Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Agenda Goals of JCIDS Semantic Architecture Framework Research Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture Exploratory Experiments Systematizing Method for Manual Use Leveraging Semantic Technology Next Steps
Citation preview
Applying Semantic Technology to Early Stage Defense Capability Planning Analysis Based on JCIDS Artifacts
Abstract ID 1802618th NDIA Systems Engineering Conference
29 October 2015
[email protected] Systems Research Center
77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
Allen Moulton
Dr. Donna Rhodes
Prof. Stuart Madnick
MAJ James Enos
COL Douglas MattyChief, PDD, PAED, HQDA G8MIT Sloan School of Management
Chief, SE Branch, JRAD, J8
2
Agenda
• Goals of JCIDS Semantic Architecture Framework Research
• Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture
• Exploratory Experiments
• Systematizing Method for Manual Use
• Leveraging Semantic Technology
• Next Steps
3
JCIDS (Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System)A Systematic Process for Warfighters to Develop, Validate, and
Control Capability Requirements for Acquisition
Unlock docsinto data Connect
text info to architecture
contentBridge
info silos
Apply inference to extend understanding
MIT Research Goals
Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture (JCEA)
• Necessarily Document-Driven • DODAF Architecture Not Fully IntegratedLIMITATIONS OF CURRENT JCIDS PROCESS
• Silos of Information by Capability/Program and Date of Writing
Docs DODAFWarfighters
SMEsAcquisition
SMEs
System of Systems Complexity is Inherent in JCIDS
4
Investment decisions must be made years or decades in advance ... within limited and changing budget constraints ... to assure that Services will have the capabilities on hand ... to supply resources to combatant commanders... to be dynamically integrated into joint task forces ... to achieve effects needed to accomplish future missions... in support of national strategy
Strategy DesiredEffects Capabilities Fielded
Systems
Value Proposition for Capability-Based Planning (Aldrich Study, 2004)
Not as Simple and Linear as it LooksCapability-Based Planning Works Backwards from Goals to Factor Out Systems Needed
Question: How to Manage the Inherent Complexity of the Problem?• Combinatorics of the solution space vs. need to limit scope of each system• Dynamic effects of decision lead times and necessity for integration• Uncertainty on critical factors affecting the design
e.g., strategy, threats, budgets, technology, related program outcomes
5
ViewsJCIDS Docs, DODAF
and SMEs each capture partial information on
underlying reality as of a point in time
DODAF Views
Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture (JCEA)
Current State and Planned Future States
Strategic GuidanceMissions ― ThreatsForce Capabilities
Functions and TasksMateriel Systems
Technology
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Underlying Fabric of Evolving Capabilities and Requirements over Time
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Other Capabilities, Systems and Time-Frames
Ontology defines slots that structure data extracted from documents and DODAFOntology also defines relationships among data elements in the JCEA model
Text Doc
Views
SME Views
JCEA content extracted from multiple views
JCEA used to generate
other views
JCEA holds content that
can make connections
across capabilities
and time frames
Search Views
Decision Views
C-M-L Views
Defining Semantics: Empirical Review of Documents• Broad review of 88 unclassified sample JCIDS documents to build familiarity,
recognize patterns, and discern ‘ground truth’
• Detailed deep-dive into three capability documents (ICD, CDD, CPD)1) what SHOULD be in document?2) what WAS in document?3) what is ESSENTIAL in document?
• Documents selected for deep-dive experiment:– 3 different stages of development (ICD, CDD, CPD)– 3 different functional areas staffed by different FCBs– All in Air domain with documents staffed in 2007-2009
Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL)Move cavalry with armor
ICDLogistics
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)Replace HELLFIRE,TOW and Maverick
CDDForce Application
Extended Range UAS (MQ 1C) Dedicated support to Division
CPDBattlespace Awareness
Found implicit interdependencies across separately staffed capabilities.
7
Framing a Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture:Capability Categories – Joint Capability Areas
2005 – Original JCAs• 4 top level categories
(operational, functional, domain, institutional)
• 22 Tier 1 with 240 subordinate JCAs
“To support needs definition, gap and excess analysis, major trade analyses, and capabilities planning, DoD’s capabilities must be divided into manageable groups, or capability categories.” – Aldrich Study (2004)
2007 – Revised JCAs• 9 Tier 1 JCAs, 6 Tiers• Functional only• Aligned with FCBs• Operational dimension
removed
• Too many overlaps and redundancies
• Unnecessary complexity for use as a taxonomy
Empirical Observations from Docs• Most JCIDS docs use multiple Tier 1 JCAs
• JCAs are used as a framework for describing operational attributes of capabilities not just desired effects
Conclusions• JCAs alone are insufficient to
categorize capabilities
• A multidimensional category structure is preferable to a single taxonomy
Framing a Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture: Joint Staff Capability Mission Lattice (CML)
Global Context /
Threats
Strategic Guidance
Planning / Operations
Materiel and Non - Materiel Capability Soluti onsMateriel Acquisition/Investment, Including Legacy System Sustainment
Treaties/Alliances
Environmental / Natural Events
National Security Strategy
National Defense Strategy
National Military Strategy
Quadrennial Defense Review
Guidance for Employment of
the Force
Defense Planning Guidance
Quadrennial Roles/Missions
Capability-Mission Lattice
(Rev 0.8.1 / 24 Apr 2014)
Trai
ning
Org
aniza
tion
Doct
rine
Lead
ersh
ip/E
duca
tion
Pers
onne
l
Faci
lities
Polic
y
Capability Requirement Portf olio Management
ForceSupport
Forc
e M
anag
emen
tFo
rce
Prep
arati
onHu
man
Cap
ital M
gmt
Heal
th R
eadi
ness
Battlespace Awareness
ForceApp. Logistics
Depl
oym
ent/
Dist
ributi
onSu
pply
Mai
ntai
nLo
gisti
c Se
rvic
esO
pera
tiona
l Con
trac
t Spt
.En
gine
erin
gBa
se/In
stal
latio
n Sp
t.
Command and Control Net-Centric
Protection
BuildPtnr
Com
mun
icat
eSh
ape
CorporateManagement
Advi
sory
& C
ompl
ianc
eSt
rate
gy &
Ass
essm
ent
Info
rmati
on M
anag
emen
tAc
quisi
tion
& T
echn
olog
yPr
ogra
m /
Budg
et /
Fina
nce
Qua
dren
nial
Def
ense
Rev
iew
– P
rioriti
zed
Miss
ions
:
Unified Command Plan
Assesment(s)
Assesment(s)
SAP
Cyber Systems
SAP
Space Systems
SAP SAP
Sea Systems
SAP
Land Systems
Operational Architecture(s)
Operational Architecture(s)
OperationalArchitecture(s)
Op. Arch(s)
Op. Arch(s)
Op. Arch(s)
Operational Architecture(s)
Operational Architecture(s)
Operational Architecture(s)
SAP
Plan
ning
& D
irecti
onCo
llecti
onPr
oces
sing/
Expl
oita
tion
Anal
ysis/
Prod
uctio
nDi
ssem
inati
on/R
elay
SAP
Man
euve
rEn
gage
men
t
SAPO
rgan
ize
Und
erst
and
Plan
ning
Deci
deDi
rect
Mon
itor
SAP
Info
rmati
on T
rans
port
Ente
rpris
e Se
rvic
esN
et M
anag
emen
tIn
form
ation
Ass
uran
ce
SAP
Prev
ent
Miti
gate
System Architecture(s)
UJTs(enable decomposition of missions against threats, and
identification of associated capability requirements)
Air Systems
Logistics
Science & Technology / Research & Engineering
System Architecture(s)
System Architecture(s)
System Architecture(s)
System Architecture(s)
Maintain Nuclear DeterrenceDefense of the Homeland
Defeat Adversaries
Global Stabilizing Presence
Combat Terrorism
Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
Deny Adversary Objectives
Crisis Response / Limited Contingency Operations
Military Engagement / Security CooperationCounterinsurgency and Stability OperationsSupport to Civil Authorities
Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Response Ca
psto
ne C
once
pt fo
r Joi
nt O
pera
tions
/ O
ther
Con
cept
s and
CO
NO
PS
Inte
grat
ed S
ecur
ity C
onst
ruct
s / O
PLAN
s / C
ON
PLAN
s
Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan
National Security Interests
Thre
at A
sses
smen
ts
Near Peer Competitors
RogueNations
Non-State Actors
Weapons of Mass
Destruction
Criti
cal I
ntel
ligen
ce P
aram
eter
s
Operational ConceptsUniversal Joint Tasks
Service TasksConditions
Adapted by MIT from Joint Staff Concept
EndsWays
Threats
Means
Functions
Basic ontology from Capability Mission Lattice has been expanded to include elements required in JCIDS Manual and taxonomies/frameworks in use 8
ER UAS CPD
JAGM CDDJFTL ICD
JFTL ICD
JAGM CDD
ER UAS CPD
Using C-M-L Ontology to Find Interdependencies
Interdependencies Inferred
MVM
HELLFIRE
C-130/C-17
The C-M-L based ontology can help identify interdependencies between systems that are not apparent in documents or with current taxonomies
MVM: Mounted Vertical Maneuver
Phrases from JCIDS Docs attached to Ontology Slots
9
Systematizing Semantic Architecture Framework JCIDS Ontology Design Task
Central goal: Define a semantic knowledge base that captures the portfolio of capabilities & gaps early in development
Ontology and architecture frame the knowledge base– Ontology also captures and connects essential military and
requirements process subject domain knowledge
Requirements documents provide the content– Text of documents (interpreted against ontology)– Structured information in tables and DODAF artifacts attached in
structured form suitable for machine use– Images such as OV-1 (hard to extract info from)
Additional content will come from SME annotations as an ontology-based knowledge base is put into use
10
Data captured and organized in a semantic architecture framework will continue to be accessible and reusable as
SMEs rotate in and out and as circumstances change
11
Overview of ICD Ontology Design based on 2015 JCIDS Manual and Capability-Mission-Lattice
Operational Context• Time Frame• Strategic Guidance• ROMO• Operational
Concepts
Threats• Threat context• Expected
operational environment
• Current threats• Anticipated threats
Capability Req’ts• Define Capability
Requirements in Lexicon of:o Time Frameo ROMOo Org / Unit Typeo JCAso UJTL Taskso Service Taskso Conditionso Supported and
supporting tasks• Operational
Attributes o Metrics o Objective Values
Capability Gaps• Match to Current
Capabilitieso Legacy fieldedo In Developmento Rapidly fieldedo Predecessor system
if recap or next gen• Identify Gaps for
each Operational Attribute (O/A):o Current capability
O/A metric valueo Gap from current to
objective value • Operational
Impact of Gap
Recommendations• Materiel Solutions
Suggested for AoAo Evolution of fielded
systemo Replacement or
recap of fielded system
o Transformational capability solution
• Technology Leverage to reduce Operational Risko Functionalityo Affordability
• DOTmLPF-P Recommendations
A. References B. Acronyms C. Glossary D. DODAF
Metadata Cover Page
Example: JFTL ICD Extracted Capability GapsGap Num
Functional Concept Gap Description Reason for
Gap
1 IOM
Inability to operate into austere, short, unimproved landing areas ProficiencyInability to perform operational maneuver with medium weight armored vehicles and personnel or reposition medium weight armored vehicles and personnel by airlift
Proficiency
Inability to reposition forces with combat configured medium weight armored vehicles via air Proficiency
2 OMSD
Inability to operate into austere, short, unimproved landing areas ProficiencyDeliver cargo weights equivalent to the weight of combat configured medium weight armored vehicles to austere, short, unimproved landing areas. ProficiencyConduct precision air delivery of supplies, to the point of need/point of effect over strategic and operational distances with required velocity. Proficiency
3
DMSS Inability to operate into austere, short, unimproved landing areas Proficiency
DES
Deliver cargo weights equivalent to the weight of combat configured medium weight armored vehicles to austere, short, unimproved landing areas. ProficiencyConduct precision air delivery of supplies, to the point of need/point of effect over strategic and operational distances with required velocity. Sufficiency
4 JFEO
Inability to transport forces over strategic and operational distances to points of need by passing traditional PODs, and to operate on austere, short, unimproved landing areas.
