Patent Abstract:
In an intelligent object oriented agent system, a computer implemented or user assisted method of decision making in at least one situation. The method includes the step of configuring at least one tactical agent implemented by at least one tactical agent object that includes a plurality of resources corresponding to immediate certainties, near certainties, and longer-term possibilities characterizing the at least one situation. The method also includes the steps of processing the at least one situation using the at least one tactical agent, and implementing the decision making, by at least one user or independently by at least one intelligent agent responsive to the processing step. A computer readable tangible medium stores instructions for implementing the user assisted or computer implemented method of decision making, which instructions are executable by a computer. In a preferred embodiment, the situation comprises an aerial combat situation, or other situation with moving resources.

Full Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application claims priority from U.S. provisional application number 60/100,863, filed on Sep. 17, 1998, incorporated herein by reference. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to a novel method and system that uses intelligent agent for decision making, for example, during tactical aerial defensive warfare, or other real-time decision making processes. 
     PRIOR ART 
     Presently, intelligent agent functions are available in different areas, mostly related to desktop/office system functionality—e.g., automatic spelling correctors, automatic email address selectors, etc.—Presently, there is no tactical intelligent agent for decision making in the area of air combat. Further, the intelligent agents that are present in other areas do not collaborate among themselves either in a homogeneous (i.e., among intelligent agents of the same type) or heterogeneous (i.e., among intelligent agents of different types operating in a common problem space) environment. 
     Further, the intelligent agents that are present in other areas do not collaborate with human users. Existing intelligent agents either act in an isolated fashion, or get directions from the user and follow these directions. Such intelligent agents collect and process information from the “environment” and report back to the user. None of the existing intelligent agents accept real-time corrections to the “environment” (as it perceives it) from the user (either in delayed or in real-time fashion). 
     In addition, no intelligent agent today takes into consideration such factors as mental and physical state of a human user, including user degree of fatigue, stress, etc. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     In the described AWACS Trainer Software (ATS), which is one exemplary application of the present invention, there is a tactical intelligent agent for decision making in the area of air combat. Other situations may also be used with the present invention as described below in more detail. The agent is tactical because it considers not only immediate certainties and near certainties (e.g., if a hostile fighter is not shot at it will shoot at us) but also longer-term possibilities (e.g., if the bulk of our fighters are committed early, they may not be available should an enemy strike force appear in the future). The agent is intelligent because it exhibits autonomous behavior and engages in human-like decision process. The agent assists in decision making in the area of air combat because the agent gives explicit advice to human AWACS Weapons Directors (WD) whose job it is to coordinate air combat. The agent is also capable of making independent decisions in the area of air combat, replacing a human WD. 
     The described ATS employs groups of collaborating intelligent agents for decision making. The agents are collaborating because not every agent has all the information regarding the problem at hand, and because global decisions are made that affect all agents and humans, on the basis of agents exchanging, debating and discussing information, and then making overall decisions. Thus for instance, agents assisting individual WDs exchange threat information and then coordinate their recommendations, such as what fighters to commit to what enemy assets, without resource collisions. That is, an agent A will not recommend to its WD A to borrow a fighter pair P from another WD (WD B) while WD B&#39;s agent (agent B) recommends to WD B to use the same fighter pair P to target another threat. 
     The described ATS supports collaboration among (a heterogeneous set of) intelligent agents and a combination of (a heterogeneous set of) intelligent agents and humans. The set of agents is heterogeneous because it includes role-playing agents (e.g., an agent that plays a WD) and adviser agents (e.g., an agent that recommends a particular fighter allocation to a WD) (as well as other agents). The set of humans is heterogeneous because it includes WDs and Senior WDs (different roles, a.k.a. SDs). Agents and humans collaborate because agents and humans jointly perform air combat tasks. 
     Existing intelligent agents get directions from the user and follow these directions. They collect and process information from the “environment” and report back to the user. None of the existing intelligent agents accept real-time corrections to the “environment” (as it perceives it) from the user (either in delayed or in real-time fashion). 
     The described ATS provides a feedback loop between an intelligent agent and a user. Agents and users (humans or other agents) exchange information throughout ATS running. As changes occur (e.g., new planes appear), agents and users exchange this information and agents, naturally adjust (as do the users). For instance, as a pair of fighters becomes available, an agent may recommend to the human WD how to assign this pair. WD&#39;s reaction results in the agent learning what happened and possibly how to (better) advise the WD in the future. In particular, the agent may also change its perception of the environment. For instance, a repeated rejection of a particular type of agent recommendation may result in the agent re-prioritizing objects and actions it perceives. 
     The described ATS provides intelligent agents representing multiple users (e.g., impersonating or assisting WDs, SDs, instructors). These agents collaborate, as already illustrated. However, the agents do not all perceive the environment the same way. For instance, an agent representing WD A may only be able to probe the status of the planes WD A controls. An agent representing another WD B may only be able to probe the status of the planes controlled by WD B. An agent representing an SD is able to probe the status of a plane controlled by any WD that reports to the SD. A strike WD may command a stealth bomber which does not show on AWACS radar, and thus even its position and movement are not visible to the other WDs. 
     The described ATS intelligent agents learn over time by accumulating knowledge about user&#39; behavior, habits and psychological profiles. An agent may observe that a WD it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP&#39;ed (engaged in Combat Air Patrol assignment) fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may then over time learn not to recommend the WD assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks. 
     The described ATS intelligent agent may observe that a WD tends to press mouse buttons more times than it needed, to accept a recommendation. This conclusion may lead the agent to believe that a WD is overly stressed out and tired. The agent may then recommend to the SD&#39;s advising agent to recommend that SD consider rotating this WD out. Perhaps as a compromise, the two agents and the two humans (the WD and the SD) may then decide that the best course of action is for the WD to continue for a while but that no fighters be borrowed for other tasks from this WD, and that after the next air combat engagement, the WD be rotated out anyway. 
     Since multiple intelligent agents and humans may be involved in the ATS decision making process, it is not surprising that they may differ in opinion as to what constitutes the best course of action. The reasons for the differences include the following: non-uniform availability of information (e.g., a particular agent may be privy to detailed information on the planes that belong to its WD only), strategy preferences (e.g., a particular WD may be very risk-averse compared to others), and one group&#39;s considerations vs. another group&#39;s considerations (e.g., a WD (and its agent) may not wish to loose a pair of fighters; on the other hand, from the point of view of the entire WD team, it may be acceptable to send that same pair of fighters to divert enemy air defenses (at a great risk to themselves)away from a strike package). Given the differences in opinion, the ATS agents exchange opinions and debate options, among themselves and with humans. Standard resolution protocols may be used to ensure that an overall decision is reached after a final amount of such exchanges. Examples include standard neural networks, standard ether net collission resolution, standard packet collision resolution, standard two-phase commit in databases, and other standard negotiating techniques. Also, in an operational or training setting, the SD (or other human in charge) can ultimately force a decision, even in disagreement with agents (or humans). 
     According to one embodiment of the invention, an intelligent object oriented agent system, a computer implemented or user assisted method of decision making in at least one situation. The method includes the step of configuring at least one tactical agent implemented by at least one tactical agent object that includes a plurality of resources corresponding to immediate certainties, near certainties, and longer-term possibilities characterizing the at least one situation. The method also includes the steps of processing the at least one situation using the at least one tactical agent, and implementing the decision making, by at least one user or independently by at least one intelligent agent, responsive to the processing step. 
     A computer readable tangible medium stores instructions for implementing the user assisted or computer implemented method of decision making, which instructions are executable by a computer. 
     In another embodiment of the present invention, an intelligent agent system implements, a computer implemented or user assisted method of decision making in at least one aerial combat situation. The functions of the system include configuring, using a computer, at least one tactical agent that includes data corresponding to immediate certainties, near certainties, and longer-term possibilities characterizing the at least one aerial combat situation. The functions also include processing, using the computer, the at least one aerial combat situation using the at least one tactical agent, and implementing the decision making, by at least one user or independently by at least one intelligent agent, responsive to said processing step. 
     There has thus been outlined, rather broadly, the more important features of the invention in order that the detailed description thereof that follows may be better understood, and in order that the present contribution to the art may be better appreciated. There are, of course, additional features of the invention that will be described hereinafter and which will form the subject matter of the claims appended hereto. 
     In this respect, before explaining at least one embodiment of the invention in detail, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and to the arrangements of the components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced and carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology employed herein are for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. 
     As such, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the conception, upon which this disclosure is based, may readily be utilized as a basis for the designing of other structures, methods and systems for carrying out the several purposes of the present invention. It is important, therefore, that the claims be regarded as including such equivalent constructions insofar as they do not depart from the spirit and scope of the present invention. 
     Further, the purpose of the foregoing abstract is to enable the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the public generally, and especially the scientists, engineers and practitioners in the art who are not familiar with patent or legal terms or phraseology, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and essence of the technical disclosure of the application. The abstract is neither intended to define the invention of the application, which is measured by the claims, nor is it intended to be limiting as to the scope of the invention in any way. 
     These together with other objects of the invention, along with the various features of novelty which characterize the invention, are pointed out with particularity in the claims annexed to and forming a part of this disclosure. For a better understanding of the invention, its operating advantages and the specific objects attained by its uses, reference should be had to the accompanying drawings and descriptive matter in which there is illustrated preferred embodiments of the invention. 
     SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     The detailed description includes preferred embodiments of the invention, together with advantages and features, by way of example with reference to the following drawings. 
     FIG. 1 is an overview of the system, showing important components. 
     FIG. 2 shows the simulation cycle of the simulator. 
     FIG. 3 shows the object model employed in the preferred embodiment. 
     FIG. 4 shows a representation of the Resource class objects. 
     FIG. 5 shows a representation of the MovingResource class objects. 
     FIG. 6 shows the process of destroying a MovingResource class object. 
     FIG. 7 shows the simulation tick processing of a MovingResource class object. 
     FIG. 8 shows the process of directing a MovingResource class object to obtain fuel at a specified fueling point. 
     FIG. 9 shows the process of fuel verification for a MovingResource class object. 
     FIG. 10 shows the process of determination and attack of targets of opportunity by a MovingResource class object. 
     FIG. 11 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object. 
     FIG. 12 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) class of orders. 
     FIG. 13 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a TANK class of orders. 
     FIG. 14 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a Return to Base (RTB) class of orders. 
     FIG. 15 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a GO (going straight) class of orders. 
     FIG. 16 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a TARGET class of orders. 
     FIG. 17 shows order processing by a MovingResource class object for a JOIN class of orders. 
     FIG. 18 shows a representation of the Plane class objects. 
     FIG. 19 shows a representation of the Fighter class objects. 
     FIG. 20 shows the process of determination of the ability of a fighter to handle a specific enemy resource. 
     FIG. 21 shows the process of a fighter attack of an enemy resource. 
     FIG. 22 shows the process of determination of the ability of a group of fighters to handle a specific enemy resource. 
     FIG. 23 shows the process of a group of fighters attack of an enemy resource. 
     FIG. 24 shows the process of splitting a resource from a group. 
     FIG. 25 shows the process of joining a resource to a group. 
     FIG. 26 shows a representation of the Director class objects. 
     FIG. 27 shows processing of a simulation tick by a Director class object. 
     FIG. 28 shows processing of recommendations from the intelligent agent or a human user by a Director class object. 
     FIG. 29 shows the process of transferring resources between weapons director by a senior director. 
     FIG. 30 shows a representation for the Recommendation class objects. 
     FIG. 31 shows the simulation tick processing by the intelligent agent. 
     FIG. 32 shows the process of building the intelligent agent view of the world. 
     FIG. 33 shows the process of the intelligent agent making recommendations for weapons directors. 
     FIG. 34 shows the process of recalling committed resources from target that no longer need to be handled. 
     FIG. 35 shows the process of generating recommendation for a single weapons director or a team of weapons directors. 
     FIG. 36 shows the process of generating team recommendations. 
     FIG. 37 shows the process of committing resources. 
     FIG. 38 shows the process of committing a specific pair of handler/handled resources. 
     FIG. 39 shows the process of generating a list of available resources from a weapons directory. 
     FIG. 40 shows the process of committing a resource. 
     FIG. 41 shows the process of de-committing (termed “uncommitting”) a resource. 
     FIG. 42 shows a general layout of the user interface. 
     FIG. 43 shows user interface control buttons. 
     FIG. 44 shows a sample resource display in the primary graphical display area. 
     FIG. 45 shows a sample intelligent agent recommendation display in the primary graphical display area. 
     FIG. 46 shows possible user actions in the primary graphical display area and their resulting effects these actions elicit. 
     FIG. 47 shows a sample display of detailed resource information in the primary graphical display area. 
     FIG. 48 shows a sample display of detailed intelligent agent recommendation information. 
     FIG. 49 shows possible configurations. 
     FIG. 50 shows a user feedback loop implementation for correction of the intelligent agent resource information. 
     FIG. 51 shows a user feedback loop implementation for adding information about an unidentified resource. 
     FIG. 52 shows a sample changed resource representation resulting from a user feedback action. 
     FIG. 53 shows the paths of propagation of new information among users and intelligent agents. 
     FIG. 54 shows the process of evaluating actions of the weapons directors. 
     FIG. 55 shows a data structure for accumulation of user behavioral information. 
    
    
     NOTATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE 
     The detailed descriptions which follow may be presented in terms of program procedures executed on a computer or network of computers. These procedural descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the art to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. 
     A procedure is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps leading to a desired result. These steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared and otherwise manipulated. It proves convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like. It should be noted, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. 
     Further, the manipulations performed are often referred to in terms, such as adding or comparing, which are commonly associated with mental operations performed by a human operator. No such capability of a human operator is necessary, or desirable in most cases, in any of the operations described herein which form part of the present invention; the operations are machine operations. Useful machines for performing the operation of the present invention include general purpose digital computers or similar devices. 
     The present invention also relates to apparatus for performing these operations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purpose or it may comprise a general purpose computer as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. The procedures presented herein are not inherently related to a particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose machines may be used with programs written in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove more convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these machines will appear from the description given. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Glossary 
     The following terminology is used throughout the patent embodiment: 
     Tick—a single iteration of the simulation cycle. 
     Agent—a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. 
     Weapons director—a person in charge of a group of planes. A weapons director can give orders to plane pilots and receive reports from them. 
     Senior director—a person in charge of a group of weapons directors. A senior director can give orders to weapons directors, receive reports from them, and may even decide to take over the resources of a particular weapons director and act in that weapons director&#39;s stead. 
     Weapons directory—a collection of resources a weapons director is responsible for managing. 
     CAP—combat air patrol. 
     CAP area—are patrolled by a CAP. 
     RTB—return to base. 
     TANK—refuel at a tanker. 
     BASIC EMBODIMENT 
     Overview 
     FIG. 1 presents an overview of the usage. Three users are present: weapons director  1  (WD 1 )  0101 , weapons director  3  (WD 3 )  0102 , and senior director  0103 . Weapons director  1  is using the intelligent agent  0104 . Weapons director  3  is acting without the involvement of an agent. Senior director is using the agent  6006 . The simulation  0107  contains a number of weapons directories. Weapons director  1  is responsible for resources  0108  in the weapons directory  1 , weapons director  3  is responsible for resources  0110  in the weapons directory  3 . Weapons directory  2  is responsible for resources  0109  contained therein which is also present does not have a corresponding user or weapons director; weapons directory  2  is automated solely by the intelligent agent  0105 . The enemy weapons directory (E)  60111 -? is also automated via intelligent agent  0106 . 
     Weapons director  1 , in the course of the simulation, gets advice from the intelligent agent  0104 , which is monitoring the events as they occur and providing advice in the form of recommendations to the weapons director  1  in real-time. Weapons director  1  may or may not follow direction(s). At each tick of the simulation, a set of all the recommendations from the agent  0104  is presented to weapons director  1 , and weapons director  1  may accept or ignore the presented recommendations. Accepting or ignoring recommendations from the agent, does not prevent weapons director  1  from entering his own orders to the resources this weapons director is responsible for managing. Should an order be entered by weapons director  1 , it becomes known to the intelligent agent helping this weapons director. On the other hand, weapons director  3  is making decisions on his own, without the assistance of the intelligent agent. Of course, weapons director  3  may alternatively have an associated intelligent agent. 
     It should be noted that three users are shown only as an example. An arbitrary number of weapons directors can be supported. Moreover, an arbitrary hierarchy (of command) can also be supported, including strict hierarchies (for each user, at most a single superior with an arbitrary number of subordinates) or multi-hierarchies, meaning an arbitrary number of superiors on the same level of authority that must negotiate with each other (each with an arbitrary number of subordinates) for each user. 
     Simulation 
     The simulation is driven by a standard simulator object. The simulator object is responsible for issuing time ticks, maintaining the lists of simulated resources, and invoking the objects comprising representations of simulated resources at every tick (iteration through the simulation cycle) of the simulation to allow these objects to simulate the activities of the resources they represent. 
     FIG. 2 describes the simulation cycle. Prior to entering the simulation cycle, the simulator initializes the simulation tick number to 0 at  0201 . The simulator then enters the simulation cycle, performing the following sequential, non-sequencial or sequence independent steps. The simulator invokes the agent tick processing  0202 . The simulator invokes the senior director tick processing  0203 . The enemy weapons directory tick processing is invoked  0204 . The simulation waits for the specified period of time (or tick size) to provide verisimilitude to the simulation  0205 . Upon expiration of the wait period, the simulator increments the tick number  0206  and repeats the simulation cycle at  0202 . 
     Object Model 
     FIG. 3 describes the object model. The base class of the object model is NamedObject  0301 . A NamedObject is an object with a name, represented by a String. The Resource class  0302  derives from a NamedObject and is the class used to represent the common properties of resources. Specific classes deriving from the Resource class are Base  0303 , representing an air-base, and SAM  325 , representing a SAM battery. A MovingResource class  0304  derives from the Resource class and embodies the common properties of all moving resources. 
     The Group class  0305  represents a group of moving resources and derives from the MovingResource class. The Plane class  0306  also derives from the MovingResource class and embodies the properties common for all airplanes. The classes Fighter  0307 , Bomber  0310 , Jammer  0311 , and Recon  0312  are subclasses of the Plane class and represents properties common for the corresponding types of airplanes. Specific models of fighters included in this definition include, for example, F15  0313 , F16  0314 , MIG21  0315 , and MIG23  0315 . Persons skilled in the art will understand that specific airplane model classes represent a subset of all the possible existing airplane models selected for the purposes of this embodiment, but this embodiment is in no way limited by this selection. Similarly, two specific types of reconnaissance aircraft are included: AWACS  0317  and RJ  0318 . Other subclasses of NamedObject include Recommendation  0308 , representing a recommendation from the agent, and Order  0309 , serving as a superclass for the specific orders that can be given to aircraft pilots: TARGET  0319 , RTB  0320  (return to base), GO  0321 , TANK  0322 , JOIN  0323  (a group of resources), and SPLIT  0324  (from a group). Other classes derived from the NamedObject are Director  0326  (weapons director), WeaponsDir  0327  (weapons directory), Senior  0328  (senior director), and Agent  0329 . 
     For the purposes of this embodiment, the object model is restricted to aircraft and ground bases and SAM batteries. Other objects can be included in an object model, yielding a more complete real-life resource coverage, such as ships, submarines, satellites, ground vehicles, and human troops. In addition, objects from other areas of application, such as manufacturing and industrial automation (robots, tooling stations, parts, consumables, etc.), telecommunications (network nodes, packets, routers, etc.), energy (power plants, power lines, concentrators, energy flows, etc.), and others may be used in the present invention. 
     Resource 
     FIG. 4 shows the representation of a resource class. Each resource has a name, which is used as a resource identifier and as a search argument while maintaining lists of resources in weapons directories. Each resource has a set of coordinates, which is a triplet of floating point numbers, the first representing the position of the resource along the X axle, the second representing the position of the resource along the Y axle, and the third representing the resource altitude. Any number of dimensions or axles may also be used. For ground resources, the third value in the triplet is always 0. Each resource has an integer allegiance value, indicating whether it is our resource (value of 1), enemy resource (value of 2), or unknown (value of 0). Other values may also be used for some or different indicator and/or meaning. 
     Each resource that belongs to a group of resources, has a reference, RG, to a group to which it belongs. This reference is null if the resource is not a part of a group. Each resource has a reference, WD, to a weapons directory to which it belongs. An enemy resource may have a reference, directorHandling, to a weapons director who is responsible for handling it. If a resource has been given an order, a resource includes a reference, and orders to the Order object. 
     If a resource is being considered by the Agent resource assignment algorithm, the resource includes a reference, and candidates to a Vector of candidate resources.—if this is our resource, this vector is a list of potential enemy resources to handle, if this is an enemy resource, this vector is a list of our resources that can potentially handle this enemy resource. If a resource has been committed to handling or being handled (depending on its allegiance), the resource includes a committedTo reference to the resource it is handling or to the resource that is handling it. 
     Each resource has a number of Boolean values which are used by the resource allocation and assignment algorithms to indicate resource status, including: 
     mustBeHandled—(an enemy) resource must be handled (by us), however, the time of the handling has not yet been determined 
     critical—resource must be handled immediately, delaying handling of this enemy resource may be detrimental to the fulfillment of our tactical or strategic goals 
     beingHandled—(an enemy) resource is being handled 
     committed—resource is committed to handling, i.e., if this is our resource, a target has been assigned for it, if this is an enemy resource, it has been targeted 
     pending—resource is pending commitment 
     recall—resource no longer needs to be handled 
     Although for the purposes of this embodiment only three resource allegiance values are considered—“ours”, “enemy”, and “unknown”—persons skilled in the art will understand that other types of resource allegiance are possible, such as “neutral”, “medical”, “civilian”, “diplomat”, “UN”, “ally”, and others applicable to the specific application context. 
     Depending on a particular application, other attributes may be included that would better define the Resource class to the needs of a particular field. 
     The simulation tick processing by a resource consists of or includes two steps: The “pending” indicator is turned off for this resource. If the “order” reference of the resource is not null (indicating that the resource has an order to perform), the order is processed by this resource. 
     The described object model is specific to the context of air combat. However, a person skilled in the art will realize that the object model may be augmented or replaced with another object model, e.g., with Navy ships, airplanes, carriers, submarines, etc., with satellites, with ground troupes, trains, tanks, etc., or with objects totally unrelated to military users—e.g., network packets, ground transportation fleet (e.g., taxis and/or trucks), details on a conveyor belt, and so on. Various different types of resource objects may also be used. 
     Moving Resource 
     The moving resource (MovingResource) class inherits from the Resource class, and adds the information that differentiates a moving resource from a stationary one. FIG. 5 shows the representation of the MovingResource class. Each moving resource has a maximum velocity (MaxV), cruising velocity (CruiseV), minimum velocity (MinV), and cruising altitude (CruiseZ). In addition, each moving resource has a value of fuel consumption at cruising velocity and altitude (fuelConsumption), a maximum amount of fuel a moving resource can carry (maxFuel), and the actual remaining amount of fuel (fuelRemaining). Each moving resource includes a previous set of coordinates (XYP), which is the value of the resource coordinate triplet from the previous simulation tick or time interval. Retaining the previous coordinates value permits the Agent to determine the resource movement direction and velocity at every tick of the simulation. Each moving resource may be assigned to a particular base, and it may include a reference (base) to a base this moving resource is assigned to. Each moving resource includes a number of additional Boolean indicators: 
     Destroyed—is set if this moving resource is destroyed, 
     AtBase—is set if this moving resource has landed at a base, 
     GettingFuel—is set if this moving resource is in process of getting fuel from a tanker 
     As a result of a resource engagement (e.g., when an attack of a resource is performed), a moving resource may be destroyed. FIG. 6 describes the process of destroying a moving resource. The uncommit process is invoked for this moving resource  0601  to ensure that any active or pending commitments are cleared. Then, the “destroyed” indicator is set for this moving resource  0602 . If this moving resource belongs to a group  0603 , the moving resource is removed from its group&#39;s list of resources  0604 . If the group to which this moving resource belonged has no more entries in its resource list  0605 , the group is also destroyed  0606 . To complete the process, the moving resource is removed from its weapons directory  0607 . 
     FIG. 7 shows the processing at each tick of the simulation by each moving resource. If the “destroyed” indicator of the moving resource is set  0701 , indicating that this moving resource has been destroyed, nothing further is done and processing is terminated. The simulation tick processing of the MovingResource superclass (i.e., Resource) is then invoked  0702 . If this moving resource is indeed a single resource and not a group of moving resources  0703 , the moving resource&#39;s “fuelRemaining” value is decreased by this moving resource&#39;s fuel consumption for the duration of the tick of the simulation at the current moving resource&#39;s velocity and altitude  0711 . Then, the attack of available targets of opportunity is performed by this moving resource  0712 . The remaining amount of fuel “fuelRemaining” of this moving resource is verified, and if a need to obtain additional fuel for this moving resource is determined, the appropriate fueling point is determined  0713 . 
     If a fueling point has been determined for this moving resource  0714 , indicating that the moving resource&#39;s “fuelRemaining” amount of remaining fuel is approaching its low mark, this moving resource is directed to get fuel at the previously determined fueling point  0715 . If this moving resource is actually a group of moving resources  0703 , the list of moving resources comprising this group of moving resources is obtained  0704 . 
     While there are unprocessed moving resources in the previously obtained list of moving resources comprising this group of moving resources  0705 , for each moving resource in the list, the following processing is performed. The moving resource&#39;s current coordinates “XYZ” are set to be the same as the coordinates “XYZ” of the group of moving resources to which this moving resource belongs  0706 . The moving resource&#39;s previous coordinates “XYP” are set to the previous coordinates “XYP” of the group of moving resources to which this moving resource belongs  0707 . Then, the moving resource&#39;s “fuelRemaining” value is decreased by this moving resource&#39;s fuel consumption for the duration of the tick of the simulation at the current moving resource&#39;s velocity and altitude  0708 . If this group of moving resources has a null or empty list of moving resources comprising this group of moving resources  0709 , this group of moving resources is destroyed  0710 , otherwise steps  0712 - 0715  are performed for this group of moving resources. 
     FIG. 8 describes the process of directing a moving resource to obtain fuel at a specified fueling point. If the specified fueling point is a base  0801 , a Return-to-Base (RTB) order is constructed for this moving resource, specifying this base as the base to return to  0802 . Otherwise, if the fueling point is not a base  0801 , it is a tanker, and a TANK order is constructed for this moving resource, specifying this tanker as the fueling point  0803 . The moving resource&#39;s “order” reference is then set to the previously constructed RTB or TANK order  0804 . 
     FIG. 9 describes the process of fuel verification for a moving resource. First, the fueling point is initialized to null  0901 . If this moving resource is indeed a single moving resource and not a group of moving resources  0902 , the amount of fuel required for this moving resource to reach its assigned base at maximum velocity is computed  0910 . If travel to this moving resource&#39;s assigned base would deplete the amount of fuel of this resource to be equal to or less than the minimum amount of fuel tolerable for this resource  0911 , the fueling point is set to the resource&#39;s assigned base  0912 . The resulting fueling point (null or non-null) is then returned to the invoker of this method. If this moving resource is actually a group of moving resources  0902 , the list of moving resources comprising this group of moving resources is obtained  0903 . 
     While there are unprocessed moving resources in the list of moving resources comprising this group of moving resources  0904 , for each moving resource in the list, the following processing is performed. Steps  0910 - 0912  are invoked recursively for this moving resource  0905 . If a non-null value has been returned  0906 , if this fueling point is closer to this moving resource than the fueling point returned by the previous recursive invocation  0908 , the fueling point is set to be the fueling point returned by the previous recursive invocation  0909 . Upon completion of the iterations through the list of moving resources comprising this resource group, the fueling point value (null or non-null) is returned to the invoker of this method. 
     FIG. 10 describes the process of determination and attack of targets of opportunity by a moving resource. If this moving resource is not a fighter or a group of fighters  1001 , this resource cannot attack targets of opportunity and processing is terminated immediately. If this moving resource&#39;s “Allegiance” value is “enemy”  1002 , a list of potential targets of opportunity is allocated  1003 , and the list of our weapons directories is obtained from the simulator  1004 . While there are unprocessed weapons directories in the list of our weapons directories obtained from the simulator  1005 , our weapons directories&#39; contents are added to the list of potential targets of opportunity  1006 . If this moving resource&#39;s “Allegiance” value is “ours”  1003 , the list of potential targets of opportunity is set to be the same as the enemy weapons directory  1007 . 
     The previously built list of potential targets of opportunity is then considered  1008 . While there are unprocessed entries in the previously built list of potential targets of opportunity  1009 , for each entry in the list the following processing is performed. If the potential target of opportunity moving resource&#39;s “destroyed” indicator is set  1010 , meaning that the potential target of opportunity has already been destroyed, this potential target of opportunity is ignored. If the potential target of opportunity moving resource&#39;s “atBase” indicator is set  1011 , meaning that the potential target of opportunity is a plane landed at a base, the potential target of opportunity is ignored. The distance between this moving resource and the potential target of opportunity moving resources is then determined  1012 . If the potential target of opportunity moving resource is within the attack range of this moving resource  1013 , this is indeed a target of opportunity, and the attack of the target of opportunity is performed by this moving resource  1014 . 
     FIG. 11 describes order processing by a moving resource. If the “order” reference of a moving resource is null  1101 , this moving resource does not have an order to perform and processing is terminated. Otherwise, depending on the order pointed to by the “order” reference of this moving resource, appropriate order execution is performed. The moving resource&#39;s previous coordinates “XYP” are set to the values of its current coordinates “XYZ”  1102 . If the “order” reference points at a GO order  1103 , order GO is executed by this moving resource  1104 . If the “order” reference points at a TARGET order  1105 , order TARGET is executed by this moving resource  1106 . If the “order” reference points at a SPLIT order  1107 , order SPLIT is executed by this moving resource  1108 . If the “order” reference points at a JOIN order  1109 , order JOIN is executed by this moving resource  1110 . If the “order” reference points at a RTB order  1111 , order RTB is executed by this moving resource  1112 . If the “order” reference points at a TANK order  1113 , order TANK is executed by this moving resource  1114 . If the “order” reference points at a CAP order  1115 , order CAP is executed by this moving resource  1116 . 
     FIG. 12 describes the process of execution of order CAP (Combat Air Patrol) by a moving resource. The list of enemy planes or groups of planes is obtained from the simulator  1201 . The CLOSEST reference is set to the first enemy plane or group of planes in the previously obtained list of enemy planes or groups of planes  1202 . While there are unprocessed enemy planes or groups of planes in the previously obtained list of enemy planes or groups of planes  1203 , for each enemy plane or group of planes, if this enemy plane or group of planes is closer to this moving resource than the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes  1204 , the CLOSEST reference is reset to this enemy plane or group of planes  1205 . Once the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes is determined, if this CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes is outside the visibility range of this moving resource  1206 , the moving resource continues to fly its CAP pattern  1207  (e.g., circle along the CAP perimeter). Otherwise, if the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes is visible to this moving resource  1206 , the following processing is performed by the moving resource. A report is presented to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource conveying the intent of this moving resource to attack the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes  1208 . A TARGET order is built, specifying the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes as the target  1209 . This moving resource is committed to the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes  1210 . The “order” reference of this moving resource is set to the previously built TARGET order  1211 . 
     FIG. 13 describes the process of execution of order TANK by a moving resource. If this moving resource is already fueling  1301 , and if fueling has not been completed by this moving resource at this time  1302 , fueling will continue, and nothing further is done. If fueling has been completed by this moving resource at this time  3802 , the tanker from which fueling is being performed is informed that fueling has been completed  1306 , a report is set to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource, informing this weapons director that fueling of this moving resource has been completed  1307 , the “completed” indicator is set in the TANK order this moving resource has completed execution  1308 , and the amount of fuel for this moving resource is set to the maximum for this type of moving resource  1309 . If this moving resource has not yet commenced fueling  1301 , if this moving resource has not yet reached the tanker prescribed by the TANK order this moving resource is executing  1303 , the moving resource will move for a duration of a tick of the simulation towards the prescribed tanker on the interception course  1304 . If this moving resource has reached the prescribed tanker  1303 , the tanker is informed that fueling of this moving resource is commencing  1305 . 
     FIG. 14 describes the process of execution of order RTB (Return-to-Base) by a moving resource. If a base has been specified by the RTB order  1401 , the BASE reference is set to the base specified by the RTB order this moving resource is executing  1402 , otherwise, the BASE reference is set to the default assigned base for this moving resource  1403 . If this moving resource has not yet reached the BASE  1404 , the moving resource will travel for the duration of a tick of the simulation towards the BASE along the most direct route  1405 . Otherwise, the “atBase” indicator of the moving resource is set to indicate that the moving resource has landed at a base  1406 , and the “completed” indicator of the RTB order this moving resource is executing is set to indicate completion of the RTB order execution  1407 . 
     FIG. 15 describes the process of execution of order GO by a moving resource. The next set of coordinates this moving resource would reach after travelling for the duration of a tick of the simulation towards the set of coordinates indicated by the GO order this moving resource is executing is computed  1501 . If the previously computed set of coordinates would place this moving resource beyond the set of coordinates indicated by the GO order this moving resource is executing  1502 , set the next set of coordinates for this moving resource to the set of coordinates indicated by the GO order this moving resource is executing  1503  to prevent overshooting the target position, otherwise, set the set of coordinates for this moving resource to the previously determined set of coordinates  1504 . If the destination indicated by the GO order this moving resource is executing has been reached by this moving resource  1505 , the “completed” indicator of the GO order this moving resource is execution is set  1506  to indicate completion of the order GO execution by this moving resource. 
     FIG. 16 describes the process of execution of order TARGET by a moving resource. If this moving resource does not have the “committed” indicator set  1601 , the “completed” indicator is set in the TARGET order for this moving resource  1605  to indicate TARGET order execution completion, and report completion of the TARGET order to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource  1606 . If the target moving resource specified by the TARGET order this moving resource is executing has its “destroyed” indicator set  1602 , meaning that the target moving resource specified by the TARGET order this moving resource is executing has been destroyed, the process performs the uncommit process for this moving resource from the target moving resource specified by the TARGET order  1604  and proceed to step  1605 . Otherwise, if this moving resource has no weapons  1603 , and therefore cannot perform the TARGET order, the process performs the uncommit process for this moving resource from the target moving resource specified by the TARGET order  1604  and proceeds to step  1605 . 
     If this moving resource possesses weapons and the target moving resource prescribed by the TARGET order this moving resource is executing has not yet been destroyed, the remainder of the processing is performed. If this moving resource is actually a group of fighters  1608 , the number of planes in the target enemy formation is determined  1609  and the number of fighters equal to the previously determined number of enemy planes is selected from within this group  1610 . The distance is then determined between this moving resource and the enemy moving resource indicated by the TARGET order  1611 . If the enemy moving resource is not yet within the attack distance of the selected fighters  1612 , this moving resource will move towards the enemy moving resource prescribed by the TARGET order on the interception course for the duration of a tick of the simulation  1620 . 
     Otherwise, if the enemy moving resource is within the attack distance of the selected fighters  1612 , the “completed” indicator is set in the TARGET order  1613  to indicate that the TARGET order execution is being completed by this moving resource. The previously determined list of one or more fighters is now considered  1614 . While there are unprocessed fighters in the previously determined list  1615 , for each of the fighters in the list, the following processing is performed. The attack of the enemy moving resource by the selected fighter is carried out  1616 . The report of the attack outcome is presented to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource  1617 . If the standing order of this moving resource was order CAP  1618 , the “order” reference of this moving resource is set to the standing order CAP  1619 . 
     FIG. 17 describes the process of execution of order JOIN by a moving resource. The group of resources to be joined by this moving resource is retrieved from the simulator&#39;s list of resources  1701 . If the group of resources to be joined was not obtained  1702 , the “completed” indicator of the JOIN order executed by this moving resource is set  1704  to indicate completion of the JOIN order execution, and a report to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource is made, informing the weapons director that JOIN order execution is not possible  1709 . Otherwise, if the group of resources to be joined has been obtained from the simulator resource list  4301 , and if the group&#39;s “destroyed” indicator is set  1703 , meaning that this group of resources has been destroyed, steps  1704  and  1709  are executed. Otherwise, if the group of resources to be joined, prescribed by the order JOIN, is indeed available for joining, and if the group of resources to be joined is in a different location from this moving resource  1705 , the moving resource will travel for the duration of a tick of the simulation on the interception course towards the group of resources to be joined that is prescribed by the order JOIN  1706 . If this moving resource has reached the group of resources prescribed by the order JOIN  1705 , the moving resource joins the group of resources it reached  1707 , and the “completed” indicator is set in the order JOIN this moving resource is executing  1708  to indicate completion of the JOIN order. 
     Plane 
     The Plane class inherits from the MovingResource class, and adds the information pertinent to planes, in addition to that generally used for all moving resources. FIG. 18 shows the representation of the Plane class. Each plane has a ceiling, or a maximum possible flying altitude (MaxZ), and a maximum possible travel range (MaxL). In addition, each plane has additional logical indicators: 
     Hit—the plane has been hit by a missile, from a gun, etc. 
     MechanicalProblem—the plane has developed a mechanical problem 
     Fighter 
     The Fighter class inherits from the Plane class, and adds the information pertinent to fighter planes. FIG. 19 shows the representation of the Fighter class. Each fighter has a reference to a list of weapons it possesses (weapons). In addition, each fighter plane contains the counter of the number of attacks it has performed, which, in conjunction with the fighter flight time, may be used to compute the degree of fatigue the fighter pilot is subject to. 
     Before a fighter is committed to attacking a particular enemy resource, it is necessary to determine whether this fighter possesses the ability to successfully complete the attack of this specific enemy resource. FIG. 20 describes the process of determining the ability of a fighter to successfully attack a specific enemy resource. First, the strength values of this fighter and the enemy resource under consideration are obtained  2001 ,  2002 . If the strength value of this fighter is smaller than the strength value of the enemy resource under consideration  2003 , the attack will not succeed, and processing is terminated with the indication that the fighter is not deemed capable of successfully attacking this enemy resource  2007 . Otherwise, an attempt is made to determine coordinates for the point where this fighter can intercept the enemy resource under consideration  2004 , assuming the maximum possible velocity of this fighter and projected velocity of the enemy resource under consideration. 
     If the interception point has not been successfully determined  2005 , meaning that interception of this enemy resource by this fighter is not possible, processing is terminated with the indication that the fighter is not deemed capable of successfully attacking this enemy resource  2007 . Otherwise, if the interception point has been successfully determined, fuel verification is performed to ascertain the ability of this fighter to reach the previously determined interception point at maximum velocity and then successfully reach a base or a tanker for refueling  2006 . If it is determined that this fighter does not have sufficient fuel for the travel to the interception point at maximum velocity and subsequent travel to a base or a tanker, processing is terminated with the indication that the fighter is not deemed capable of successfully attacking this enemy resource  2007 . Otherwise, if this fighter has enough fuel for the required travel, processing is completed with the indication that this fighter is deemed capable of successfully attacking this enemy resource  2008 . 
     FIG. 21 describes the process of an attack being performed by a fighter. First, the counter attacks performed by this fighter is incremented  2101 . Then, a check of fighter&#39;s weapons is performed  2102 . If this fighter has no weapons, attack is impossible and processing is terminated. If this fighter has weapons, processing continues. If the target of this fighter&#39;s attack is a group of resources, rather than a single resource  2103 , a specific single resource is selected from the list of resources of the group being attacked  2104 . Then the specified weapon is launched at the selected target resource  2105 , and the selected target resource is destroyed  2106 . 
     While the above process assumes an unconditional success for a fighter attack of an enemy resource, other attack outcome derivation schemes are possible, e.g., a probabilistic one, where a success probability is assigned to all or particular types of attacks, and attacks are only successful with that probability. A more elaborate scheme is possible, where the attack outcome is also dependent on geometry and relative positions and speeds of the resources that are engaged. Furthermore, it is possible to have manual determination of an attack outcome, performed by a particular user. In a real-life air combat situation, the attack outcome will become known to the agent from its information gathering sources (e.g., a radar device), or by manual entry of attack outcome by a surveillance operator or another user. 
     Group 
     The Group class inherits from a MovingResource and includes a list of MovingResource objects that comprise a group. 
     Before a group is committed to attacking a particular enemy resource or a group of enemy resources, it is necessary to determine whether this group possesses the ability to successfully complete the attack of this specific enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. FIG. 22 describes the process of determining the ability of a group to successfully attack a particular enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. First, a determination is made of whether the enemy resource is a single resource or a group of enemy resources  2201 . If the enemy resource is actually a group of enemy resources, the number of resources in the enemy group is obtained  2202 . If the enemy group has more resources than this group,  2203 , processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy group. Otherwise, the strength of this group is determined  2204 , followed by determining the strength of the enemy resource or group of enemy resources  2205 . If the strength of this group is less than the strength of the enemy resource or group of enemy resources  2206 , processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. Otherwise, an attempt is made to determine the coordinates of the points where this group can intercept the enemy resource or a group of enemy resources  2207 , assuming the maximum possible velocity of this group and the projected velocity of the enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. 
     If the interception point coordinates have not been successfully determined  2208 , meaning that the interception is impossible, e.g., because the enemy resource or a group of enemy resources is travelling too fast, processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. If the interception point coordinates have been successfully determined, the amount of fuel this group, based on a single fighter within this group, would require to reach the previously determined interception point at the group&#39;s maximum velocity and then safely reach a base or a tanker for refueling is determined  2209 . If the previously determined amount of required fuel is greater than the actual amount of fuel possessed by any fighter in this group  2210 , processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. Otherwise, if this group possesses a sufficient amount of fuel for interception at maximum velocity and subsequent travel to base or a tanker for refueling, processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed capable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. 
     FIG. 23 describes the process of a group attacking an enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. First, a determination is performed of whether the target enemy resource is a single resource or a group of resources  2301 . If the target enemy resource is a group of resources, the list of enemy resources is obtained from the target enemy group  2302 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the list of resources obtained from the target enemy group  2303 , for each enemy resource in this list, a fighter is selected from our group to attack this enemy resource  2304 . The list of fighters in our group is then obtained  2305 . While there are unprocessed fighters in our group  2306 , for each fighter in our group, the following is performed. If this fighter has a designated enemy resource for attack  2307 , the attack of this designated enemy resource by this fighter is performed  2309 . 
     If the target enemy resource is a single resource, rather than a group of resources  2301 , a single fighter is selected from this group for attacking the target enemy resource  2309 , and the attack of the target enemy resource by the selected fighter from this group is performed  2310 . 
     It may sometimes be necessary to split a particular resource from the group this resource belongs to, or to add a particular single resource to a specific group. FIG. 24 shows the process of splitting a resource from its group. The specified resource is first removed from its group&#39;s list of resources  2401 . The specified resource “order” reference is then set to a new order this resource must now perform  2402 . The resource “group” reference is set to null  2403 , indicating that this resource is no longer a part of any group or resources. This is followed by adding a reference to this resource to the weapons directory to which the group of resources previously containing this resource belongs  2404 . If the group from which the specified resource was removed now has no more resources left and its resource list is empty  2405 , the reference to this group of resources is removed from its weapons directory  2406 , from the agent&#39;s view of the world table  2407 , and from the simulator&#39;s resource list  2408 , thus effectively making this group of resources cease to exist. 
     FIG. 25 shows the process ofjoining a particular resource to a group of resources. First, the reference to this specified resource is removed from the resource&#39;s weapons directory  2501 . If this resource is indeed a single resource and not a group of resources  2502 , the resource&#39;s “group” reference is set to point at the group of resources this resource is joining  2503 , the resource&#39;s “order” reference is set to be the same as the “order” reference of the group of resources this resource is joining  2504 , and a reference to this resource is added to the list of resources comprising the group of resources this resource is joining  2505 . Otherwise, if this resource is actually a group of resources (GROUPJ)  2502 , the GROUPJ list of resources is obtained  2506 , and while the GROUPJ list of resources has unprocessed resources  2507 , for each resource in the GROUPJ resource list, the resource from GROUPJ list of resources is joined to the resource group the specified resource is joining  2508 , by a recursive invocation of steps  2501 - 2505  and  2509 . The resource or group of resources that has just joined the specified group of resources is then removed from the agent view of the world table  2509 . 
     Weapons Director 
     The Director class embodies the properties of a weapons director. FIG. 26 shows the representation of a weapons director by the Director class. Each weapons director may have a “Lane”, or an area of air space this weapons director is responsible for protecting. A weapons director may have a list “CAPs” of combat air patrol (CAP) zones, where it is desirable for this weapons director to assign patrolling groups of fighters. Each weapons director has a weapons directory “WD”, containing the list of resources this weapons director is responsible for managing. Each weapons director has a “Level”, represented by an integer number, and has one of the following values, depending on the responsibility level of this weapons director: 
     0—unknown 
     1—novice 
     2—journeyman 
     3—expert 
     4—master 
     Each weapons director has an “Allegiance” integer value, indicating whether this weapons director is ours, enemy, or unknown. Each weapons director representation contains a reference “SENIOR” to the senior director this weapons director reports to. A weapons director may have a list of enemy resources this weapons director is responsible for handling. In addition, each weapons director has a “Human” indicator, which is set to the “true” logical value if this weapons director object is representing a weapons director operating in manual mode, meaning that a human user is present and performing a role of this weapons director, as opposed to this weapons director actions being determined by the agent. During each tick of the simulation, each weapons director for which the agent is active may have a list of “Recommendations”, containing the current set of recommendations from the agent for this weapons director. In addition, the “RecommendationsFromHuman” list may be present, which contains any manuallyentered recommendation/order pairs from a human user acting for this weapons director. If the agent is enabled for this weapons director, the agent may inform this director of any events the agent considers of interest to this weapons director by adding these events&#39; textual descriptions to the “Events” list of the weapons director object. In addition, the “Rationale” list contains textual explanations of the recommendations by the agent to this weapons director. 
     FIG. 27 describes the processing performed by the weapons director object at each tick of the simulation. The tick-related events vector is initialized  2701 . If this weapons director is managed by a human user  2702 , orders from the human user (if any) are processed  2704 . Otherwise, if this weapons director is not managed by a human user  2702 , recommendations from an agent automating the behavior of this weapons director are processed  2703 . Then the simulation tick processing of the weapons directory associated with this weapons director is invoked  2705 . To complete the process, the list of enemy resources this weapons director must handle is cleared  2706 . 
     FIG. 28 describes processing of recommendations from a human user or the automating agent by a weapons director. First, the list of recommendations to this weapons director from human user or automating agent is obtained  2801 . If this list is empty  2802 , processing is terminated. Otherwise, if recommendations are present in this list, while there are unprocessed recommendations in this list  2802 , for each recommendation, the following processing is performed. 
     If this recommendation has “recommendAfterTransfer” indicator set  2803 , the weapons director requests its senior director to permit and accomplish the transfer of the resource specified by the recommendation from the weapons director presently responsible for managing that resource to this weapons director  2804 . If the senior director has not approved and performed the resource transfer  2805 , this recommendation is ignored. Otherwise, a check of the “destroyed” indicator of the resource prescribed by this recommendation is performed  2806  to ensure that this resource is still available. If the resource prescribed by this recommendation has been destroyed, the recommendation is ignored. Otherwise, if the resource prescribed by this recommendation has “committed” indicator set  2807 , the uncommit process is performed for this resource  2808 . If the order associated with this recommendation is TARGET  2809 , the resource prescribed by this recommendation is committed to the enemy resource specified by the TARGET order associated with this recommendation  2810 . The order associated with this recommendation is then given to the resource prescribed by this recommendation by setting the “order” reference of this resource to the order associated with this recommendation  2811 . 
     Senior Director 
     The Senior class embodies the senior director to whom weapons directors report. Senior class objects contain a list of weapons directors reporting to this senior director. The senior director may be asked to approve and perform transfer of resources from one weapons director to another. FIG. 29 describes the process performed by the senior director to determine whether the resource transfer should be approved and to accomplish an approved resource transfer. The senior director confirms the eligibility of the specified resource for transfer by performing a series of checks. The senior director first verifies that the resource for which the transfer is requested does not already belong to the weapons director requesting the resource transfer  2901 . If the resource for which the transfer is requested already belongs to the weapons director requesting the transfer, the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. The senior director then checks whether the resource for which the transfer is being requested has its “destroyed” indicator set  2902 . If so, the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. 
     Then, the senior director checks whether the resource for which the transfer is being requested is presently in the process of getting fuel  2903 . If so, the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. The senior director then checks whether the resource for which the transfer is being requested has its “committed” indicator set  2904 . If so, the resource for which the transfer is being requested is otherwise engaged and not eligible for transfer, and the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. If the resource for which the transfer is being requested has a non-null “group” reference, meaning that the resource for which the transfer is being requested belongs to a group of resources, the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. 
     If the resource for which the transfer is being requested has a non-null “order” reference, meaning that this resource was given an order and is executing it, and if the order to which the “order” reference of the resource for which the transfer is being requested is a CAP order  2906 , the resource is important for defending the position of the weapons director presently responsible for managing this resource, and the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer is rejected. Otherwise, the senior director enacts the resource transfer. The resource for which the transfer is being requested is removed from its weapons directory  2906  and added to the weapons director of the weapons director requesting the resource transfer  2907 , then the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer has been approved and performed. 
     Recommendation 
     The Recommendation class embodies the recommendations passed by the agent to the weapons directors it automates, to the human users who act for particular weapons directors, and by the human users acting for particular weapons directors to the weapons directors they act for (to elicit actions or give orders to the resources they manage). FIG. 30 describes the representation of a Recommendation class object. 
     Each recommendation has a unique identified string “name”. Each recommendation has a reference “towhom” to the weapons director object for which the recommendation is intended. 
     Each recommendation contains a list of resources “R” managed by the weapons director this recommendation is intended for that are affected by this recommendation. Associated with a recommendation is “order”, the actual Order class or subclass object this recommendation prescribes to the resources in its list of affected resources. Each recommendation also contains a verbal description string “desc”. In addition, each recommendation has the following logical indicators: 
     “accepted”—indicating that a recommendation has been accepted by a weapons director and will be followed 
     “transfer”—indicating that this recommendation is only valid after the specified affected resource(s) is/are transferred from some other weapons director to the weapons director for whom this recommendation is intended, and after a permission for this transfer is given by the senior director. 
     Order 
     Each of the specific order classes (TARGET, RTB, GO, TANK, JOIN, and SPLIT) is a container for order-specific information appropriate to its order type. So, order TARGET includes the reference to the resource to be targeted, order RTB includes either a reference to the base towards which to proceed or a null base reference, indicating return to the default assigned base, order GO includes a set of destination coordinates, order TANK includes a reference to a specific tanker, order JOIN includes a reference to a group of resources to join, and order SPLIT includes no additional information (it is assumed that after a resource is split from a group, it will be provided a specific order to perform). 
     Agent 
     The overview of the agent resource allocation algorithm is as follows. For each director, the agent determines the list of enemy resources that must be handled, and for each resource determines its strength, speed, and time available for handling. The agent then builds a list of available resources, and for each available resource determines its strength, speed, pilot fatigue factor, and remaining flight time. Then, for each enemy resource, the agent builds a list of candidates for handling (i.e., our resources that could dispatch this enemy resource). Then, the agent processes the list of our resources and determines handlers for each enemy resource (starting with the shortest candidate list), and if a handler is not available, the agent adds the corresponding enemy resource to the list of resources to be handled by the team. Then resource commitment is performed, and recommendations are generated for each director. Subsequent to that, for each enemy resource which has been labeled “team responsibility”, the same processing is repeated, but this time without regard to responsibilities and resources of specific weapons directors, and then the commitment process is performed again and team recommendations are generated (note that team recommendations involve transfer of resources between weapons directors and required approval by the senior weapons director in order to be enacted). A more detailed description of the above is provided hereafter. 
     FIG. 31 describes processing performed by the agent at each tick of the simulation. The clients are informed that the tick has occurred  3101 . The events and rationale vectors, containing textual descriptions of events at every tick of the simulation that are of interest to the weapons directors, and the textual rationale for agent recommendations, respectively, are allocated  3102 ,  3103 , and the agent view of the world table is built  3104 . The agent view of the world table is the representation of the simulated resources as seen by the agent; the agent view of the world may differ from reality with respect to recognition of some resources. In the described embodiment, it is assumed that all the resources are known to the agent. However, in an alternate embodiment, it is possible that the agent may not receive the resource information directly from the simulator, but be instead required to recognize the objects it observes based on their observable characteristics and behavior. In another alternate embodiment, the agent may be receiving the world information not from the simulator, but from a real-time device (e.g., radar), observing real-world (not simulated) objects. Any resources that are currently committed to targets that no longer need to be handled are recalled  3105  and recommendations are generated for weapons directors  3106  which will tell weapons directors what, in the opinion of the agent, is their best course of action for the current tick in order to best accomplish their strategic and tactical goals. In the described embodiment the goals are to prevent enemy from destroying our planes or attacking our bases. In an alternate embodiment, the goal may something else, e.g. to optimize the attack by our bombers of a ground enemy target. 
     FIG. 32 describes the process of building the agent view of the world table at each tick. The agent obtains a list of enemy resources from the simulator  3201 , and while there are enemy resources in the list  3202 , for each enemy resource in the list, the following consideration is performed by the agent. If the enemy resource has been destroyed  3203 , it is ignored. If the enemy resource is already being handled by one of our weapons directors&#39; planes  3204  it is ignored. If the enemy resource is new  3205  (i.e., it just appeared and did not exist in the agent&#39;s view of the world during the previous tick of the simulation), an event is entered into the events vector  3206 , indicating appearance of a new enemy resource to the weapons director(s). Since the movement of the new resource is yet unknown, handling of the resource is postponed until the next tick of the simulation and the resource is temporarily ignored. 
     Then, movement of each resource is projected and reviewed for potential intersection with the air space of each weapons director as follows. The list of weapons directors is obtained from the senior director  3207 . While there are more unprocessed weapons directors in the obtained weapons directors list  3208 , for each weapons director, the following is performed. The agent checks whether the projected trajectory of the enemy resource under consideration by the agent will intersect the air space of this weapons director  3209 , and if so, the agent determines the intersection point coordinates and the estimated time of intersection  3210 . If the enemy resource is already in the weapons director&#39;s air space  3211 , the enemy resource object is added to the list of enemy resources this director must handle  3212 . The enemy resource is then marked as “beingHandled”  3213 . 
     FIG. 33 describes at the high level the processing of the agent for generating recommendations for weapons directors. At each tick of the simulation, a vector of enemy resources to be handled jointly by the team of weapons directors (rather than by a specific weapons director) is allocated and initialized to an empty vector  3301 . The agent then obtains the list of weapons directors from the senior director  3302 . While there are more unprocessed weapons directors in the previously obtained weapons directors list  3303 , for each weapons director in the list, the agent performs the following. The agent generates recommendations for this weapons director  3304 . Any enemy resources which need to be handled, but handling of which could not be recommended by the agent due to insufficient or incapable resources of this weapons director, is added to the previously allocated vector of resources to be handled jointly by the team of weapons directors  3305 . Upon completion of the weapons directors list traversal, the agent generates recommendations for the team of weapons directors against the accumulated list of enemy resources which are a team responsibility  3306 . 
     FIG. 34 describes the process of recalling committed resources from targets that no longer need to be attacked. The agent considers its view of the world table  3401 . While there are unprocessed entries in the agent view of the world table  3402 , for each entry in the view of the world table, the agent performs the following. If the enemy resource represented by this table entry is marked “recalled”  3403  (e.g., for some reason, it was previously determined that this enemy resource no longer poses a threat, and it was decided to free up any of our resources that were committed to handling this enemy resource), the uncommit process is performed for this enemy resource  3404 . While the commit process is a process of establishing a mapping of a pair of two resources, where one resource is the enemy and another resource is ours, assigned to destroy the aforementioned enemy resource, the uncommit process is the opposite—destroying the representation of a previously established commitment mapping thus freeing up committed resources for consideration by the agent. 
     FIG. 35 describes generation of recommendations by the agent for a single weapons director or team of directors. First, any unprocessed recommendations for a weapons director or a group of weapons directors that are pending, are discarded  3501 , since they originate from the previous tick and may no longer be valid. If this process has been invoked to generate recommendations for a team of weapons directors  3502 , the list of our available fighter groups (AVAIL) is built from the fighter or fighter groups managed by all the weapons directors in the team  3503 . Otherwise, if making recommendations for a single weapons director  3502 , the AVAIL list is built from the resources this weapons director is responsible for managing  3504 . Then, agent builds a prioritized list of enemy resources which need to be handled (ENEMY)  3505 . The agent then ensures that our available resources (fighters or groups of fighters) in the AVAIL list have no candidates by clearing out their candidate lists. 
     The agent also considers the AVAIL list  0706 . While there are unprocessed entries in the AVAIL list  3507 , for each of our fighters or groups of fighters in the AVAIL list, the candidates list reference is set to null  3508 . The candidates are then determined from the list of available resources for handling of each of the enemy resources in the previously built prioritized list. The ENEMY list is then processed  3509 . While there are unprocessed entries in the ENEMY list  3510 , for each entry in the ENEMY list the agent performs the following. The enemy resource list of candidates is cleared to be empty  3511 . The agent then loops through the AVAIL list  3512 , and while there are unprocessed entries in the AVAIL list  3513 , for each entry in the avail list, if this AVAIL list entry is a fighter or a group of fighters,  3514 , the agent determines whether this fighter or group of fighters is capable of handling this enemy resource  3515 . If this fighter or group of fighters from the AVAIL list is capable of handling this enemy resource, this fighter or group of fighters is added to the enemy resource list of candidates  3516 , and the enemy resource is added to our fighter or group of fighters list of candidates  3517 . 
     The selection of candidates for each of enemy resources in the previously built prioritized ENEMY list is performed as follows. The agent loops though the ENEMY list  3518 . While there are unprocessed entries in the ENEMY list  3519 , for each enemy resource, the agent determines whether the ENEMY resource candidates list is empty  3520 . If there are entries in the ENEMY list, the first element from the enemy resource candidate list is temporarily considered to be the selected candidate for handling this enemy resource. While there are more candidates in the enemy resource candidates list  3522 , for each candidate determine whether it is a better choice for handling this enemy resource than the currently selected candidate  3523 , and if so, this entry from the enemy resource list of candidates is considered to be the selected candidate for handling this enemy resource  3524 . Then the resource commitment for the selected candidate and the enemy resource under consideration is performed  3525 . If, however, the enemy resource candidates list was empty  3520 , the enemy resource is added to the list of enemy resources that were not handled by this process  3526 . 
     FIG. 36 describes the details of the process of generation of team recommendations by the agent (i.e., recommendations for handling of the enemy resources that cannot be handled by a single weapons director due to shortage, unavailability, or insufficient strength of resources managed by that director, and which are considered to be the responsibility of the whole weapons directors&#39; team). In the previous processing, the agent has determined the list of resources which it considers to be weapons directors team responsibility. The agent now considers this list  3601 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the list  3602 , for each of the enemy resources in the list, the agent performs the following. First, critical resources (i.e. those handling of which may not be delayed until the next simulation tick, and ignoring which would result and forfeiture of some or all of the tactical or strategic goals) are selected from the list of resources that are team responsibility. 
     If the enemy resource is a bomber  3603 , the agent determines whether this enemy bomber can reach any of our bases or other stationary ground protected objects for attack during the time period equivalent to the duration of the tick of the simulation  3605 . If the enemy bomber can attack our base by the next tick of the simulation, the agent considers this bomber, for example, a critical resource. Otherwise, even if this enemy bomber cannot perform its attack of our resources at the next tick of the simulation, but delaying its handling will place this enemy bomber in the position where none of our fighters can handle this bomber (e.g., the bomber will be too far or travelling too fast to intercept in time before it can attack our protected ground resources), this enemy bomber is still considered critical by the agent. “Critical” in this context means “must be handled immediately”. 
     Of course, other definitions of critical may be used in the present invention. If the enemy bomber has not been determined to be critical, it is removed from the list of enemy resources that are the responsibility of the weapons directors&#39; team  3609 . Similarly, if the enemy resource under consideration is a fighter or a group of fighters  3604 , a determination of its criticality is made based on whether this enemy fighter or group of fighters can get within weapon attack range of any of our planes  3607 , or whether if handling of this enemy fighter or group of fighters is postponed until the next tick, this enemy fighter or group of fighters will be in a position where it cannot be handled  3608 . If this enemy fighter or group of fighters is not deemed to be critical by the agent, it is removed from the list of enemy resources which are the responsibility of the weapons directors&#39; team  3609 . 
     Once the whole list of enemy resources that are considered to be the responsibility of the weapons directors&#39; team is processed, it only contains critical resources that must be handled immediately. The agent then considers the list of critical enemy resources  3610 . While there are unprocessed critical enemy resources  3611 , for each critical enemy resource, the agent performs the following. The agent attempts to generate a recommendation for the team of weapons directors for handling this critical enemy resource  3612 . If the recommendation has not been generated successfully  3613 , the agent informs the weapons directors and the senior director about the unhandled critical enemy resource, indicating that outside help may be required to handle this enemy resource  3614 . 
     The process of resource commitment initiated by the agent is described in FIG.  37 . The agent first initiates commitment for resources with a single candidate—either our resources which can only handle a single enemy resource, or enemy resources which only a single resource on our side can handle. The single resource commitment is followed by multiple resource commitment, where the agent makes a choice of a resource to commit from the list of available resources containing more then one entry. The agent considers the list of available resources  3701 . While there are more unprocessed available resources in list  3702 , the agent performs the following. If our fighter or group of fighters has a single enemy candidate in its list of candidates  3703 , the agent commits this fighter or group of fighters to target the single enemy resource this fighter or group of fighters has in its candidates list  3704 . 
     The agent then clears the enemy resource candidates list  3705  and the candidates list of our fighter or group of fighters for which commitment was performed  3706 . The agent then considers the list of enemy resources  3707 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the list of enemy resources  0808 , the agent performs the following processing. If the enemy resource has a single candidate for handling it in its candidates list  3709 , the agent retrieves the candidates list of our resource which is the candidate for this enemy resource  3710 , and if this enemy resource is the first (i.e., the most important) entry in the candidates list of our resource  3711 , the agent commits our resource to handling this enemy resource  3712 . This is followed by clearing the enemy resource candidates list  3713  and the candidates list of our resource that was committed to handling this enemy resource  3714 . 
     If any commitments were performed in the above steps  3701 - 3714  in step  3715 , the agent repeats these steps  3716  to attempt more single resource commitments. Once an iteration with no single resource commitment performed takes place, the agent goes on to perform multiple resource commitments. The agent once again considers the list of enemy resources  3717 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the list of enemy resources  3718 , the agent performs the following for each enemy resource from the list. If this enemy resource has “beingHandled” indicator set  3719 , the agent ignores it, as this enemy resource needs no additional involvement on the part of the agent. If this enemy resource has no candidates for handling it (i.e., its candidates list is empty)  3720 , the agent ignores it. Otherwise, the agent retrieves this enemy resource&#39;s list of candidates  3721  and sets the reference WEAKESTANDCLOSEST to point at the first of our fighter or group of fighters in the enemy resource&#39;s candidates list  3722 . 
     While there are more unprocessed entries in this enemy resource&#39;s candidates list  3723 , for each of our fighters or group of fighters in this enemy resource&#39;s candidates list, the agent performs the following. If this fighter or group of fighters is weaker or closer than the previously determined WEAKESTANDCLOSEST fighter or group of fighters  3724 , the agent resets WEAKESTANDCLOSEST reference to the current entry from this enemy resource&#39;s candidates list  3725 . Upon completing the iteration through this enemy resource&#39;s candidates list, the agent checks whether the WEAKESTANDCLOSEST fighter or group of fighters has been determined  3726 —that is our fighter or group of fighters which will be handling this enemy resource, and the agent performs the commitment of our WEAKESTANDCLOSEST fighter or group of fighters to this enemy resource  3727 . Then the agent clears this enemy resource&#39;s list of candidates  3728 . 
     If any commitments were initiated by the agent in the above steps  3717 - 3728  in step  3729 , the agent repeats steps  3717 - 3728  to attempt more commitments  3730 . This is repeated until an iteration with no commitments performed occurs. At the last phase of this process, the agent allocates the list of unhandled enemy resources  3731 . The agent then again considers the list of enemy resources  3732 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the list of enemy resources  3733 , the agent performs the following for each enemy resource in the list of enemy resources. If this enemy resource does not have the “beinghandled” indicator set  3734 , the agent adds this resource to the previously allocated list of unhandled enemy resources  3735 . Upon completion of the processing, this method returns the list of unhandled enemy resources to its invoker  3736 . 
     The process of committing a pair of handled/handler resources is described in FIG.  38 . Prior to actual processing of recommendations by weapons directors, “commitment” means removal of resources from consideration for resource allocation until the next tick of the simulation. Other definitions for “commitment” may also be used as appropriate. The actual commitments of resources will be performed when weapons directors consider recommendations from the agent or issue orders. If this is a team commitment  3801 , the agent determines the weapons director owning our resource, for which commitment is being attempted  3802 , and the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, for which commitment is being attempted  3803 . The agent then indicates that a transfer of our resource from its owner to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource needs to be approved by the senior director in order to perform this commitment  3804 , sets our resource&#39;s “pending” indicator  3805  to indicate that a commitment is pending for this resource, builds a TARGET order for our resource to target the enemy resource for which the commitment is pending  3806 , and generates the recommendation to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, attaching the previously built TARGET order  3807  (e.g., recommends that a TARGET order be issued for our resource, assigning it to target the enemy resource). 
     If transfer of our resource from its present owner to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource is required  3808 , the agent sets “recommendAfterTransfer” indicator in the previously built recommendation  3809 , additionally recommending that the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource obtain permission from the senior director to transfer our resource from its present owner. The agent then adds the generated recommendation to the recommendations list of the weapons director responsible for handling this enemy resource  3810 . The agent then removes our resource from the list of available resources  3811 , and the enemy resource from the list of enemy resources that should be handled  3812 . The agent then considers the list of available resources  3813 . While there are unprocessed available resources in the list of available resources  3814 , for each our available resource, the agent removes the enemy resource for which commitment was just performed from our available resource&#39;s candidates list  3815 . Then, the agent considers the list of enemy resources  3816 . While there are unprocessed enemy resources in the enemy resources list  3817 , for each enemy resource from the enemy resources list, the agent removes our previously committed resource from this enemy resource&#39;s candidates list  3818 . 
     FIG. 39 describes selection of available resources from a weapons directory and generation of the list of available resources. The agent allocates the list of available resources  3901 . The agent then obtains the list of all resources in the weapons directory of the weapons director associated with this agent  3902 . While there are unprocessed resources in the weapons directory resource list  3903 , for each resource from the weapons directory resource list, the agent performs the following processing. If the resource has its “committed” indicator set  3904  (e.g., the resource is already committed to handling some enemy resource and is therefore not available), the agent ignores this resource. If the resource has its “pendingCommitment” indicator set  3905  (e.g., the resource is awaiting commitment which is yet to occur and is therefore not available), the agent ignores this resource. If the resource has its “atBase” indicator set  3906  (e.g., the resource is landed at base and is therefore not available), the agent ignores this resource. If the resource is getting fuel  3907  (e.g., the resource is fueling from a tanker and is therefore not available), the agent ignores this resource. If the agent has not previously determined that this resource is not available and should be ignored, the agent adds this resource to the previously allocated list of available resources  3908 . 
     FIG. 40 shows the actual process of commitment of our resource for handling an enemy resource. The process starts with setting the commitment reference (committedTo) of our resource to the enemy resource  4001 . The “committed” indicator of our resource is then set  4002  to indicate that our resource is committed to handling an enemy resource. Then, the enemy resource “beingHandled” indicator is set  4003  to indicate that this enemy resource is being handled by us and that it should be excluded from future consideration by the resource assignment algorithm of the Agent. In addition, the “directorHandling” reference of the enemy resource is set to refer to the weapons director responsible for managing our resource which is committed to this enemy resource  4004 . Then the candidates vector of the enemy resource and of our resource are cleared  4005 ,  4006 , and the “pendingCommitment” indicator of our resource is turned off  4007 , since the resource is now committed. 
     FIG. 41 shows the process of uncommiting a resource, i.e., the substantially opposite of the process of committing a resource, described in FIG.  40 . If the resource “allegiance” value is equals to “ours”  1301 , the resource&#39;s “committed” indicator is turned off  4102 , the resource&#39;s commitment reference “committedTo” is set to null  4103 , and the resources order reference “order” is set to null  4104 . Otherwise, if this is an enemy resource, the resource&#39;s “beingHandled” indicator is turned off  4105  and the resource&#39;s “recall” indicator is turned off  4106 . Then, if the resource&#39;s “directorHandling” reference is not null  4107 , the list of all the resources managed by the weapons director to which the “directorHandling” reference of this resource points is obtained  4108 . While there are unprocessed resources in the previously obtained list of resources managed by the weapons director pointed to by the “directorHandling” reference of the resource for which the uncommit processing is being performed  4109 , for each resource in the list, the following processing is performed. If the resource&#39;s “committedTo” reference is not null and points at the enemy resource being uncommitted  4110 , uncommit processing steps  4101 - 4104  are recursively invoked to uncommit our resource  4111 . 
     The agent algorithms described above have been tailored towards fighter attacks. Persons skilled in the art will understand that the same algorithm may be applied for bomber attacks or for other similar resource allocation needs. Additionally, it should be clear that boundary condition checks, such as, e.g., fuel or pilot fatigue (see below) verification, would result in the agent generating different types of recommendations, containing orders RTB (to return to base), TANK (to obtain more fuel), etc. Persons skilled in the art will also understand that the same algorithm may be applied in arbitrary applications, requiring resource allocation and involving human and agent participants. Among other possibilities, humans or agents may be recommended how to best manage a network, route telephone calls, manufacture a product from parts, and so on. 
     User Interface 
     The user interface embodies the means by which the users, in this case, weapons directors and the senior director, can interact with the program. Specifically, in this embodiment, the user interface performs the following functions: 
     present users with the information about events occurring in the simulation and actions performed by the airplane pilots 
     permit users (weapons director and the senior director) to issue orders to the pilots manning the resources which the weapons directors are responsible for managing 
     present recommendations from the agent to the weapons director allow users to control the speed of the simulation, restart the simulation, checkpoint the simulation state, or terminate the simulation 
     allow each user to activate or deactivate the user&#39;s agent 
     allow each user to log into the simulation or log out of the simulation 
     allow weapons directors to communicate with the weapons directors for the purposes of resource transfer between weapons directors 
     The user interface is an essential feature of the program, however, persons skilled in the art will understand that numerous alterations are possible with respect to the user interface, depending on the desired functionality of the program, the types of resources that are simulated, user preferences, etc. Persons skilled in the art will also understand that, although the preferred embodiment describes a windows-based graphical user interface, other types of interface are possible, such as non-graphical command-based user interface, character-mode (non-graphical) user interface, graphical user interface enhanced with sound, touch-screen graphical user interface, or virtual reality user interface. 
     FIG. 42 shows an overview of the graphical user interface. The graphical user interface is a window  4401  on a computer monitor screen  4206 , containing the following graphical elements: control panel  4207 , primary graphical display area  4202 , events display area  4203 , resource status display area  4204 , and an order entry/confirmation area  4205 . 
     The control panel contains buttons that permit users to control the simulation as well as weapons director logon and agent activation buttons. FIG. 43 shows the details of the control panel. The simulation control section of the control panel includes the simulation start/pause button  4301 , fast-forward button  4302 , rewind button  4303 , simulation state check-point button  4304 , and exit button  4305 . The user control section of the control panel contains a series of pairs of button, each pair corresponding to a single weapons director or a senior director. In the figure, there are four weapons directors (WD-WD 4 ) with the in/out button for each weapons director  4306 ,  4308 ,  4310 ,  4312 , and a corresponding agent activation/deactivation button for each weapons director  4307 ,  4309 ,  4311 ,  4313 , as well as the senior director button  4314  and the associated senior director agent button  4315 . 
     The primary graphical display area  4202  represents a map, with optional vertical and horizontal marks, showing the scale and locations of all of the simulated resources relative to the coordinate origin point. Each resource is represented by an appropriate symbol, corresponding to the type of resource, in the primary display area. FIG. 44 provides an example of resource display for one of our resources and one enemy resource. Our resource (in this case, a pair of F16 fighter planes) is represented by a blue symbol  4401 . The enemy resource (in this case, a MIG23 fighter plane) is represented by a red symbol  4406 . In general, color corresponds to resource allegiance (blue=ours, red=enemy, etc.). Each resource symbol is accompanied by a resource label  4402 ,  4407 , showing the resource identifier, the identifier of the weapons director responsible for managing the resource, resource heading, altitude, and velocity. Depending on whether this information is known (i.e., for our resources), in addition to the resource label, a graphical histogram  4405  showing the amounts of fuel  4403  and ammunition  4404  possessed by the resource may also be shown. 
     In addition to presenting resource locations and status for observation by the users, the primary graphical display area is also used for presentation of agent recommendations and provides the ability for the users to accept or ignore agent recommendations. FIG. 45 shows a sample recommendation from the agent. The line from 2F16A to the MIG23 symbols  4501  indicates that the agent recommends that our resource 2F16A target the enemy resource MIG23. The agent face symbol  4502  is blinking to attract the user&#39;s attention. The user can ignore the recommendation (by doing nothing) or accept it by double clicking the left mouse button in the area of the agent face (in which case the recommendation line and agent face will disappear from the screen). 
     In addition, the primary graphical display area is also used by the users for issuing orders to resources. A weapons director may only issue orders to the resources this director is responsible for managing. An attempt to issue an order to a resource managed by another weapons director will be interpreted as a request for the permission by the senior director to transfer this resource to the weapons director attempting to issue the order and cause the senior director button to blink. If the weapons director attempting to issue an order is indeed intending to request the senior director to permit transfer of this resource, the weapons director can depress the blinking senior director button and the resource transfer request will be presented to the senior director. If, upon consideration of this request, the senior director decides to approve the resource transfer, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the green color. If, on the other hand, the senior director decides to reject the resource transfer request, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the red color. 
     FIG. 46 shows the actions that can be performed by the weapons director on the screen and how they translate into weapons directors&#39; orders. All the orders are issued by clicking the left mouse button on a resource and dragging the mouse pointer to another resource or particular area on the screen. Should an ambiguity be detected by the program, e.g., should there be more than one resource at the mouse click or release after drag point, the order entry/confirmation area is activated, presenting a user with the exhaustive choice of particular orders the user action could be translated and permitting the user to select one. 
     The primary graphical display area also permits a user to examine a resource information in more detail than is provided by the default resource symbol and associated text. A click of the right mouse button when the mouse pointer points at a resource would result in a detailed display, showing all the essential known information about a resource. An example is shown in FIG. 47, where a detailed resource information display for 2F16A  4701  is shown, including the resource identifier “2F16A”, the weapons director responsible for managing this resource “WD 1 ”, the resource heading “( 128 ,  17 )”, the resource altitude “ 3 ”, the resource velocity “ 97 ”, as well as a detailed description of the resource “GROUP OF 2 F16”, the order this resource is presently executing “TARGET MIG23”, the degree of pilot fatigue “ 17 ”, the amount of fuel remaining “ 284 ”, and the remaining weapons “ 2  AIM  7 ,  4  AIM  9 ”. 
     Similarly, detailed recommendation information can also be elicited by the weapons director from the primary graphical display area. FIG. 48 shows an example of an agent recommendation presented to weapons director  1  (WD 1 )  4801  and a corresponding detailed description of the agent recommendation  4802 , including the recommendation identifier “ 123456 ”, the source of the recommendation “A 1 ”, the intended recipient of the recommendation “WD 1 ) “, the description of the recommendation “2F16A→MIG23”, meaning “have 2F16A target MIG 23 ”, and the rationale for this recommendation. In this case, the rationale is that “2F16A is the closest and weakest of WD 1  fighters that can successfully attack MIG23”. 
     Possible Configurations 
     A number of possible configurations may exist for employing the described techniques. FIG. 49 describes some of them, however it will be understood by persons skilled in the art that a number of variations and combinations are possible. One possible configuration has a plurality of weapons directors and senior directors managing the weapons directors  4901  using a plurality of agents  4902 , connected to a simulation engine  4903 , and engaged in training, planning missions, etc. Another possible configuration includes a plurality of weapons directors and senior directors managing the weapons directors  4904  employ a plurality of agents  4905 , connected to a real-time data gathering engine  4906  (e.g., radar detector), and performing real-time operations involving command of real aircraft. 
     In another possible configuration, one plurality of weapons directors and senior directors managing the weapons directors D 1   4907  employs a plurality of agents of another type A 1   4909 , while another plurality of weapons directors and senior directors managing the weapons directors D 2   4908  employs a plurality of agents of one type A 2   4910 , all of them connected to either a simulation engine or a set of real-time data gathering devices  4911 . The agents included in groups A 1  and A 2  may be heterogeneous, i.e., of different types with respect to their implementation platforms (such as Microsoft Windows, UNIX, OS/400, OS/390, or a Java virtual machine), with respect to their implementation logic, with respect to their tactical goals (e.g., defensive vs. offensive combat), and with respect to other parameters, all communicating via a network (e.g., TCP/IP), and sharing information conforming to a single object model. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 1—ENEMY RESOURCE RECOGNITION 
     In an enhanced embodiment, the agent is not provided any information about the type of enemy resources that are present or suddenly appear in the simulation. In a real-life military situation, when a resource is detected, it may not always be known what this resource&#39;s allegiance is—“ours”, “enemy”, “ally”, “neutral”, etc., nor what type of resources this is—fighter, bomber, civilian aircraft, etc. Actions of a resource may need to be observed over a particular time period, and certain conclusions may be drawn heuristically, based on these actions. Additionally, an attempt to contact an unknown resource via radio or optical signals, or even a fly-by of an unknown resource by our aircraft may be recommended by the agent or ordered by a weapons director to visually identify an unknown resource. If the agent is connected to the radar feed, the agent may also examine the radar screen patterns of unknown resources and attempt to combine the information it gains from the radar with any other known information to fathom the nature of unidentified resources. 
     The process of recognition of unknown resources would be performed as a part of building the agent view of the world table, described above. In the context of this process, each resource representation would be enhanced with the “identified” indicator, permanently set for our resources, and not set for any of the enemy resources that have not been identified. Upon successful identification of an enemy resource, the enemy resource&#39;s “identified” indicator is set. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 2—USER FEEDBACK OR AUGMENTATION OF INFORMATION AND ITS PROPAGATION 
     A weapons director may also obtain information from sources not monitored by the agent, e.g., from conversations with other weapons directors or the senior director, from intelligence sources, or from radio transmissions. In this case, it would be advantageous for a weapons director to provide additional information to the agent so that the agent could incorporate this additional information in its decision making. For this purpose, user feedback/correction is permitted by the user interface, and corrected information is conveyed to the agent. 
     While a single left mouse button click on a resource symbol causes a detailed resource information displayed to be presented to a user, a double left mouse button click on a resource symbol causes an edit session to be opened, permitting the user to edit specific information about the resource. FIG. 50 shows such an edit session for our resource 2F16A  5001 , and the underlined fields are the ones the user can edit. Once editing is finished, the changed information will be adjusted in the resource representation in the simulator, and the modified resource representation will be known to the agent on the next tick of the simulation, when the agent examines resources and builds the view of the world resource table. 
     Similarly, information about an unidentified resource can be filled in by a user. An example of filling in information for an unidentified resource is shown in FIG.  51 . An unidentified resource symbol is shown in yellow color  5101 , yellow indicating unknown resource allegiance, and its associated label is “UI 7 ”  5102 , meaning the seventh unidentified resource. When a user edits the resource information, most of the field presented by the edit session would be blank  5103 , and the user can fill any information known. The filled information is shown in lower case italics in FIG.  51 . In the example shown in FIG. 51, the user has designated a resource identified “MIG23” for this unidentified resource, has indicated that this is an enemy resource by typing “e”, and specified the resource type as “MIG23 FIGHTER”. When this information is received by the simulator and propagated to the agent, the resource display will be as shown in FIG. 52, with the resource symbol drawn in red  5201 , indicating an enemy resource, and the resource identifier reset to “MIG23”  5202 . 
     When new information becomes available to a particular agent, that agent is responsible for informing agents of other weapons directors and the agent of the senior director about this new information. FIG. 53 shows a sample flow of propagation of new information. Weapons director  1  (WD 1 )  5301  has obtained some new information and informed at  5302  its agent (A 1 )  5303 . Agent A 1  is now responsible for conveying at  5305  this information to its counterpart agent A 2   5306 , for conveying at  5308  this information to the user interface of weapons director  3  (WD 3 )  5307 , and for conveying at  5309  this information to the agent of the senior director (AS)  5310 . Senior director (AS) is, in turn, responsible for conveying at  5312  this information to the senior director  5311 . When new information is conveyed to an agent, that agent updates its view of the world table and, if this agent is advising a human user, the agent reflects this information at the user&#39;s graphical interface. 
     Persons skilled in the art will understand that even though the specific feedback/augmentation of agent information by the user shown above pertains to airplanes and resource identification, information for other resources (e.g., satellites, submarines, ships, cars, etc.) as well as about environment (e.g., road blocks, traffic jams, network disruption points, etc.) can be provided to the agent in a similar fashion, as pertinent to a particular application of this technique. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 3—PILOT FATIGUE MEASUREMENTS 
     Pilots&#39; degree of stress and resulting pilot fatigue are important when making decisions about plane assignments for various missions. There exists an empirically established degree of pilot fatigue, which, when reached, causes the airplane pilot to be considered incapable of safe operation of an airplane. However, long before the critical fatigue level is reached, the ability of a pilot to safely operate an airplane in critical and demanding circumstances may be impaired. Pilot fatigue is an important factor contributing to loss of airplanes in the combat environment, and thus becomes an important consideration for tactical decision making when allocating resources for defensive, offensive, or reconnaissance purposes. 
     For the purpose of measuring pilot fatigue, each Plane object is enhanced with an additional floating-point field—“fatigue”. This field is set to 0 every time a plane takes off from a base, under an assumption that the pilot is completely rested. The “fatigue” field value is incremented every tick of the simulation by the Plane class objects&#39; tick of the simulation processing, and it grows proportional to the amount of time a Plane has been in the air. The “fatigue” value is additionally incremented in proportion when a plane is under attack, is performing an attack on an enemy target (air or ground), is performing a fly-by or reconnaissance, or is performing fueling in the air from a tanker. All of the previously enumerated factors increase the normal level of stress an airplane pilot is subject to, and therefore contribute to the increase of the pilot fatigue level. 
     When generating recommendations to the weapons directors, the agent will take pilot fatigue into consideration. So, the agent will detect the points when pilot fatigue reaches a critical level and may severely affect a pilot&#39;s performance, and recommend to the weapons director that the plane(s) manned by highly fatigued pilots be returned to base. Additionally, the agent will consider the pilot fatigue level when deciding which plane(s) to assign to specific tasks, e.g., when selecting a fighter to target an enemy plane, the agent may choose a resource that is slightly farther away from the enemy plane, but the pilot of which is less fatigued than the pilot of the closest of our fighters. 
     Pilot fatigue is a factor specific to the aircraft tactical decision making. Persons skilled in the art will understand that various applications of the techniques described herein may involve various types of measurements and factors, similar or different in their nature to what has been described, but applicable to different uses of these techniques. E.g., fatigue may also be applicable to drivers in a taxi or cargo car or truck fleet, albeit the factors contributing to the driver fatigue may be different from those for the fatigue of pilots, and different measurements may need to be taken to derive driver fatigue values. Furthermore, if an intelligent agent using this technique is produced for manned space devices, then other factors, such as, e.g., degree of solar radiation and current solar activity, duration of continuous exposure to weightlessness, the number of hours in over-oxygenated atmosphere, and specific biological measurements may be applicable in addition to or instead of the fatigue computations described above. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 4—WEAPONS DIRECTORS AND TEAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES 
     One of the applications of the described program is training of weapons directors. For that purpose, it is essential to have a way of evaluating the results of weapons directors&#39; actions. Different ways of evaluating weapons directors&#39; actions are possible. The method described here ties the weapons directors&#39; measurements with the attainment of tactical goals set for the weapons directors. E.g., the tactical goal is to defend air space and ground resources against an onslaught of enemy fighters and bombers, while preserving as many of our fighters as possible. It is possible to keep score of weapons directors activity by assigning values to our planes, our ground resources, and enemy planes, and then by computing the sum of values of destroyed enemy vs. our resources. For that purpose, each resource is enhanced with a “value” field, such as an integer, containing the value of that resource in the framework of the measurements. 
     Each weapons director (Director class) object representation is enhanced with two additional fields: “score” and “maxScore”. The “score” field is initially set to 0, and the “maxScore” field is initially set to the sum of the contents of the “value” field of all of the resources this weapons director is responsible for managing and protecting. Every time an enemy resource is added to the list of enemy resources for which a weapons director is responsible for handling, the “maxScore” field is increased by the value of the “value” field of that enemy plane. Every time an enemy resource is destroyed by our fighters, the weapons director&#39;s “score” field is increased by the contents of the “value” field of the destroyed enemy resource. Every time our resource reporting to or protected by this weapons director is destroyed, the weapons directors&#39; “score” value is decreased by the contents of the value field of this resource. Every time a resource is transferred between weapons directors, the weapons directors&#39;“maxScore” field contents is adjusted by the value of the transferred resource. As a result, upon completion of a training session, it is possible to compare a weapons director&#39;s “score” value against this weapons director&#39;s “maxs core” value and derive conclusions about this weapons director&#39;s performance. 
     FIG. 54 shows the mechanism for keeping weapons directors&#39; scores when events occurs. An event occurs  5401 , and is evaluated as follows. If an enemy resource has been added to the weapons director list of resources this weapons director is responsible for handling  5402 , this weapons director&#39;s “maxScore” field is incremented by the “value” field of this enemy resource  5403 . If an enemy resource has been removed from a weapons director list of resources this weapons director is responsible for handling  5404 , and this weapons director&#39;s “maxScore” field is decremented by the “value” field of this enemy resource  5405 . If an enemy resource in the list of enemy resources this weapons director is responsible for handling has been destroyed  5406 , this weapons director&#39;s “score” field is incremented by the “value” field of the destroyed enemy resource  5407 . 
     If our resource reporting to or protected by this weapons director has been destroyed  5408 , this weapons director&#39;s “score” field is decremented by the “value” field of our destroyed resource  5409 . If our resource has been transferred from this weapons director to another weapons director  5410 , this weapons director&#39;s “maxScore” field is decremented by the “value” field of the transferred resource  5411 . If our resource has been transferred from another weapons director to this weapons director  5412 , this weapons director&#39;s “maxScore” field is incremented by the ” value” field of the transferred resource  5413 . 
     Similarly, the overall weapons directors&#39; team effectiveness can be measured by a pair of score fields that would account for overall preservation of resources this team of weapons directors is responsible for protecting and for destruction of all enemy resources. To motivate the team spirit between weapons directors, additional “bonus” points may be awarded whenever a resource transfer between weapons directors has been successfully accomplished and has helped to attain the tactical goals. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 5—HEURISTIC ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENT RECOMMENDATIONS CONSTRAINTS BASED ON USER BEHAVIOR PATTERNS 
     Over a period of time, the agent making recommendations to a particular user may observe that certain kinds of recommendations are consistently ignored by a user, while other kinds are consistently accepted. E.g. an agent may observe that a weapons director it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP&#39;ed fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may over time learn not to generate the recommendations that are consistently ignored. In the previous example, the agent may learn not to recommend the weapons director to assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks. 
     FIG. 55 shows a data structure that the agent can use to accumulate historical recommendation disposition information for a particular weapons director. The data structure is a table with the following types of columns: “Recommendation type”, “Accepted Count” (count of accepted recommendations), “Current resource order (acc.)” (the count of order types resources had at the time of recommendation acceptance), “Resource location (acc.)” (any specific information about locations of resources at the time of recommendation acceptance), “Not accepted count” (a.k.a. Ignored or Rejected count—the count of recommendations that were not accepted), and the corresponding “Current resource order (not acc.)” and “Resource location (not acc.)” columns for not accepted recommendations. The table rows represent different types of recommendations, in this case, based on the type of order a recommendation recommends—TARGET, RTB, TANK, JOIN, SPLIT, GO, CAP. 
     Every time a recommendation is accepted, the “accepted” count, corresponding to the order a recommendation prescribes is incremented, and the current (i.e., prior to recommendation acceptance) order of the resource for which the recommendation is being made and its location at the time of the recommendation issuance are noted. Every time a recommendation is not accepted, the “not accepted” count, corresponding to the order a recommendation prescribes is incremented, and the current (i.e., prior to recommendation acceptance) order of the resource for which the recommendation is being made and its location at the time of the recommendation issuance are noted. In the example in this figure,  17  TARGET recommendations were accepted by the weapons director, and 5 resource instances for which those recommendations were given were executing a CAP order of CAP 1  patrol area.  5  TARGET recommendations were not accepted by the weapons director, and 5 resource instances for which those recommendations were given were executing a CAP order of CAP 2  patrol area. 
     From this, the agent may note that the weapons director has no problems with removing resources from the CAP 1  patrol area for the purposes of targeting enemy resources, but does not agree with agent recommendations that would remove resources from the CAP 2  patrol area for the same purpose. The agent then may conclude that recommendations to remove resources from the CAP 2  patrol area for the purpose of targeting enemy resources should not be made. This conclusion would only be reached by the agent after the number of not accepted recommendations has exceeded a pre-determined (and user-customizable) threshold of not accepted recommendations relative to the accepted ones of the same type, and subject to patterns observed in the current resource orders and locations. 
     Other considerations may be noted by the agent for the purpose of heuristic determination of user behavior patterns, such as proximity of resources to the enemy, resource speeds and altitudes, pilot fatigue values of the resources, etc. 
     EMBODIMENT ENHANCEMENT 5—WARFARE AND OTHER PROBLEM DOMAINS 
     Throughout this document we have observed that persons skilled in the art will know that the ideas, technology and algorithms discussed can be applied in problem domains other than the one on which the basic embodiment focuses (namely, tactical aerial warfare). Specifically, persons skilled in the art will understand that the same ideas, technology and algorithms can be applied in all conceivable areas of warfare, including but not limited to air, space, sea, land, undersea and underland. Persons skilled in the art will also understand that the same can be used for all types of warfare, including but not limited to tactical, strategic, global, limited and regional, during all stages of warfare, including but not limited to planning, logistics, combat, cease-fire, negotiation and reporting, and for all and any combination of warfare participants, including but not limited to individual and teams of humans and agents acting on behalf of enlisted personnel, non-commissioned officers, officers, general officers, civilians, diplomats and observers. Persons skilled in the art will also understand that the same can be used in great many other problem domains, including but not limited to telecommunications, business and finance, energy, manufacturing, transportation, health care, network, Internet and WWW and consumer services. 
     GENERAL BACKGROUND REFERENCES, INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE 
     Our examination of the literature has not produced what we would consider relevant prior art. To acquaint herself or himself with general background information on agents, however, a person not skilled in the art may find much information published books and articles, such as the following, all incorporated herein by reference. 
     Title: “Intelligent agent systems: theoretical and practical issues: based on a workshop held at PRICAI&#39;96, Cairns, Australia, Aug. 26-30, 1996. /Lawrence Cavedon, Anand Rao, Wayne Wobcke (eds.). 
     Publisher/Date: New York: Springer, 1997. 
     Series (Searchable by title or keyword): 
     Lecture notes in computer science; 1209. 
     Lecture notes in computer science. 
     Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. 
     Series (Searchable only by keyword): 
     Lecture notes in computer science; 1209. 
     Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 
     Description: p. cm. 
     Subjects: Intelligent agents (Computer software)—Congresses. 
     Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 
     Other Authors/Contributors: Cavedon, Lawrence, 1964—Rao, Anand, 1962—Wobcke, Wayne, 1963—Pacific Rim International Conference 
     on Artificial Intelligence (4th: 1996: Cairns, Qld.) 
     ISBN: 3540626867 (softcover: alk. paper) 
     Primary Material: Book 
     Title: Agent technology: foundations, applications, and markets 
     /Nicholas R. Jennings, Michael J. Wooldridge (eds.). 
     Publisher/Date: Berlin; New York: Springer, c1998. 
     Description: viii, 325 p.: ill.; 24 cm. 
     Subjects: Intelligent agents (Computer software) 
     Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 
     Other Authors/Contributors: Jennings, Nick. 
     Wooldridge, Michael J., 1966— 
     ISBN: 3540635912 (alk. paper) 
     Title: Agent technology handbook/Dimitris N. Chorafas. 
     Author/Contributor: Chorafas, Dimitris N. 
     Publisher/Date: New York: McGraw-Hill, c1998. 
     Series (Searchable by title or keyword): 
     The McGraw-Hill series on computer communications 
     Description: xlvii, 382 p.: ill.; 24 cm. 
     Subjects: Intelligent agents (Computer software)—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 
     Notes: Includes bibliographical references, glossary and index. 
     ISBN: 0070119236 (acid-free paper) 
     Primary Material: Book 
     Title: Cooperative knowledge processing: the key technology for intelligent organizations/Stefan 
     Kirn and Greg O&#39;Hare (eds.). 
     Publisher/Date: Berlin; New York: Springer, c1997. 
     Series (Searchable by title or keyword): 
     Computer supported cooperative work Description: xxv, 296 p.: ill.; 24 cm. 
     Subjects: Teams in the workplace—Data processing. 
     Information technology—Management. 
     Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. 269-288) and indexes. 
     Other Authors/Contributors: Kirn, Stefan. 
     O&#39;Hare, G. M. P. (Greg M. P.) 
     ISBN: 3540199519 (alk. paper) 
     Title: Developing intelligent agents for distributed systems: exploring architecture, technologies, and applications/Michael 
     Knapik, Jay Johnson. 
     Author/Contributor: Knapik, Michael. 
     Publisher/Date: United States McGraw-Hill 1998 
     Description: xix/389p 
     Contents: Sect. 1. Introduction—Sect. 2. From Artificial 
     Intelligence Comes Intelligent Agents—Sect. 3. Converging Technologies that Facilitate and Enable Agents—Sect. 4. Agent-Enabling Infrastructures—Sect. 5. Agent Architectures—Sect. 
     6. Agent-Design Considerations—Sect. 7. Developing Intelligent Agents Now—Sect. 8. Agent Applications—Sect. 9. Agent Futures. 
     ISBN: 0070350116: 
     Primary Material: Book 
     Title: Intelligent agents II: agent theories, architectures, and languages 
     IJCAI&#39;95 Workshop (ATAL), Montréal, Canada, August 19-20, 1995: proceedings/M. Wooldrige, J. P. 
     Müiller, M. Tambe, (eds). 
     Author/Contributor: International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (2nd: 1995: Montréal, Quebec) 
     Publisher/Date: Berlin; New York: Springer, c1996. 
     Series (Searchable by title or keyword): 
     Lecture notes in computer science; 1037. 
     Lecture notes in computer science. 
     Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. 
     Series (Searchable only by keyword): Lecture notes in computer science; 1037. 
     Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 
     Description: xviii, 437 p.: ill.; 24 cm. 
     Subjects: Artificial intelligence-Data processing—Congresses. Computer architecture—Congresses. 
     Computational linguistics—Congresses. 
     Notes: Second International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, held in conjunction with the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Includes bibliographical references and index. 
     Other Authors/Contributors: Wooldridge, Michael J., 1966— 
     Müiller, Jörg P., 1965—Tambe, Milind, 1965— 
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence ( 1995 : Montreal, Quebec) 
     ISBN: 3540608052 (softcover: alk. paper) 
     Primary Material: Book 
     Title: Distributed information systems in business/W.König . . . [et al.] eds.). 
     Publisher/Date: Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag, c1996. 
     Description: vi, 302 p.: ill.; 24 cm. 
     Subjects: Business—Computer networks. Electronic data processing—Distributed processing. 
     Management information systems. Distributed artificial intelligence. 
     Contents: Managing Distributed Information Systems—Income/Star: Facing the Challenges for Cooperative 
     Information System Development Environments—A Business Process 
     Oriented Approach to Data Integration—Solving Decision Problems by Distributed 
     Decomposition and Delegation—Foundations of a 
     Theory and its Application within a Normative Group Decision 
     Support System Framework—Distributed Cooperative Budget-planning and -control— 
     Decentralized Problem Solving in Logistics with Partly Intelligent Agents and Comparison with Alternative Approaches—Organizational Multi-Agent Systems: A Process Driven Approach—Development and Simulation of Methods for Scheduling and Coordinating Decentralized Job Shops Using Multi-Computer 
     Systems—Distributed Environments for Evolutionary Algorithms by means of Multi-Agent 
     Applications—Multi-Layered Developed of 
     Business Process Models and Distributed Business Application Systems—An Object-Oriented Approach—Computer Support for Distributed Informations 
     Management Tasks (CUVIMA)—The GroupFlow Framework: 
     Enterprise Model and Architecture of the Workflow System—ALLFIWIB: Customer Consulting in Financial 
     Services with Distributed Knowledge Based Systems—A Generic Approach for Computer— 
     Assistance of Complex Decision 
     Processes—Group Scheduling—Methods and Tools for 
     Distributed Scheduling Processes in a Corporate Environment—Modeling Knowledge about Long term IS Integration and Integration-oriented 
     Reengineering with KADS. 
     Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. 
     Other Authors/Contributors: Konig, Wolfgang, 1951— 
     ISBN: 3540610944 (hardcover: alk. paper) 
     The many features and advantages of the invention are apparent from the detailed specification, and thus, it is intended by the appended claims to cover all such features and advantages of the invention which fall within the true spirit and scope of the invention. Further, since numerous modifications and variations will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact construction and operation illustrated and described, and accordingly, all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resorted to, falling within the scope of the invention.

Technology Classification (CPC): 6