Simulation-Based Move Set Selection for Competitive Encounters

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In competitive environments, managing member positioning and assignments is challenging due to unreliable, deceptive, and unpredictable opponent behaviors, leading to hasty decisions and sub-optimal resource management.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that uses iterative simulations to generate and select move sets for members, considering containment strategies, fuel optimization, and collision avoidance, allowing for cautious and flexible positioning to gather more data and make informed decisions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Speed

If members are directed to move to certain positions and perform assigned tasks quickly to neutralize opponents, then response speed and mission completion are improved, but decision quality deteriorates due to hasty decisions under pressure

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresponse speedVSAvoiddecision quality

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by running multiple simulations at incrementing timesteps to generate and evaluate different move set options before the actual encounter. This allows the system to pre-determine optimal positioning and task assignments based on predicted opponent behaviors, so that when the actual encounter occurs, decisions have already been made with full information rather than in haste.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback from simulated encounters to continuously improve decision-making. By evaluating outcomes of different move sets in simulation and using this feedback to refine future decisions, the system maintains high decision quality even under time pressure during actual encounters.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Measurement precision

If the system runs comprehensive simulations to evaluate all move set options, then decision quality is improved, but computational time and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedecision qualityVSAvoidcomputational time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by running simulations at incrementing timesteps rather than computing all possible scenarios simultaneously. It generates move set options progressively and selects from available options at each timestep, rather than exhaustively evaluating every possible move set combination, thus reducing computational time while maintaining decision quality.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The simulation process is segmented into discrete timesteps, with move set options generated and evaluated at each increment. This segmentation allows the system to process decisions in manageable chunks rather than as one overwhelming computation, reducing overall computational time while maintaining comprehensive evaluation at each decision point.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Reliability

If members are positioned aggressively to contain opponents quickly, then containment effectiveness is improved, but resource consumption increases due to fuel optimization constraints

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontainment effectivenessVSAvoidfuel consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes parameters by evaluating multiple move set options that vary in aggressiveness and resource consumption. By adjusting the balance between containment effectiveness and fuel consumption across different simulated scenarios, the system selects move sets that achieve reliable containment while optimizing fuel usage, rather than always choosing the most aggressive positioning.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

4Speed

If the system makes rapid decisions to respond to unpredictable opponent behaviors, then response speed is improved, but reliability deteriorates due to unreliable and deceptive opponent behaviors

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresponse speedVSAvoiddecision reliability

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of opponent behaviors through simulation at incrementing timesteps, identifying patterns in unreliable and deceptive behaviors before the actual encounter. This allows the system to anticipate potential opponent actions and prepare robust response strategies in advance, improving decision reliability without sacrificing response speed when the encounter begins.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS20220044182A1Managing members against opponents in an encounter set in a competitive environment

Publication Date: 2022.02.10 THE BOEING CO

AI summary

In one example aspect, a computer-implemented method or managing one or more members during an encounter in a competitive environment in a “prudent yet aggressive” fashion includes: receiving input data relating to the encounter within the competitive environment; at incrementing timesteps, executing a simulation to select different move sets during progression of the encounter, each move set defining movements or assignments of each of the one or more members as part of developing a strategy. Selecting different move sets includes: generating first move set options for containing one or more opponents by members based on the input data; selecting a first move set; generating a node identifying the selected first move set option; generating second move set options based on the node as input; selecting a second move set; determining that objectives have been met; and generating and outputting instructions associated with the first and second move sets.