Applying an AI Planner to Military Operations Planning

This paper describes a prototype system for quickly developing joint military courses of action. The system, SOCAP (System for Operations Crisis Action Planning), combines a newly extended version of an AI planning system, SIPE--2 (System for Interactive Planning and Execution), with a color map display and applies this technology to military operations planning. This paper describes the Socap problem domain, how SIPE--2 was used to address this problem, and the strengths and weaknesses of our approach. i Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Military Operations Crisis Action Planning 2 3 The SIPE-2 Planning System 4 3.1 Describing the Domain in SIPE-2 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 3.2 The User Interface in SIPE-2 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7 3.3 Interactive Planning : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 10 3.4 Scheduling : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 10 4 SOCAP -- System for Operations Crisis Action Planning 12 4.1 Applying Operators :..

SOCAP: System for Operations Crisis Action Planning

In this paper, we report on our past and recent experiences in applying an AI generative planning system, called System for Interactive Planning and Execution (SIPE-2), to the problem of generating crisis action operations plans in a joint military domain * . We describe our motivation for selecting a generative planner, the application itself (including the second Integrated Feasibility Demonstration, IFD-2) , and the lessons we learned in creating it. We also report on the applied research we performed to address the lessons learned in IFD-2. This involved integrating the generative planner with several complementary technologies that were available through the Planning Initiative (PI): a temporal reasoner, a case-based reasoner, and the capacity analysis component of a scheduling system. These technology integration experiments (TIEs) were executed within the Common Prototyping Environment (CPE). We discuss both the unique characteristics of each TIE and the general features that ..

An Open Resource for Non-human Primate Optogenetics.

Optogenetics has revolutionized neuroscience in small laboratory animals, but its effect on animal models more closely related to humans, such as non-human primates (NHPs), has been mixed. To make evidence-based decisions in primate optogenetics, the scientific community would benefit from a centralized database listing all attempts, successful and unsuccessful, of using optogenetics in the primate brain. We contacted members of the community to ask for their contributions to an open science initiative. As of this writing, 45 laboratories around the world contributed more than 1,000 injection experiments, including precise details regarding their methods and outcomes. Of those entries, more than half had not been published. The resource is free for everyone to consult and contribute to on the Open Science Framework website. Here we review some of the insights from this initial release of the database and discuss methodological considerations to improve the success of optogenetic experiments in NHPs

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used