Generating Situation Awareness for Time Critical Decision Making

  • Shang-Ping Ting
  • Suiping Zhou
  • Nan Hu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6670)


The quality of situation awareness directly affects the decision making process for human soldiers in Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT). It is important to accurately model situation awareness to generate realistic tactical behaviors for the non-player characters (also known as bots) in MOUT simulations. This is a very challenging problem due to the time constraints and the heterogeneous cue types in MOUT. Although there are some theoretical models on situation awareness, they generally do not provide computational mechanisms suitable for MOUT simulations. In this paper, we propose a computational model of situation awareness for the bots in MOUT simulations. The model forms up situation awareness quickly with key cues. It is also designed to work with some novel features. They include case-based reasoning, qualitative spatial representation and expectations. The effectiveness of the computational model is assessed with Twilight City, a virtual environment that we have built for MOUT simulations.


Time Critical Decision Making MOUT Simulations Situation Awareness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clausewitz, C.V.: On War. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stacey, C.P.: Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War Volume III. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa (1960)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballard, J.R.: Fighting For Fallujah - A New Dawn for Iraq. Greenwood Publishing Group, Connecticut (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, L.F.: Science of Emotion: What people believe, What evidence shows and Where to go from here - Human Behavior in Military Contexts. The National Academies Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDermott, P., Battaglia, D.A., Phillips, J., Thordsen, M.: Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT): Decision Making in Action. US Army Research Institute. Fort Benning (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain FM 90-10. Department of the Army, Washington (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urban Operations, FM 3-06. Department of the Army, Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, G.: Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press, Massachusetts (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ting, S.P., Zhou, S.P.: Snap: A Time Critical Decision-Making Framework for MOUT Simulations. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 1(3-4), 505–514 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ting, S.P., Zhou, S.P.: Dealing with dynamic changes in time critical decision-making for MOUT simulations. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 20(2-3), 427–436 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez, R., et al.: Retrieval, Reuse, Revision and Retention in Case-Based Reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20, 215–240 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wood, S.D., Zaientz, J.D., Holt, L.S., Amant, R.S., Healey, C., Endsley, M., Strater, L.: MAVEN-SA: Model-Based Automated Visualization for Enhanced Situation Awareness. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wray, R.E., Laird, J.E., et al.: Synthetic Adversaries for Urban Combat Training. In: 2004 Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, San Jose, pp. 82–92 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wray, R.E., Laird, J.E.: Variability in Human Behavior Modeling for Military Simulations. In: Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation Conference, Scottsdale (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Azuma, R., Daily, M., Furmanski, C.: A Review of Time Critical Decision Making Models and Human Cognitive Processes. In: 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, MT (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osinga, F.: Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Routledge, Abingdon (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill, R.W.: Modeling perceptual attention in virtual humans. In: Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Orlando (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrero, P., Antonio, A.: Introducing human-like hearing perception in intelligent virtual agents. In: Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Melbourne, pp. 733–740 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epic Games: Unreal Engine (1998),
  21. 21.
    McCarley, J.S., Christopher, D.W., Goh, J., Horrey, J.W.: A computational model of attention/situation awareness. In: Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Santa Monica (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Warwick, Hutton, R.: Developing computational models of recognition-primed decision making. 10th Conference on Computer Generated Forces. Norfolk (2001) 232-331Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Conference, pp. 789–795 (1988)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gladwell, M.: Blink, The Power of Think without Thinking. Little, Brown and Co., Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loomis, J.M., Knapp, J.M.: Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In: Virtual and Adaptive Environments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Forbus, K., Mahoney, J.V., Dill, K.: How qualitative spatial reasoning can improve strategy game AIs. In: 15th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, San Antonio (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ting, S.P., Zhou, S.P.: Quartz: an autonomous navigation system for MOUT simulations. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 18(4-5), 383–394 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou, S.P., Ting, S.P., Shen, Z.Q., Luo, L.B.: Twilight City - A virtual environment for MOUT. International Journal of Computer and Applications 30(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ting, S.P., Zhou, S.P.: Qualitative Physics for MOUT. In: 39th Annual Simulation Symposium, Huntsville (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karagosian, J.W.: Streetfighting: The Rifle Platoon in MOUT. Infantry Magazine (September 2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shang-Ping Ting
    • 1
  • Suiping Zhou
    • 2
  • Nan Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingapore
  2. 2.Teesside UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations