Preventing (Another) Lubitz: The Thermodynamics of Teams and Emotion

  • W. F. LawlessEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9535)


We propose a series of metrics enacted with Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on quantum mechanics (e.g., the substitution of interdependence for entanglement), entropy (e.g., the maximum random exploration of solution spaces for maximum entropy production, or MEP) and biology (e.g., in Hilbert space, counting neutral voters as entangled agents that produce limit cycles). Once humans teach a team of machines to perform at a level that meets human expectations, the computational team will also know how its human supervisors are supposed to perform. What happens once the machines discover that their human counterparts can make human mistakes is becoming an area of research. Most accidents are caused by human error, including malfeasance, incompetence and, as in the case of Lubitz, murder. The idea for our application is built around a computational model of emotion. Assuming the lowest state for a well-performing team is its ground state, elevated states can be labeled as emotional states to serve as a team metric. For co-pilot Lubitz who purposively flew his Germanwings aircraft into the Alps to murder his passengers, contradicting the prevailing view that little can be done to prevent other pilots with malevolent aims, an opportunity for an intelligent AI system to take temporary command of a distressed crew aboard an aircraft, overseen perhaps by air controllers on the ground, might be able to prevent similar tragedies. But the case of Lubitz is more general and widespread than addressing a miscreant; e.g., inattentive submarine commanders; human error with automobiles; overloaded crews at sea.


Entropy Production Situational Awareness Communist Chinese Party Artificial Intelligence System Observational Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Adelson, E.H.: Lightness perceptions and lightness illusions. In: Gazzaniga, M. (ed.) The New Cognitive Sciences, 2nd edn, pp. 339–351. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahdieh, R.G.: Beyond individualism and economics. Accessed 12 May 2009 = 1518836Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambrose, S.H.: Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291, 1748–1853 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartel, A., Cardiff-Hicks, B., Shaw, K.: Compensation Matters: Incentives for Multitasking in a Law Firm, NBER Working Paper No. 19412 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloom, N., Dorgan, S., Dowdy, J., Van Reenen, J.: Management practice and productivity. Quart. J. Econ. 122(4), 1351–1408 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casey, N.: Gaza Explosions Hit Senior Fatah Members Homes. Blasts Rekindle Tensions Between Two Main Palestinian Political Factions Wall Street Journal. (2014, 11/7)
  7. 7.
    Coase, R.: The nature of the firm. Economica 4, 386 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coase, R.: The problem of social costs. J. Law Econ. 3, 1–44 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, L.: Time Frequency Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conant, R.C.: Laws of information which govern systems. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man Cybern. 6, 240–255 (1976)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Editorial Board (EB) Detroit’s Fight Against Blight. New York Times (2014, 6/7).
  12. 12.
    Fiore, S.: Why the Science of Team Science Matters: The Evidence and a Path Forward, Science of Teams Science (SciTS), Austin (2014, 8/6)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gershenfeld, N.: The Physics of Information Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ginsburg, R.B.: Justice High court throws out states climate lawsuit, Wash. Post (2011, 6/20)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graziano, M.S.A.: Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hackman, J.R.: Six common misperceptions about teamwork. Harvard Business Review (2011).
  17. 17.
    Holmes, O.W.: Dissent: Abrams v. United States (1919)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zell, E., Krizan, Z.: Do people have insight into their abilities? a metasynthesis? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9(2), 111–125 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Kelley, H.H.: Lewin, situations, and interdependence. J. Soc. Issues 47, 211–233 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., Bolger, N.: Data analyses in social psychology. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, pp. 233–265. McGraw-Hill, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wickens, C.D.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd edn. Merrill, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirk, R.: More terrible than death. Massacres, drugs & America’s war in Columbia, Public Affairs (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawless, W.F.: Problems with military nuclear wastes. Bull. At. Scientists 41, 38–42 (1985)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawless, W.F., Akiyoshi, M., Angjellari-Dajcic, F., Whitton, J.: Public consent for the geologic disposal of highly radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 71(1), 41–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lawless, W.F., Moskowitz, I.S., Mittu, R., Sofge, D.A.: Thermodynamics of teams: towards a robust computational model of autonomous teams. In: Proceedings AAAI Spring 2015, Stanford University (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Llinas, J.: Reexamining information fusion–decision making inter-dependencies. In: Presented at the IEEE CogSIMA Conference, TX (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    WP.: White Paper. European governance (COM (2001) 428 final; Brussels, 25.7.2001). Brussels, Commission of the European Community (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madison, J.: Federalist paper No. 58 (1787–1978)
  30. 30.
    Martyushev, L.M.: Entropy and entropy production: old misconceptions and new breakthroughs. Entropy 15, 1152–1170 (2013)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    May, R.M.: Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1973/2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moskowitz, I.S., Lawless, W.F., Mittu, R.M., Russell, S., Hyden, P.: A network science approach to entropy and training, foundations of autonomy, stanford. In: Proceedings AAAI Spring 2015 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    White, L.T.:. Unstately power. Local causes of China’s intellectual, legal, and government reforms. Sharpe, NY (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I.: Exploring C Complexity. Freeman, Newyork (1989)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rand, D.G., Nowak, M.A.: Human cooperation. Cogn. Sci. 17(8), 413–425 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rees, G., Frackowiak, R., Frith, C.: Two modulatory effects of attention that mediate object categorization in human cortex. Science 275, 835–838 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith, J.: Personal communication. July 2014Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schweitzer, F., Fagiolo, G., Sornette, D., Vega-Redondo, F., Vespignani, A., White, D.R.: Economic networks: the new challenges. Science 325, 422–425 (2009)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations