Swarm Characteristics Classification
Using Neural Networks

Swarm on swarm simulations were conducted in Matlab to generate data for NN TSC. As shown in Figure 1 the simulation scenario features an attacking swarm of enemy agents starting in the upper right, shown in red, that is perturbed by a defending swarm of friendly agents starting in the lower left, shown in blue.

In this scenario, the defenders are weaponless and aim to motivate the attacking swarm to maneuver, thereby revealing their characteristics. Conversely, the attacking swarm employs one of four tactics. Each tactic, a combination of two binary attributes, is represented in Figure 2, with each attribute being either active (1) or inactive (0). Tactics are numerically labeled (0, 1, 2, or 3), and also correlate to a specific attribute combination ([0,0], [0,1], [1,0], or [1,1]). During each simulation, all attacker’s attributes and tactics are identical and remain constant; there is no switching of tactics.

Our goal is to classify these tactics and attributes using supervised NN TSC. From a computational complexity perspective, the addition of each binary attribute exponentially increases the number of tactics ($\text{Tactics}=2^{\text{Attributes}}$), adding to the classification complexity. Thus, in this foundational study, we focus on two pivotal attributes: communication and proportional navigation [14]. These attributes were identified as key performance indicators in prior research, including the Aerial Combat Swarms competition [15, 16] and the Service Academies Swarm Challenge [17].

For this investigation, we consider a two-dimensional (2D) battlespace. The number of attackers and defenders are denoted by $N_{A}$ and $N_{D}$, respectively. The positions and velocities of each agent in 2D space are characterized by their $x$ and $y$ components, $P_{x}$, $P_{y}$, $V_{x}$, and $V_{y}$. Each agent is indicated by a subscript: $i$ for attackers and $j$ for defenders. The progression of the scenario is parameterized by time, $t$. Therefore, an attacker’s position and velocity at any time $t$ can be expressed as $[P_{x}(t)_{i},P_{y}(t)_{i},V_{x}(t)_{i},V_{y}(t)_{i}]$. These time series data serve as the multivariate input for training and evaluating the machine learning models. Specifically, we use only the attacker positions and velocities as input data.

The following assumptions are made:

1. 1.

   All attackers use identical tactics/attributes.

2. 2.

   No tactics/attributes switching.

3. 3.

   All attacker full trajectories are known.

4. 4.

   If trajectories overlap, agents are distinguishable; no shuffling of data order.

5. 5.

   No collision if agents overlap; collision avoided using third-dimension (3D) separation.

For the initial study, the defensive strategy is randomized. Each defensive agent has a unique, randomly assigned constant velocity $V_{j}$ and heading $\theta_{j}$, constrained within specific bounds. The defender velocity $V_{j}$ is kept between 5-40% of the attacker speed, providing the attackers a speed advantage to prevent endless chases and shorten engagement time. Additionally, the defender heading $\theta_{j}=\text{Uniform}(0,\pi/2)$ is bounded between North and East to expedite swarm interaction. The initial position for each defender is set near the origin with a spread parameter $S_{D}=\text{Uniform}(0,5)$, influencing initial dispersion.

In contrast to the fixed trajectories of defenders, attacker dynamics are modeled through Newton’s second law. The force on each agent comprises a thrust force directed towards a virtual leader, and a drag-like term limits the attacker’s velocity. Attacker $i$ equation of motion is given by (1).

Here, subscripts or superscripts $i$ refer to attacker $i$, dots denote time derivatives, $m$ is the inertial mass, $K$ is a thrust force magnitude, $B$ is damping parameter, $\mathbf{r}$ is position, and $\mathbf{r}_{vl}$ is the position of a virtual leader (aim point). We note that $K/B=1$ sets the typical velocity scale and $m/B=10$ sets a time scale for acceleration up to this velocity, indicating that it takes 10 time steps for attackers to reach the maximum velocity. These equations represent a simplified dynamics model, but are sufficient to generate adversarial swarming engagements that are the focus of this paper.

Equation (1) represents a system of $N_{A}$ uncoupled second-order ordinary differential equations. At each time step all attacker accelerations are calculated using this equation, based on all virtual leader positions, and we then numerically integrate using a modified velocity Verlet algorithm with a time step $\Delta t$, which we choose as sufficiently small that it does not affect our results. Attacker initial velocities and accelerations are zero, and initial positions include a spread parameter $S_{A}=\text{Uniform}(0,5)$ influencing random dispersion around a starting point centroid to the Northeast of the defenders at a range of $40$ distance units in both $x$ and $y$ directions.

As introduced earlier the attacking agents followed one of four tactics (Greedy, Greedy+, Auction, Auction+) where each tactic is a binary combination of two attributes (Comms and ProNav), which will be explained and formally presented below.

The proportional navigation (ProNav) attribute determines algorithm used to calculate each attacker aim point, or virtual leader $\mathbf{r}^{(i)}_{vl}$. If this attribute is inactive, each attacking agent uses pursuit navigation. For pursuit navigation, current target position is used for $\mathbf{r}^{(i)}_{vl}$, which typically results in a tail-chase for moving targets because the aim point is guaranteed to lag the target at future time.

Conversely, if the ProNav attribute is active, each attacking agent uses a proportional navigation approximation where the constant velocity vector of the targeted defender and the maximum velocity vector of the attacker are used to calculate an intercept point which is assigned to $\mathbf{r}^{(i)}_{vl}$. This intercept point is calculated every time step, such that if an attacker’s velocity is not currently at its maximum speed, then $\mathbf{r}^{(i)}_{vl}$ will change with time. As the attacker’s velocity approaches its limiting maximum velocity, $\mathbf{r}^{(i)}_{vl}$ changes become very small over time. Regarding notation, the two tactics using ProNav are appended with a plus sign to indicate improvement (Greedy+ and Auction+), as they are more efficient than their pursuit tactic counterpart.

The communication (Comms) attribute refers to an agents ability to communicate with other team members, and is considered linked to target assignment technique employed by the attackers. More specifically, it’s typical for a swarm of agents that can communicate to conduct target allocation, or auctioning, to ensure each agent is assigned a different target for efficiency. Tactics with the Comms attribute activated are denoted using the prefix Auction. However, if communications are not available, the attackers would conduct an inefficient attack where each agent engages the closest target without deconflicting target allocation, resulting in multiple agents targeting the same target. Tactics with the Comms attribute inactive are represented with the prefix Greedy.

Targets for Greedy attackers are assigned based purely on attacker-defender pairwise separation, summarized by Algorithm 1. Each defender is assigned as target for the closest attacker at that instant in time. This process is repeated such that each defender is targeted by the closest attacker to its position.

Conversely, targets for attackers using Auction are chosen globally according to Algorithm 2. Defenders are assigned as targets to the closest unassigned attacker at that instant in time. This process is repeated such that each defender is targeted by the attacker closest to its position from the pool of unassigned attackers. In the case where there are more attackers than defenders, leftover unassigned attackers target the closest defender. Thus, multiple attackers can target the same defender, but only in the case where there are more attackers than defenders. This highlights an important aspect: after each defender is removed the Auction tactics will increasingly resemble the Greedy tactics, as attackers double-up on defenders. This nuance will be discussed further in the results section. Additionally, we note that such a global algorithm requires perfect communication among all defenders or perfect knowledge of the entire scenario, such that each defender can run the algorithm independently and know what all other defenders would be doing.

For both Auction and Greedy, the targeting process is repeated at every time step, meaning target assignments can (and do) change before the current target is eliminated. This creates a small but important difference between Greedy and Greedy+. As seen in Figure 3, specifically comparing Greedy and Greedy+ in the 40 and 58 time step frames, Greedy+ formations increasingly tighten as they travel due to an aim point that shifts less than Greedy aim points, which reduces last minute target shifting (and overshoot).

Unlike the weaponless defenders, the attackers are able to eliminate and remove defenders from the simulation based on a maximum weapons range $R=1$. We track each defenders binary survival $S_{j}$ at time $t$ according to the attacker-defender pairwise survival function shown in (2). Each simulation instance begins with all defenders alive ($S_{j}=1$), and then defenders are removed ($S_{j}=0$) during the course of the engagement based on interactions with enemy agents.

Figure 3 shows a simulation example comparing the four tactics over time. It’s easily seen that regardless of navigation attribute, both Greedy tactics initially target the closest defender, while the two Auction tactics begin to spread out sooner as they divide the defenders amongst themselves. Note that 20 and 58 time steps were purposefully chosen, as will be discussed in section II-C, while the 40 time step was included to highlight the distinctly different swarm motions.

In supervised NN training, the goal is to construct an accurate predictive model by learning from a dataset comprised of two tensors (eg. multidimensional vectors): the input data or features, and the true output known as labels. The process hinges on the NN’s ability to predict outputs from the input features. The core objective during training is to minimize the disparity between the predicted outputs and the true labels. This is accomplished by iteratively adjusting the NN parameters to reduce prediction errors. The underlying mathematics of NN training are well documented [18, 19, 20, 21] and involves concepts such as gradient descent, backpropagation, and optimization algorithms. These mathematical formulations are crucial for understanding how a NN learns from data and how it updates its parameters in response to the calculated gradients from the cost function.

In the context of NN TSC, the features are given by time series data. Time series data can be univariate, where the dataset is a one-dimensional vector with each element indexed by time. This could represent, for example, a swarm agent’s position at each time step. In contrast, multivariate time series data involve a tensor with multiple dimensions, where each dimension represents a different variable that changes over time. In this study, multivariate model inputs include attacking agent 2D position and 2D velocity.

A fundamental aspect of NN classification is the differentiation between two types of classification tasks:
- Multiclass classification deals with problems where each instance is to be classified into one of three or more mutually exclusive classes. In this study classifying the swarm tactic is a multiclass task.
- Multilabel classification allows for the association of each instance with multiple binary labels simultaneously. In this study classifying the attacking agent attributes is a multilabel task.

Multihead classification refers to a model architecture where the NN has multiple output layers, or “heads,” each responsible for a different prediction tasks. This can be advantageous when there are distinct types of outputs to predict from the same set of features, such as classifying both agent attributes and swarm tactics.

An important facet that Time Series Classification (TSC) adds is the output format [18]. Many TSC NN models are only capable of producing vector output, which is a single prediction at the end of the time series. However, recurrent models and transformers specifically designed for sequential data can produce sequence output, providing predictions for each time step.

To gauge the performance of a NN and guide its training, cost functions and metrics are employed. The cost function, also known as loss function, quantifies the difference between the predicted values and the true labels. The goal during training is to minimize this cost function. The multiclass loss function used was categorical cross entropy and the multilabel loss function used was binary cross entropy.

Metrics, on the other hand, are used to evaluate the model’s performance according to specific criteria, such as accuracy, precision, recall, or F1 score, which can be more interpretative than raw cost values. Accuracy, which is the percentage of correct predictions, is intuitively easy to understand. However, if the possible classifications are not equally represented (ie. more Greedy instances then Auction+ instances), then metrics such as precision, recall, and their representative combination F1 score, provide a more accurate reflection of model performance. Fortunately, in this study all possible labels (tactics and attributes) are equally represented, so accuracy is the primary metric discussed. Additionally, validation loss is also used as a primary metric as it estimates a model’s ability to generalize, or predict, on data is has never seen.

For noise impact analysis adjusted accuracy $Acc_{A}$, which is accuracy shifted for random guess accuracy, is used for a fair comparison, as random accuracy is different for four and two labels. This is based on equally represented random accuracy $Acc_{R}$ equaling 0.25 for four tactics, or 0.50 for two attributes. Adjusted accuracy (3) is used to calculate a normalized error rate (4), which ranges from 0 for perfect accuracy to 100 for random accuracy.

The experimental approach entailed a structured three-step methodology. Initially, the process began with constructing various neural network models. Next, a baseline dataset was generated by using a sensitivity analysis to understand the dataset’s most significant adjustable parameters impact on model performance. Finally, model training involved establishing a baseline for initial comparison, and thereafter tuning the models to minimize validation loss and maximize accuracy.

Machine learning models were developed using Python packages including TensorFlow, Scikit Learn, Numpy, and Keras Tune. Model input data used for this research was synthetically generated using Matlab swarm-on-swarm engagement simulations originally developed at Naval Postgraduate School and only included three tactics [22]. An additional tactic (Greedy+) was created for this research. Lastly, code development was conducted using Naval Postgraduate School high power computing resources¹¹1https://github.com/DWPeltier3/Swarm-NN-TSC.

For baseline comparison, the non-neural network machine learning models achieved the following test set accuracy: Random Forrest 84% and Logistic Regression 32%. Comparatively, the neural network (NN) models demonstrated higher accuracy and low loss in predicting both tactic and attributes.

Amoungst the NN models, attribute predictions consistently outperformed tactic predictions, likely attributed to fewer labels and double the training instances (1200 per tactic, amounting to 2400 per attribute). Furthermore, not only did the implementation of a multihead (MH) model facilitate simultaneous prediction of tactic and attributes, it also enhanced 11 out of 14 combined model configurations (separately improved 8 tactic configurations and 10 attribute configurations). This improvement was evidenced by almost universally lower validation losses and higher test accuracies. Additionally, tuning efforts improved 28 out of 42 configurations (67%), underscoring the importance of model optimization. Lastly, between the two sequence output models explored, the transformer-based model TRS significantly outperformed the LSTM-based model LSTMS. All of these points are summarized in Figure 9.

Further illustrations provide insights into NN explainability, which is the ability to describe how a NN is making predictions and how well it is being trained. One example of NN explainability is feature importance, showing which features (inputs) are heavily weighted when models make classification predictions [10]. For instance, Random Forrest and Logistic Regression machine learning models provide feature coefficients used to make predictions, as shown in Figure 10. Larger magnitude coefficients equate to greater feature importance, indicating that velocity is a more pivotal feature compared to position. This was a key observation; the significant role of velocity as a feature, in contrast to the position. In fact, when position inputs were removed, NN training smoothed and performance showed no degradation. This pattern reinforces the strong correlation between attributes being classified and features provided. It’s intuitive that attributes used in this study would be correlated to velocity vectors. This was further highlighted by a Class Activation Map (CAM) analysis conducted to explain the temporal importance on model classification, showing which time steps weighted more heavily when making predictions. The CAM showed a strong connection between attacking swarm total acceleration magnitude changes (ie. velocity vector changes) and time step importance.

Another example of NN explainability is the dimensionality reduction technique t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) which is a statistical method for visualizing high-dimensional data by giving each datapoint a location in a two or three-dimensional mapping. The tSNE visualization in Figure 11 effectively demonstrates the transformation from disordered input data to ordered output embedding just prior to the model prediction layer, where clear tactic groupings are indicative of model learning.

When evaluating the effect of observation window length, the 58 time step (full) window offered equal or improved performance for all models except the Fully Connected. Specifically, using 58 time steps improved accuracy for 9 configurations by less than 4%, as seen in Figure 9. More importantly, all models except FC and LSTM displayed a decrease in validation loss (6-8%), which is indicative of improved generalization during future inference on unseen data.

An essential point to reiterate is that both the 20 and 58 time step windows are both relatively short when compared to the mean engagement time of 133 time steps, respectively equalling 15% and 40% of the mean. Therefore, it is especially interestingly that such a marginal performance increase resulted from training models using 58 versus 20 time steps, which is approximately three times as many time steps. In time critical applications, performing inference three times quicker for a small performance decrease may be a desirable trade off.

As seen in Figure 9, except for the LSTMS architecture all configurations performed approximately the same, with accuracy between 90-97%. This led to the analysis of model size versus accuracy in order to compare the computational resources and power storage density required to deploy each model on an edge device. A general trend of increasing model size with longer observation windows was observed. Figure 12 shows the transformer models were significantly larger (50MB) than other models, while the CNN models were the smallest (0.1MB).

As will be shown shortly in Section III-D, the five best models were determined to be the full time window configuration for CNN, FCN, LSTMV, TRV, and TRS. Therefore, Figure 12 has these models highlighted in non-grey color, and they will be the focus for the remaining results analysis.

All models exhibited scalability, which is an ability to be successfully applied to swarms of different size. There is clear improvement for all models as the swarm size increases, as shown by the decreasing validation loss in Figure 13. The “best” model was TRV, and the “worst” was FCN; however, difference was small across all models. However, the best improved was the LSTMV model, indicating that the apparent information deficit previously restricting better performance was overcome by providing more information in the form of increased number of input features; more agents means more information.

Another interesting result is model accuracy remains about constant, or improves, as the swarm size increases, as shown in Figure 14. This is great, indicating that once a model is performing well, it will continue to perform well as swarm size is increased. This trend implies that one can save time and resources by tuning a model on small swarms knowing that scaling to larger swarms will only improve performance.

Figure 15 shows a canvasing of input features in the presence of increasing noise, as well as the PCA representations which helps visualize the impact of noise on the data.

The models’ performance under varying noise conditions revealed interesting patterns. Noise lightly affected the Comm (targeting) attribute, but significantly affected the ProNav (navigation) attribute, driving tactic error rate similar to ProNav error rate as shown in Figure 16. This is somewhat intuitive, knowing that the velocity vector was the dominant feature. Specifically, the velocity vector difference between Greedy and Auction targeting was significant, allowing more resistance to noise, whereas the difference between pursuit and ProNav navigation velocity vectors was smaller, making the ProNav attribute more sensitive to noise.

Additionally, the already small velocity vector difference between Pursuit and ProNav decreased further as each attacker closed separation with its target, exacerbating the noise induced prediction degradation. This difficulty in distinguishing navigation method, combined with the observation made in Section II-A, where over time as defenders are eliminated the Auction tactics begin to resemble the Greedy tactics, causes a compound effect which manifest as it being most difficult to distinguish the Greedy+ tactic.

Overall, the Fully Connected (FC) model degraded rapidly in the presence of noise, showing it would be an unrealistic choice for real world applications, while the other four models displayed graceful degradation. The Fully Convolutional Network (FCN) had the best robustness to noise, with all other models trailing closely within 5-10%, offering some ability to rank the top models, but not much.

The top five models (all using full observation window) - CNN, FCN, LSTMV, TRV, TRS - showcased closely matched performance. The key discriminators among these models were their sequence output capabilities and model size, with the transformer models excelling in sequence output, but at the cost of large model size. Conversely, the CNN models were very small, but only capable of vector output. Noise resistance and swarm size scalability offered marginal performance separation between the models, with FCN being most noise resistant, but trailing in scalability. Velocity emerged as the most important feature across all models. Additionally, all of the top models embed, or transform, input information into a latent space of arbitrary dimension, which is important because any input size, along both time and feature dimension, can be accommodated. Lastly, slight to moderate overfitting during training was observed in all models, which was mitigated using early stopping based on minimum validation loss.

Throughout the course of this study, several key findings emerged. Neural networks exhibited a strong capability to predict both the underlying characteristic attributes and overall tactics of swarms. Not only were they accurate, but they also achieved this with low loss, leading to robust generalization across various test scenarios. Furthermore, there was a clear trend observed with the volume of data: as the amount of data increased (in terms of more agents leading to more input features, and extended time frames), there was a general improvement in the results. However, a nuanced finding was that while more time data generally contributed to improved results, the increment was often marginal. This suggests an important trade-off in defense scenarios where time is a critical resource. A slightly less accurate classification, which is available faster, might be more practical and desired than waiting for a marginally more accurate one.

The implications of these findings are profound, particularly in the context of defense. If there’s ample training data, this research strongly indicates that essential information about an attacking swarm can be swiftly deduced using neural networks. This rapid inference is invaluable as it can provide crucial intelligence in real-time, leading to better-informed defense decisions.

Future work for enhancing the classification of swarms using neural networks holds a plethora of promising directions, especially considering the constraints and complexities of real-world scenarios. A critical avenue is the focus on utilizing locally observable information, which is vital when sensors have a limited range and cannot rely on global information due to unreliable communications. This constraint presents a more realistic operational environment where the system must act with incomplete knowledge.

Addressing this real-world challenge necessitates the exploration of a more extensive set of attributes and tactics for classification. Realistically, in real-world scenarios there could be an even greater number of tactics, comprised of more binary attribute combinations. With numerous attributes identified that could potentially classify an individual agent, the next step is to investigate the relationship between model performance and the increased complexity resulting from a larger number of attribute and tactic labels. Feature engineering will be pivotal in this phase, as the development of more meaningful inputs—whether through additional data or the combination of existing inputs—could significantly enhance model accuracy.

Further, considering the dynamics of engagement, different orientations, starting positions, and swarm spreads must be examined. These factors, coupled with the effect of varying distance scales, raise the question of how to appropriately normalize input data to feed into the neural network. A promising approach could be the use of ragged tensors to incorporate all time steps from each engagement instance into the model. This is a departure from current methods that only utilize the first 15-40% of time steps for training and prediction. A comprehensive study is warranted to determine if models trained on entire engagements outperform those trained on partial data, even when inference is made using a short time window. Investigating different stages of the engagement, such as the start, middle, or end, could reveal critical insights into optimal prediction windows.

Incorporating tactics switching into the modeling process is another interesting frontier. By simulating tactics changes, such as shifting from pursuit to proportional navigation (ProNav) mid-engagement, researchers can evaluate whether sequence output models can accurately detect these transitions. Following a similar line of thinking, removing the assumption of all attackers using the same tactics and allowing attacking swarms to be a heterogeneous mixture of agents would provide the opportunity to evaluate classification of a more realistic scenario, as well as considering the applications of Group Activity Recognition to possibly parse out the different subgroups of attackers. Alongside this, deliberate perturbations by the defender, as opposed to random, offer a controlled method to study the attackers’ responses and how different defender formations and movements impact classification speed and accuracy.

Finally, addressing the effects of input data non-uniformities, such as data gaps from a neutralized attacking agent, scenarios with fewer agents than the model was trained on, or fewer time steps, are crucial. Additionally, the shuffling of input data order, which could arise from crossing trajectories and the difficulty in distinguishing tracks, must be examined to ensure model reliability under various data inconsistencies.

In conclusion, the proposed future work aims to significantly advance the state-of-the-art in swarm classification using neural networks by tackling real-world challenges and enhancing the robustness and accuracy of such systems.