Achieving expert-level performance in simulation-based training relies on the creation of complex, adaptable scenarios, a traditionally laborious and resource intensive process. Although prior research explored scenario generation for military training, pre-LLM AI tools struggled to generate sufficiently complex or adaptable scenarios. This paper introduces a multi-agent, multi-modal reasoning framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate critical training artifacts, such as Operations Orders (OPORDs). We structure our framework by decomposing scenario generation into a hierarchy of subproblems, and for each one, defining the role of the AI tool: (1) generating options for a human author to select from, (2) producing a candidate product for human approval or modification, or (3) generating textual artifacts fully automatically. Our framework employs specialized LLM-based agents to address distinct subproblems. Each agent receives input from preceding subproblem agents, integrating both text-based scenario details and visual information (e.g., map features, unit positions and applies specialized reasoning to produce appropriate outputs. Subsequent agents process these outputs sequentially, preserving logical consistency and ensuring accurate document generation. This multi-agent strategy overcomes the limitations of basic prompting or single-agent approaches when tackling such highly complex tasks. We validate our framework through a proof-of-concept that generates the scheme of maneuver and movement section of an OPORD while estimating map positions and movements as a precursor demonstrating its feasibility and accuracy. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLM-driven multi-agent systems to generate coherent, nuanced documents and adapt dynamically to changing conditions, advancing automation in scenario generation for military training.

In this paper, we propose a methodology designed to support decision-making during the execution phase of military ground combat operations, with a focus on one's actions. This methodology generates and evaluates recommendations for various courses of action for a mechanized battalion, commencing with an initial set assessed by their anticipated outcomes. It systematically produces thousands of individual action alternatives, followed by evaluations aimed at identifying alternative courses of action with superior outcomes. These alternatives are appraised in light of the opponent's status and actions, considering unit composition, force ratios, types of offense and defense, and anticipated advance rates. Field manuals evaluate battle outcomes and advancement rates. The processes of generation and evaluation work concurrently, yielding a variety of alternative courses of action. This approach facilitates the management of new course generation based on previously evaluated actions. As the combat unfolds and conditions evolve, revised courses of action are formulated for the decision-maker within a sequential decision-making framework.

Recent studies suggest that very small language models (SLMs) can generate surprisingly coherent text when trained on simplified, child-directed corpora such as TinyStories. These findings have been interpreted as evidence that readability -- characterized by accessible vocabulary, familiar narrative structure, and simple syntax -- plays a key role in enabling such capabilities to emerge. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. We construct synthetic datasets with matched structure but varied readability, and find that readability alone does not predict coherence or learning efficiency in SLMs. Models trained on complex, adult-level text perform comparably to those trained on simplified language, and even exhibit faster development of coherence during training. Instead, we show that statistical simplicity, as measured by n-gram diversity, is a stronger predictor of learnability. Our findings caution against the growing trend of anthropomorphizing language model training -- drawing parallels to human cognitive development without empirical basis -- and argue for more precise reasoning about what properties actually support capability emergence in small models.

Institute of Information Technology Jamk University of Applied Sciences PO Box 207, FI-40101, Jyv askyl a, Finland Abstract The progress of artificial intelligence (AI) has made sophisticated methods available for cyberattacks and red team activities. The new methods can also accelerate the execution of the attacks. This review article examines the use of AI technologies in cyber-security attacks. It also tries to describe typical targets for such attacks. We employed a scoping review methodology to analyze articles and identify AI methods, targets, and models that red teams can utilize to simulate cybercrime. From the 470 records screened, 11 were included in the review. Various cyberattack methods were identified, targeting sensitive data, systems, social media profiles, passwords, and URLs. The application of AI in cybercrime to develop versatile attack models presents an increasing threat. Furthermore, AI-based techniques in red team use can provide new ways to address these issues. Keywords: Artificial intelligence, red team, red teaming, cyberattack, cybersecurity. 1 Introduction The possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) simulating human behavior has emerged as a significant cybersecurity threat.

In recent years, the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked interest in their potential for application within the military domain. However, the current generation of LLMs demonstrate sub-optimal performance on Army use cases, due to the prevalence of domain-specific vocabulary and jargon. In order to fully leverage LLMs in-domain, many organizations have turned to fine-tuning to circumvent the prohibitive costs involved in training new LLMs from scratch. In light of this trend, we explore the viability of adapting open-source LLMs for usage in the Army domain in order to address their existing lack of domain-specificity. Our investigations have resulted in the creation of three distinct generations of TRACLM, a family of LLMs fine-tuned by The Research and Analysis Center (TRAC), Army Futures Command (AFC). Through continuous refinement of our training pipeline, each successive iteration of TRACLM displayed improved capabilities when applied to Army tasks and use cases. Furthermore, throughout our fine-tuning experiments, we recognized the need for an evaluation framework that objectively quantifies the Army domain-specific knowledge of LLMs. To address this, we developed MilBench, an extensible software framework that efficiently evaluates the Army knowledge of a given LLM using tasks derived from doctrine and assessments. We share preliminary results, models, methods, and recommendations on the creation of TRACLM and MilBench. Our work significantly informs the development of LLM technology across the DoD and augments senior leader decisions with respect to artificial intelligence integration.

Open-ended text generation has become a prominent task in natural language processing due to the rise of powerful (large) language models. However, evaluating the quality of these models and the employed decoding strategies remains challenging because of trade-offs among widely used metrics such as coherence, diversity, and perplexity. Decoding methods often excel in some metrics while underperforming in others, complicating the establishment of a clear ranking. In this paper, we present novel ranking strategies within this multicriteria framework. Specifically, we employ benchmarking approaches based on partial orderings and present a new summary metric designed to balance existing automatic indicators, providing a more holistic evaluation of text generation quality. Furthermore, we discuss the alignment of these approaches with human judgments. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed methods offer a robust way to compare decoding strategies, exhibit similarities with human preferences, and serve as valuable tools in guiding model selection for open-ended text generation tasks. Finally, we suggest future directions for improving evaluation methodologies in text generation. Our codebase, datasets, and models are publicly available.

Future warfare will require Command and Control (C2) decision-making to occur in more complex, fast-paced, ill-structured, and demanding conditions. C2 will be further complicated by operational challenges such as Denied, Degraded, Intermittent, and Limited (DDIL) communications and the need to account for many data streams, potentially across multiple domains of operation. Yet, current C2 practices -- which stem from the industrial era rather than the emerging intelligence era -- are linear and time-consuming. Critically, these approaches may fail to maintain overmatch against adversaries on the future battlefield. To address these challenges, we propose a vision for future C2 based on robust partnerships between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. This future vision is encapsulated in three operational impacts: streamlining the C2 operations process, maintaining unity of effort, and developing adaptive collective knowledge systems. This paper illustrates the envisaged future C2 capabilities, discusses the assumptions that shaped them, and describes how the proposed developments could transform C2 in future warfare.

Future warfare will require Command and Control (C2) personnel to make decisions at shrinking timescales in complex and potentially ill-defined situations. Given the need for robust decision-making processes and decision-support tools, integration of artificial and human intelligence holds the potential to revolutionize the C2 operations process to ensure adaptability and efficiency in rapidly changing operational environments. We propose to leverage recent promising breakthroughs in interactive machine learning, in which humans can cooperate with machine learning algorithms to guide machine learning algorithm behavior. This paper identifies several gaps in state-of-the-art science and technology that future work should address to extend these approaches to function in complex C2 contexts. In particular, we describe three research focus areas that together, aim to enable scalable interactive machine learning (SIML): 1) developing human-AI interaction algorithms to enable planning in complex, dynamic situations; 2) fostering resilient human-AI teams through optimizing roles, configurations, and trust; and 3) scaling algorithms and human-AI teams for flexibility across a range of potential contexts and situations.

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have been inextricably intertwined since their inception. Today, AI-Robotics systems have become an integral part of our daily lives, from robotic vacuum cleaners to semi-autonomous cars. These systems are built upon three fundamental architectural elements: perception, navigation and planning, and control. However, while the integration of AI-Robotics systems has enhanced the quality our lives, it has also presented a serious problem - these systems are vulnerable to security attacks. The physical components, algorithms, and data that make up AI-Robotics systems can be exploited by malicious actors, potentially leading to dire consequences. Motivated by the need to address the security concerns in AI-Robotics systems, this paper presents a comprehensive survey and taxonomy across three dimensions: attack surfaces, ethical and legal concerns, and Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) security. Our goal is to provide users, developers and other stakeholders with a holistic understanding of these areas to enhance the overall AI-Robotics system security. We begin by surveying potential attack surfaces and provide mitigating defensive strategies. We then delve into ethical issues, such as dependency and psychological impact, as well as the legal concerns regarding accountability for these systems. Besides, emerging trends such as HRI are discussed, considering privacy, integrity, safety, trustworthiness, and explainability concerns. Finally, we present our vision for future research directions in this dynamic and promising field.

As automated decision making and decision assistance systems become common in everyday life, research on the prevention or mitigation of potential harms that arise from decisions made by these systems has proliferated. However, various research communities have independently conceptualized these harms, envisioned potential applications, and proposed interventions. The result is a somewhat fractured landscape of literature focused generally on ensuring decision-making algorithms "do the right thing". In this paper, we compare and discuss work across two major subsets of this literature: algorithmic fairness, which focuses primarily on predictive systems, and ethical decision making, which focuses primarily on sequential decision making and planning. We explore how each of these settings has articulated its normative concerns, the viability of different techniques for these different settings, and how ideas from each setting may have utility for the other.