Conflicts in Human Operator – Unmanned Vehicles Interactions

  • Frédéric Dehais
  • Stephane Mercier
  • Catherine Tessier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5639)

Abstract

In the context of the supervision of one or several unmanned vehicles by a human operator, the definition and the dynamics of the shared authority among these agents is a major challenge. Indeed, lessons learned from modern aviation reveals that authority sharing issues between aircrews and on-board processes are remarkable precursors of air accidents (twenty accidents in the last twenty years). The analysis of these events highlights that the authority of the on-board processes is designed a priori and fails to adapt in case of conflict with the aircrew’s actions. Moreover the poor design of the HMIs (e.g. : there is no dialogue between artificial and human agents) and the complexity of the interactions may lead the aircrews to lose situation awareness and to enter a perseveration syndrome. We present the basic concepts of an approach aiming at dynamically adjusting the autonomy of an agent in a mission relatively to its operator, based on formal detection of conflict. An experimental set-up is under construction to assess our hypotheses.

Keywords

human automation conflits adaptive autonomy authority sharing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Callantine, T.J.: Activity tracking for pilot error detection from flight data. Technical report, NASA (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heymann, M., Degani, A.: On formal abstraction and verification of human-machine interfaces: the discrete event case. NASA Technical Memorandum (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaudron, L., Dehais, F., Le Blaye, P., Wioland, L.: Human activity modelling for flight analysis. In: Proceedings of HCP 1999, Intl. Conf. on Human Centered Processes, Brest, France (September 1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rizzo, A., Bagnara, S., Visciola, M.: Human error detection processes. Internation of Man-Machine studies 36, 253–259 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alwood, C.M.: Error detection processes in statistical problem solving. Cognitive science 8, 413–437 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wioland, L.: Etudes des mécanismes de protection et de détection des erreurs. Contribution à un modèle de sécurité écologique. PhD thesis, Université Paris V (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Conflict ontology. In: Müller, H.-J., Dieng, R. (eds.) Computational conflicts - Conflict model ling for distributed intelligent systems, pp. 21–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dehais, F., Tessier, C., Chaudron, L.: Ghost: experimenting countermeasures for conflicts in the pilot’s activity. In: IJCAI 2003 Conference, Acapulco, Mexico (August 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amalberti, R.: Une réflexion sur le rôle des hommes dans les systèmes intelligents et automatisés. In: Le rôle de l’être humain dans les systèmes automatisés intelligents, Varsovie, Pologne, RTO HFM (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reason, J.: Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sweet, W.: The glass cockpit. In: Proceedings of IEEE Spectrum, pp. 30–38 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amalberti, R.: La conduite des systèmes à risques. PUF (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarter, N.B., Wickens, R., Kimball, S., Marsh, R., Nikolic, M., Xu, W.: Modern flight deck automation: pilot’s mental model and monitoring patterns and performance. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mumaw, R., Sarter, N., Wickens, C.: Analysis of pilots’ monitoring and performance on an automated flight deck. In: International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Colombus, Ohio (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dehais, F., Goudou, A., Lesire, C., Tessier, C.: Toward an anticipatory agent to help pilots. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall, Arlington, Virginia USA (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mercier, S., Tessier, C., Dehais, F.: Basic concepts for shared authority in heterogenous agents. In: AAMAS 2008 Workshop on Coordination, Organisations, Institutions and Norms in agent systems (COIN 2008). Estoril, Portugal (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lesire, C., Tessier, C.: A hybrid model for situation monitoring and conflict prediction in human supervised “autonomous” systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2006 Spring Symposium “To Boldly Go Where No Human-Robot Team Has Gone Before”, Stanford, California (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mercier, S., Tessier, C., Dehais, F.: Adaptive autonomy for a human-robot architecture 3rd national conference on Control Architectures of Robots (CAR 2008), Bourges, France (May 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Dehais
    • 1
  • Stephane Mercier
    • 1
  • Catherine Tessier
    • 1
  1. 1.CSDV ISAE-ONERAToulouse Cedex 4France

Personalised recommendations