Towards AI-Assisted Generation of Military Training Scenarios

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.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Have I Forgotten it All? A New Framework for Evaluating Machine Unlearning

Machine unlearning methods take a model trained on a dataset and a forget set, then attempt to produce a model as if it had only been trained on the examples not in the forget set. We empirically show that an adversary is able to distinguish between a mirror model (a control model produced by retraining without the data to forget) and a model produced by an unlearning method across representative unlearning methods from the literature. We build distinguishing algorithms based on evaluation scores in the literature (i.e. membership inference scores) and Kullback-Leibler divergence. We propose a strong formal definition for machine unlearning called computational unlearning. Computational unlearning is defined as the inability for an adversary to distinguish between a mirror model and a model produced by an unlearning method. If the adversary cannot guess better than random (except with negligible probability), then we say that an unlearning method achieves computational unlearning. Our computational unlearning definition provides theoretical structure to prove unlearning feasibility results. For example, our computational unlearning definition immediately implies that there are no deterministic computational unlearning methods for entropic learning algorithms. We also explore the relationship between differential privacy (DP)-based unlearning methods and computational unlearning, showing that DP-based approaches can satisfy computational unlearning at the cost of an extreme utility collapse. These results demonstrate that current methodology in the literature fundamentally falls short of achieving computational unlearning. We conclude by identifying several open questions for future work.