Proficiency
Inability to deploy and employ forces, with combat configured medium weight vehicles, via air across the global battle space from strategic, operational and tactical distances
Proficiency
12
Ontology Concept in Yellow
Document Data in Blue
Example: Compare Gap Operational AttributesGaps by Functional Concept
Operational attribute
1 2 3 4Operational attribute valuesIOM OMSD DMSS/
DES JFEOCargo handling X X No MHECombat Radius X X X X As determined in AoACruise Speed X X X X As determined in AoAFuel efficiency X X X X Fuel efficiency must be greater than that of the C-130JIn-flight Refuel Speed (as Receiver) X X X As required
Payload Weight & Dimensions X X X X Combat configured medium weight armored vehicles
(Army ground combat vehicles, Stryker)Precision Delivery X X ~25 – 50 km of objective
X X Point of need/point of effectPrecision Landing
X X X X
Routine 0 ft takeoff & land (VTOL) to routine <1500 ft takeoff and land (STOL)1 over a 50’ obstacle into austere, complex, urban or unprepared landing areas independent of external navigation aids
Secure Communications X X X X Interoperable, secure, encrypted, voice and data, beyond
line of sight/over the horizonSelf Deploy X 2,400 nmSurvivability
X X X XAbility to effectively integrate with future joint forces for threat suppression/mitigation in a low to medium threat environment
13
Ontology Concept in Yellow
Document Data in Blue
Semantics-Based Inference Can Help Fill in Missing Data and Inconsistencies in JCIDS Documents
Capturing Implicit InformationDocuments reviewed often have inconsistent data
– Most have current JCAs; some have 2005 JCAs; some have JFCs
– JCAs often used for multiple purposes– Some have UJTs; most do not
SMEs can make sense of documents despite gaps & other inconsistencies
Ontology-based data capture – combined with inference rules – can allow automation to follow same logic used by SMEs
Connecting to other KnowledgeExample of how can semantic inference can help:• Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) ICD has
no UJTs• JFTL ICD references JP 3-17 (Air
Mobility Operations) and Joint Forcible Entry by name
• Joint Forcible Entry (JFEO) defined by JP 3-18
• UJTL database ties UJTs to definitional docs JP 3-17 and JP 3-18
• By combining these fragments of information, UJTs for JFTL can be inferred
Semantic architecture provides the benefits of capturing the true capability provided by a system by interpreting text within a document. 14
15
Semantic Ontology ExperimentsDeveloped an ICD ontology containing 150 data slots based on draft
2015 JCIDS Manual, C-M-L, and other frameworks
Manual text extraction experiments– 6 ICDs as sources, 3 SMEs perform extraction– Into Excel form structured by the ontology– Reliability varied: some data were consistently extracted; other data inconsistent
A parallel project showed potential for applying natural language processing to automate text extraction
SMEs built a practical relational database by focusing on the more consistent areas and for wider sample of JCIDS documents
Experiment showed that DODAF views can be generated from data extracted from JCIDS documents
MIT continuing research is focused on formalizing and systematizing methods to extend the scope and value of the results
Research on Technologies and Methods for Storing and Accessing Semantic Knowledge
16
1) Documents repository (current as-is state)
2) Relational or spreadsheet data
3) DODAF architecture structured data– New 2015 JCIDS Manual requires DODAF views to be submitted
with requirements documents for validation– Research is exploring how to connect text document content to
DODAF data and artifacts
4) Semantic data store with inference rules– Facts stored as RDF Triples (subject-predicate-value)– Flexibility from capturing facts in small pieces– Facts can be combined in multiple ways by inference rules and
semantic query
17
OtherSources
Semantics Technology Proof-of-Concept Prototype Design Overview
DODAFData
JCIDSDocs
JCIDSManual
SemanticTechnology
Platform
Ontology
Manual Extraction
Automated Extraction
Design
Semantic Query
Dashboard Viewer
DataExport
DODAFGeneration
SemanticsExperiments
RDFGraph
Store
Other Sources
Design
Updates to ontologyand methods
Evaluation of experimental results
Ontology – design based on• JCIDS Manual• Capability-Mission-Lattice• other terminology frameworks
Semantic Technology Tools• Built on Semantic Web industry
standards such as OWL, RDF, SPARQL & cyber-security
• Includes tools for working with ontology and data
• Highly flexible data store and semantic query/search
• Technology used allows research results to be ported to other COTS product sets
Glo bal Co nte xt /Thr eats
Strategic Guidance
Planning / Op erations
Ma te r i el a nd Non - M at er i el Ca pa bi l it y Sol uti onsMateriel Acquisition /Investment, Inc luding L egacy Sys tem Sus tainment
Trea ties /Allia nces
Env ironmental / Na tura l Events
Nati ona l S ecurity Strategy
Na tiona l D efens e Strategy
Na tional M ili tary Strategy
Qua drenni al Defense Rev iew
Guidance for Employment of
the Forc e
Defense Planning Guidanc e
Qua drenni al Rol es/Mi ssions
Capability-Mission Lattice
(Rev 0.8 .1 / 24 Apr 2014)
Trai
ning
Orga
niza
tion
Doct
rine
Lead
ersh
ip/E
duca
tion
Pers
onne
l
Faci
lities
Polic
y
Ca pa bil i ty Re quir em en t Por tf ol i o M ana g eme nt
For ceSuppo rt
Forc
e M
anag
emen
tFo
rce
Prep
arati
onHu
man
Cap
ital M
gmt
Heal
th R
eadi
ness
Battle space Awareness
ForceApp. Logistics
Depl
oym
ent/
Dist
ributi
onSu
pply
Mai
ntain
Logi
stic S
ervi
ces
Oper
ation
al C
ontr
act S
pt.
Engi
neer
ing
Base
/Inst
allati
on S
pt.
Command and C ontrol Net-Cent ric
Protection
BuildPtnr
Com
mun
icate
Shap
e
Corpo rateManagement
Advi
sory
& C
ompl
iance
Stra
tegy
& A
sses
smen
tIn
form
ation
Man
agem
ent
Acqu
isitio
n &
Tech
nolo
gyPr
ogra
m /
Budg
et /
Fina
nce
Quad
renn
ial D
efen
se R
eview
– P
rioriti
zed
Miss
ions
:
Unified Comma nd Plan
Assesment( s)
Assesment( s)
SAP
Cyber Systems
SAP
Space Systems
SAP SAP
Sea Systems
SAP
Land Systems
Op erational Architectu re(s )
Op erational Architectu re(s )
Oper ati onalAr chi tect ure(s )
Op . Ar ch(s )
Op . Ar ch (s )
Op. Ar ch( s)
Operational Ar chit ect ure (s)
Op erational Architectu re (s)
Op erational Architectu re( s)
SAP
Plan
ning
& D
irecti
on
Colle
ction
Proc
essin
g/Ex
ploi
tatio
n
Anal
ysis
/Pro
ducti
onDi
ssem
inati
on/R
elay
SAP
Man
euve
rEn
gage
men
t
SAP
Orga
nize
Unde
rsta
nd
Plan
ning
Decid
e
Dire
ctM
onito
r
SAP
Info
rmati
on T
rans
port
Ente
rpri
se S
ervi
ces
Net M
anag
emen
tIn
form
ation
Ass
uran
ce
SAP
Prev
ent
Miti
gate
System Ar chit ect ure (s)
UJTs(enable decomposition of missi ons a ga inst threa ts, and
identifica tion of a ssocia ted capabi lity requirem ents)
Air Systems
Logistic s
S cienc e & Tec hnology / Resea rch & Eng ineering
System Ar chit ect ure (s)
System Architectu re (s)
System Architectu re (s)
System Architectu re (s)
Maintai n Nuclear Deterrence
Defense of the Homela nd
Defeat AdversariesGlobal Stabil izi ng PresenceCombat TerrorismCounter Weapons of Mass DestructionDeny Adversary Obj ectivesCrisis Response / Limited Conting ency O perationsMilitary Enga gement / Security CooperationCounterinsurgency and Sta bility OperationsSupport to Civil AuthoritiesHumanitarian Assistance / Disa ster Response Ca
psto
ne C
once
pt fo
r Joi
nt O
pera
tions
/ Ot
her C
once
pts a
nd C
ONO
PS
Inte
grat
ed S
ecur
ity C
onst
ruct
s / O
PLAN
s / C
ONPL
ANs
Joint S tra teg ic Capa bi lities Plan
Nati ona l S ecurity Interests
Thre
at A
sses
smen
ts
Nea r Peer Competitors
RogueNa tions
Non-State Actors
Wea pons of Ma ss
Destruc tion
Criti
cal I
ntel
ligen
ce P
aram
eter
s
C-M-L
DODAF Generation Tools• COTS/GOTS tools, such as
NoMagic/MagicDraw/CAMEO • UPDM interface (probable)• Python to convert data format
Mission Operational Context Capability RequirementO
pera
tiona
l Att
ribut
e
ExpectedOperationalEnvironmen
t
ThreatContex
t
MissionConditions
Connections in Capability Requirements Ontology
Time Frame
Strategic Guidance
Mission Areas
Service & Universal
Joint Tasks
Generic Operationa
lAttribute
Metric forOperationa
lAttribute
Required Initial
O/A ObjectiveValue
JCA – Joint Capability
Areas
Operational Activity
Operational Concept
DesiredEffects
supp
orts
Threats to Capability
Current Attribute
Value
supp
orts
Threats to Mission
specifies
CapabilityGap
Current Capability
Operational Attributes
Operational Activity
Performing Org/Unit
Operational Attributes
MissionEffects
CapabilityConditions
• Universal Joint Task• Universal Joint Task
• Joint Capability Area• Joint Capability Area
describes
Value of capability comes from effect produced
Category Frameworks
18
Difference
JCIDS Semantic Architecture FrameworkEnables Capability Enterprise Architecture
– Multi-dimensional grouping of capabilities by category framework properties– Logically deriving capability dimensions and similarities from operational attributes– Capturing and retaining SME knowledge across silos and over time
Identifies Capabilities Dependencies– Tracing capabilities to assumptions, conditions, and threats– Tracking interfaces and connections among capabilities– Inferring dependencies based on effects produced and effects needed
Supports Systems Engineering – Trade space identification for capability requirements planning– Trade space exploration at the capabilities portfolio level
19
MIT Research is investigating and developing methods to apply semantic technology to Joint Capability Enterprise Architecture
Goals for Semantic Architecture (2016)Unlocking Knowledge
• Decompose documents into conceptual elements independent of language, to enable translation of across terminology, frameworks, and taxonomies.
• Identify implicit interconnections and interdependencies across separately staffed capability requirements (including different time periods, different functional areas, and different services or components).
• Connect text to architecture to create a more complete picture in a form suitable for inference.
• Generate DODAF artifacts from ontology-based data extracted from text documents.
Supporting Decisions• Provenance: Maintain time-varying
continuity of requirements across development stages and across separate branching threads.
• Drill down: Make conceptual connections across different levels of architecture (e.g. SoS vs. Systems, KPPs vs. DODAF) as designs evolve.
• Track changes to assumptions (e.g., strategic direction, mission profiles, threats, operational concepts, technology available).
• Support systems engineering methods such as Trade Space Exploration and Epoch-Era Analysis.
20
21
ReferencesAldridge, Pete et al. (2004). Improving DOD Strategic Planning, Resourcing and Execution to
Satisfy Joint Capabilities. Joint Defense Capabilities Studies, Jan 2004.Ahmed, Col. L. Najeeb (2014) Improving Trade Visibility and Fidelity in Defense Requirements
Portfolio Management: A Formative Study of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System using Enterprise Strategic Analysis and Semantic Architecture Engineering. Unpublished MIT SDM Thesis.
Allemang, Dean & Hendler, Jim (2011). Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufman.
U.S. Dept of Defense. JCIDS Manual (12 Febuary 2015)
AcknowledgementsThe work presented here was supported, in part, by the MIT Lincoln Laboratories and the US Army under the "Study of JCIDS Semantic Architecture Framework" project. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of MIT Lincoln Laboratory, the US Army, the Department of Defense.
All research and results reported are unclassified
