Advertisement

Five Requisites for Human-Agent Decision Sharing in Military Environments

  • Michael BarnesEmail author
  • Jessie Chen
  • Kristin E. Schaefer
  • Troy Kelley
  • Cheryl Giammanco
  • Susan Hill
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 499)

Abstract

Working with industry, universities and other government agencies, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory has been engaged in multi-year programs to understand the role of humans working with autonomous and robotic systems. The purpose of the paper is to present an overview of the research themes in order to abstract five research requirements for effective human-agent decision-making. Supporting research for each of the five requirements is discussed to elucidate the issues involved and to make recommendations for future research. The requirements include: (a) direct link between the operator and a supervisory agent, (b) interface transparency, (c) appropriate trust, (d) cognitive architectures to infer intent, and e) common language between humans and agents.

Keywords

Autonomy Intelligent agent Human agent teaming Decision making 

References

  1. 1.
    Department of Defense: Briefing on Autonomy Initiatives (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Defense Science Board: Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Washington, D.C. (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endsley, M.: Autonomous Horizons: System Autonomy in the Air Force—A Path to the Future (Volume I: Human Autonomy Teaming). US Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnes, M.J., Chen, J.Y.C., Jentsch, F., Oron-Gilad, T., Redden, E.S., Elliott, L., Evans, A.: Designing for humans in autonomous systems: Military applications. Technical report ARL–TR–6782, Army Research Laboratory (US), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human-agent teaming for multirobot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst. 4 4(1), 13–29 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis, M.: Human interaction with multiple remote robots. Rev. Human Factors Ergon. 9(1), 131–174 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnes, M.J., Chen, J.Y.C., Wright, J., Stowers, K.: Human agent teaming for effective multi-robot management: Effects of transparency (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Supervisory control of multiple robots in dynamic tasking environments. Ergonomics 55, 1043–1058 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Supervisory control of multiple robots; effects of imperfect automation and individual differences. Hum. Factors 54(2), 157–174 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright, J.L., Chen, J.Y.C., Quinn, S.A., Barnes, M.J.: The effects of level of autonomy on human-agent teaming for multi-robot control and local security maintenance. Technical report, ARL-TR-6724, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright, J.L., Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J., Hancock, P.A.: The effect of agent reasoning transparency on automation bias: an analysis of performance and decision time (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, J., Lee, J.: Trust, reliance, compliance. In: Lee, J., Kirlik, A. (eds.) The oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37, 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., Barnes, M.J.: Situation awareness-based agent transparency. Technical report ARL-TR_6905, Army Research Laboratory (US), Aberdeen, Maryland (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Department of Defense—Research & Engineering Enterprise: Autonomy Research Pilot Initiative. http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/arpi.html
  17. 17.
    Draper, M.: Realizing autonomy via intelligent adaptive hybrid control: adaptable autonomy for achieving UxV RSTA team decision superiority, Yearly report. Dayton, OH: US Air Force Research Laboratory (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mercado, J.E., Rupp, M., Chen, J.Y.C., Barber, D., Procci, K., Barnes, M.J.: Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors (in press)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stowers, K., Chen, J.Y.C., Kasdaglis, N., Newton, O., Rupp, M., Barnes, M.: Effects of situation awareness-based agent transparency information on human agent teaming for multi-UxV management (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaefer, K.E.: The Perception and Measurement of Human Robot Trust. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Central FloridaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E.: Can you trust your robot? Ergon. Des. 19, 24–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., de Visser, E.J., Parasuraman, R.: A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Factors 53, 517–527 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., Szalma, J.L., Hancock, P.A.: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation: Implications for Understanding Autonomy in Future Systems. Human Factors (in press)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phillips, E., Schaefer, K.E., Billings, D.R., Jentsch, F., Hancock, P.A.: Human-animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams: influencing design and fostering trust. J. Human-Robot Interact. (in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schaefer, K.E., Evans, A.W., Hill, S.G.: Command and control in network-centric operations: trust and robot autonomy. In: 20th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Annapolis, MD (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaefer, K.E., Brewer, R., Avery, E., Straub, E.R.: Matching theory and simulation design: incorporating the human into driverless vehicle simulations using RIVET. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (SBP-BRiMS). Washington, DC (in press)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Evans, A.W., Schaefer, K.E., Ratka, S., Briggs, K.L.: Soldier perceptions of robotic wingman platforms. In: Proceedings of the SPIE: Unmanned Systems Technology XVIII (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelley, T.D.: Developing a psychologically inspired cognitive architecture for robotic control: the symbolic and subsymbolic robotic intelligence control system (SS-RICS). Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst. 3(3), 219–222 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanford, S.D., Janrathitikarn, O., Long, L.N.: Control of mobile robots using the soar cognitive architecture. J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun. 6(2), 69–91 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mott, D., Poteet, S., Xue, P., Copestake, A.: Natural language fact extraction and domain reasoning using controlled English. DELPH-IN 2014, Portugal. http://www.delph-in.net/2014/Mot:Pot:Xue:14.pdf (2014)
  31. 31.
    Mott, D., Shemanski, D., Giammanco, C., Braines, D.: Collaborative human-machine analysis using a controlled natural language. Society for Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers—Defense, Security, and Sensing Symposium, MD (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mott, D., Giammanco, C.: The use of rationale in collaborative planning. In: Annual Conference of the International Technology Alliance (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mott, D., Xue, P., Giammanco, C.: A forensic reasoning agent using controlled English for problem solving. In: Annual Fall Meeting of the International Technology Alliance in Network and Information Sciences (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patel, J., Dorneich, M., Mott, D., Bahrami, A., Giammanco, C.: Improving coalition planning by making plans alive. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28(1), 17–25 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giammanco, C., Mott, D., McGowan, R.: Controlled English for Critical Thinking about the Civil-Military Domain. Annual Fall Meeting of the International Technology Alliance in Network and Information Sciences (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Barnes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessie Chen
    • 1
  • Kristin E. Schaefer
    • 1
  • Troy Kelley
    • 1
  • Cheryl Giammanco
    • 1
  • Susan Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering DirectorateMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations