Replication of human operators’ situation assessment and decision making for simulated area reconnaissance in wargames
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a replication model of human operators’ situation assessment and decision making in a simulated area reconnaissance wargame. A variety of factors that affect human operators’ threat assessment and decision making were identified and categorized based on interviews with Subject Matter Experts and a review of defense doctrine on area reconnaissance. By combining these factors with the capabilities of existing synthetic environments, a schema consisting of a set of Bayesian networks and associated joint probability distributions for human operators’ situation assessment and decision making was developed. To verify and validate the proposed schema, a software system was designed and implemented, and then used for analyzing the consistency between the replicator’s decisions and human players’ decisions. Results showed that the proposed approach replicated human operators’ situation assessment and movement-based decision making in the wargame with high consistency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it