Enhanced Operator Function Model (EOFM): A Task Analytic Modeling Formalism for Including Human Behavior in the Verification of Complex Systems

Chapter

Abstract

The enhanced operator function model (EOFM) is a task analytic modeling formalism that allows human behavior to be included in larger formal system models to support the formal verification of human interactive systems. EOFM is an expressive formalism that captures the behavior of individual humans or, with the EOFM with communications (EOFMC) extension, teams of humans as a collection of tasks, each composed representing a hierarchy of activities and actions. Further, EOFM has a formal semantics and associated translator that allow its represented behavior to be automatically translated into a model checking formalism for use in larger system verification. EOFM supports a number of features that enable analysts to use model checking to investigate human-automation and human-human interaction. Translator variants support the development of different task models with methods for accounting for erroneous human behaviors and miscommunications, the creation of specification properties, and the automated design of human-machine interfaces. This chapter provides an overview of EOFM, its language, its formal semantics and translation, and analysis features. It addresses the different ways that EOFM has been used to evaluate human behavior in human-interactive systems. We demonstrate some of the capabilities of EOFM by using it to evaluate the air traffic control case study. Finally, we discuss future directions of EOFM and its supported analyses.

References

  1. Abbate AJ, Throckmorton AL, Bass EJ (2016) A formal task analytic approach to medical device alarm troubleshooting instructions. IEEE Trans Hum-Mach Syst 46(1):53–65Google Scholar
  2. Aït-Ameur Y, Baron M (2006) Formal and experimental validation approaches in HCI systems design based on a shared event B model. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 8(6):547–563Google Scholar
  3. Angluin D (1987) Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf Comput 75(2):87–106Google Scholar
  4. Basnyat S, Palanque P, Schupp B, Wright P (2007) Formal socio-technical barrier modelling for safety-critical interactive systems design. Saf Sci 45(5):545–565Google Scholar
  5. Bass EJ, Bolton ML, Feigh K, Griffith D, Gunter E, Mansky W, Rushby J (2011) Toward a multi-method approach to formalizing human-automation interaction and human-human communications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1817–1824Google Scholar
  6. Bogdanich W (2010) The radiation boom: radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. New York Times 23:23–27Google Scholar
  7. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2011) Using task analytic behavior models, strategic knowledge-based erroneous human behavior generation, and model checking to evaluate human-automation interaction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems man and cybernetics. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1788–1794Google Scholar
  8. Bolton ML (2011) Validating human-device interfaces with model checking and temporal logic properties automatically generated from task analytic models. In: Proceedings of the 20th behavior representation in modeling and simulation conference. The BRIMS Society, Sundance, pp 130–137Google Scholar
  9. Bolton ML (2013) Automatic validation and failure diagnosis of human-device interfaces using task analytic models and model checking. Comput Math Organ Theory 19(3):288–312Google Scholar
  10. Bolton ML (2015) Model checking human-human communication protocols using task models and miscommunication generation. J Aerosp Inf Syst 12:476–489Google Scholar
  11. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2010a) Formally verifying human-automation interaction as part of a system model: limitations and tradeoffs. Innov Syst Softw Eng: A NASA J 6(3):219–231Google Scholar
  12. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2010b) Using task analytic models and phenotypes of erroneous human behavior to discover system failures using model checking. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. HFES, Santa Monica, pp 992–996Google Scholar
  13. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2010c) Using task analytic models to visualize model checker counterexamples. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 2069–2074Google Scholar
  14. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2012) Using model checking to explore checklist-guided pilot behavior. Int J Aviat Psychol 22:343–366Google Scholar
  15. Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2013) Generating erroneous human behavior from strategic knowledge in task models and evaluating its impact on system safety with model checking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 43(6):1314–1327Google Scholar
  16. Bolton ML, Siminiceanu RI, Bass EJ (2011) A systematic approach to model checking human-automation interaction using task-analytic models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 41(5):961–976Google Scholar
  17. Bolton ML, Bass EJ, Siminiceanu RI (2012) Using phenotypical erroneous human behavior generation to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 70:888–906Google Scholar
  18. Bolton ML, Bass EJ, Siminiceanu RI (2013) Using formal verification to evaluate human-automation interaction: a review. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 43(3):488–503Google Scholar
  19. Bolton ML, Jimenez N, van Paassen MM, Trujillo M (2014) Automatically generating specification properties from task models for the formal verification of human-automation interaction. IEEE Trans Hum-Mach Syst 44(5):561–575Google Scholar
  20. Bolton ML, Zheng X, Molinaro K, Houser A, Li M (2016) Improving the scalability of formal human-automation interaction verification analyses that use task analytic models. Innov Syst Softw Eng: A NASA J (in press). doi:10.1007/s11334-016-0272-z
  21. Clark J, Murata M (2001) Relax NG specification. Committee Specification. http://relaxng.org/spec-20011203.html
  22. De Moura L, Owre S, Shankar N (2003) The SAL language manual. Technical Report CSL-01-01, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park. http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/A.Simons/z2sal/saldocs/SALlanguage.pdf
  23. Degani A, Heymann M, Shafto M (1999) Formal aspects of procedures: the problem of sequential correctness. Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society. HFES, Santa Monica, pp 1113–1117Google Scholar
  24. Fields RE (2001) Analysis of erroneous actions in the design of critical systems. PhD thesis, University of York, YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Giese M, Mistrzyk T, Pfau A, Szwillus G, von Detten M (2008) AMBOSS: a task modeling approach for safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on human-centered software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–109Google Scholar
  26. Gunter EL, Yasmeen A, Gunter CA, Nguyen A (2009) Specifying and analyzing workflows for automated identification and data capture. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  27. Hartson HR, Siochi AC, Hix D (1990) The UAN: a user-oriented representation for direct manipulation interface designs. ACM Trans Inf Syst 8(3):181–203Google Scholar
  28. Hollnagel E (1993) The phenotype of erroneous actions. Int J Man-Mach Stud 39(1):1–32Google Scholar
  29. Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (1992) A guide to task analysis. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Le Hégaret P (2002) The w3c document object model (DOM). http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-dom-article.html
  31. Leveson NG, Turner CS (1993) An investigation of the therac-25 accidents. Computer 26(7):18–41Google Scholar
  32. Li M, Molinaro K, Bolton ML (2015) Learning formal human-machine interface designs from task analytic models. In: Proceedings of the HFES annual meeting. HFES, Santa Monica, pp 652–656Google Scholar
  33. Martinie C, Palanque P, Barboni E, Ragosta M (2011) Task-model based assessment of automation levels: application to space ground segments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Piscataway, IEEE, pp 3267–3273Google Scholar
  34. Martinie C, Navarre D, Palanque P (2014) A multi-formalism approach for model-based dynamic distribution of user interfaces of critical interactive systems. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 72(1):77–99Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell CM, Miller RA (1986) A discrete control model of operator function: a methodology for information display design. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 16(3):343–357Google Scholar
  36. NTSB (2001) Runway Overrun During Landing, American Airlines Flight 1420, McDonnell Douglas MD-82, N215AA, Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 1999 Technical Report NTSB/AAR-01/02. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. NTSB (2015) Runway Overrun During Rejected Takeoff Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation G-IV, N121JM, Bedford, Massachusetts, May 31, 2014 Technical Report NTSB/AAR-15/03. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Palanque PA, Bastide R, Senges V (1996) Validating interactive system design through the verification of formal task and system models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC2/WG2.7 working conference on engineering for human-computer interaction. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, pp 189–212Google Scholar
  39. Pan D, Bolton ML (2015) A formal method for evaluating the performance level of human-human collaborative procedures. In: Proceedings of HCI international. Springer, Berlin, pp 186–197Google Scholar
  40. Pan D, Bolton ML (2016) Properties for formally assessing the performance level of human-human collaborative procedures with miscommunications and erroneous human behavior. Int J Ind Ergon (in press). doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2016.04.001
  41. Paternò F, Santoro C (2001) Integrating model checking and HCI tools to help designers verify user interface properties. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on the design, specification, and verification of interactive systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 135–150Google Scholar
  42. Paternò F, Mancini C, Meniconi S (1997) Concurtasktrees: a diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 international conference on human-computer interaction. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London, pp 362–369Google Scholar
  43. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Shankar N (2000) Symbolic analysis of transition systems. Proceedings of the international workshop on abstract state machines, theory and applications. Springer, London, pp 287–302Google Scholar
  46. Sheridan TB, Parasuraman R (2005) Human-automation interaction. Rev Hum Factors Ergon 1(1):89–129Google Scholar
  47. Syncro Soft (2016) Relax NG schema diagram. In: User Manual of Oxygen XML Editor 17.1. https://www.oxygenxml.com/doc/versions/17.1/ug-editor/index.html#topics/relax-ng-schema-diagram.html
  48. van Paassen MM, Bolton ML, Jimenez N (2014) Checking formal verification models for human-automation interaction. 2014 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, Piscataway, pp 3709–3714Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations