiments and analysis,” Journal of Adaptive Behavior, vol. 4, no.2, pp. 125-172, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M.E. Bratman, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K.M. Carley and M.J. Prietula (Eds.), Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P.R. Cohen, M.L. Greenberg, D.M. Hart, and A.E. Howe, “Trial by fire: Understanding the design requirements for agents in complex environments,” AI Magazine, vol. 10, no.3, pp. 32-48, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Cohen and H. Levesque, “Teamwork,” Technical Report 504, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. d'Inverno, D. Kinny, M. Luck, and M. Wooldrige, “A formal specification of dmars,” in Fourth International Workshop on Theories, Architectures and Languages, edited by M. Wooldrige and A. Rao, 1997 (to appear).

  8. M.R. Endsley, “The role of situation awareness in naturalistic decision making,” in Naturalistic Decision Making, edited by C.E. Zsambok and G. Klein, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1997.

  9. M.S. Fox, “Organization structuring: Designing large complex software,” Technical Report CMU-CS-79-155, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Dec. 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M.S. Fox, “An organizational view of distributed systems,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 11, no.1, pp. 70-80, Jan. 1981; Also published in Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, edited by A.H. Bond and L. Gasser, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, USA, pp. 140-150, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M.S. Fox, “Enterprise integration,” Personal Communication, February 1993.

  12. M. Fox, J.F. Chionglo, and F.G. Fadel, “A common sense model of the enterprise,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Institute for Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA, USA, 1993, pp. 425-429.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, “Procedural knowledge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Special Issue on Knowledge Representation, 1986, vol. 74, pp. 1383-1398.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. Grosz and S. Kraus, “Collaborative plans for group activities,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: Chambry, France, 1993, pp. 367-373.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Hammer and J. Champy, Reengineering The Corporation, Allen & Unwin, 1993.

  16. M. Howlett, “A description of the criteria used and the process of gameplan selection for air to air intercepts,” Personal Communication, Air Operations Division, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, 1991.

  17. N.R. Jennings, Cooperation in Industrial Multi-Agent Systems, World Scientific Publishing Company: River Edge, NJ, USA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N.R. Jennings and E.H. Mamdani, “Using joint responsibility to coordinate collaborative problem solving in dynamic environments,” in Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA, USA, 1992, pp. 269-275.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D.N. Kinny, M. Ljungberg, A.S. Rao, E.A. Sonenberg, G. Tidhar, and E. Werner, “Planned team activity,” in Proceedings of the Fourth European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, MAAMAW' 92, Viterbo, Italy, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. Kinny, M. Georgeff, J. Bailey, D. Kemp, and K. Ramamohanarao, “Active databases and agent systems-A comparison,” in Proceedings of the Second International Rules in Database Systems Workshop, RIDS95, Athens, Greece, 1995.

  21. J.E. Laird, A. Newell, and P.S. Rosenbloom, “Soar: An architecture for general intelligence,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no.1, pp. 1-64, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.E. Laird, R.E. Jones, and P.E. Nielsen, “Coordinated behavior of computer generated forces in TacAir-Soar,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Computer Generated Forces Behavioral Representation, Orlando, FL, USA, May 1994.

  23. T.W. Malone and S.A. Smith, “Tradeoffs in designing organizations: Implications for new forms of human organizations and computer systems,” Working Paper CISR WP 112 (Sloan WP 1541-84), Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  24. T.W. Malone and K. Crowston, “Toward an interdisciplinary theory of coordination,” CCS TR 120, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, April 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. Muscatt, “Combat display program-specification and user guide,” Personal Communication, Air Operations Division, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A.S. Rao, “A unified view of plans as recipes,” in Contemporary Action Theory, edited by G. Holmstrom-Hintikka and R. Tuomela, Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands, 1997 (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  27. A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff, “Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, edited by J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, pp. 473-484, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A.S. Rao, D. Morley, M. Selvestrel, and G. Murray, “Representation, selection, and execution of team tactics in air combat modelling,” in Proceedings of the 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, edited by A. Adams and L. Sterling, World Scientific, pp. 185-190, November 1992.

  29. A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff, “Formal models and decision procedures for multi-agent systems,” Technical Report 61, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, June 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J.R. Searl, A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, volume 7 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  31. R.L. Shaw, Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering, 6th edition, US Naval Institute Press, 1985.

  32. J.M. Shfritz and J.S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory, 2nd edition, The Dorsey Press: Chicago, Illinois, USA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M.P. Singh, “A logic of situated know-how,” in Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), 1991, pp. 343-348.

  34. S. Steuart, “PACAUS-Overview and source code description,” Personal Communication, Air Operations Division, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Tambe, “Implementing agent teams in dynamic multiagent environments,” Applied Artificial Intelligence, 1997 (to appear).

  36. M. Tambe, W.L. Johnson, E.M. Jones, F. Koss, J.E. Laird, P.S. Rosenblum, and K. Schwamb, “Intelligent agents for interactive simulation environments,” AI Magazine, vol. 16, no.1, pp. 15-39, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  37. G. Tidhar, “Team oriented programming: Preliminary report,” Technical Report 41, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, April 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  38. G. Tidhar, “Team oriented programming: Social structures,” Technical Report 47, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, September 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  39. G. Tidhar, A. Rao, M. Ljungberg, D. Kinny, and E. Sonenberg, “Skills and capabilities in real-time team formation,” Technical Report 27, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  40. G. Tidhar, A.S. Rao, and E.A Sonenberg, “Guided-team selection,” in Proceedings of the Second Internation Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: Kyoto, Japan, December 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  41. H. Verhagen and M. Mausch, “TASCCS: A synthesis of double-AISS and plural-soar,” in Computational Organization Theory, edited by K.M. Carley and M.J. Prietula, Chapt. 3, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp. 39-54, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  42. W.L. Waag and H.H. Bell, “Situation assessment and decision making in skilled fighter pilots,” in Naturalistic Decision Making, edited by C.E. Zsambok and G. Klein, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1997.

  43. E. Werner, “Cooperating agents: A unified theory of communication and social structure,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Volume II, edited by L. Gasser and M.N. Huhns, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, USA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia

    Gil Tidhar

  2. Air Operations Division, DSTO, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermens Bend, VIC, 3207, Australia

    Clinton Heinze & Mario Selvestrel

Authors
  1. Gil Tidhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clinton Heinze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Selvestrel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tidhar, G., Heinze, C. & Selvestrel, M. Flying Together: Modelling Air Mission Teams. Applied Intelligence 8, 195–218 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008271016283

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008271016283

Search

Navigation