MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2790477128 · doi:10.2514/1.i010493

Automation Intent Inference Using the GFHMM for Flight Deck Mode Confusion Detection

2018· article· en· W2790477128 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Aerospace Information Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueFault Detection and Control Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationOffice of the DirectorNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésAutomationCockpitConfusionInferenceComputer scienceMode (computer interface)AeronauticsDeckEngineeringSimulationSystems engineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

No AccessTechnical NoteAutomation Intent Inference Using the GFHMM for Flight Deck Mode Confusion DetectionHao Lyu, Jayaprakash Suraj Nandiganahalli and Inseok HwangHao LyuPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, Jayaprakash Suraj NandiganahalliPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 and Inseok HwangPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906Published Online:20 Feb 2018https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010493SectionsRead Now ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail About References [1] "Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey Report," Flight Safety Digest, Vol. 18, Nos. 6–8, 1999, pp. 137–216. Google Scholar[2] Sarter N. B. and Woods D. D., "How in the World Did We Ever Get into That Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control," Human Factors: Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1995, pp. 5–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[3] Sarter N. B. and Woods D. D., "Pilot Interaction with Cockpit Automation: Operational Experiences with the Flight Management System," International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1992, pp. 303–321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0204_5 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[4] Sarter N. B. and Woods D. D., "Pilot Interaction with Cockpit Automation 2: An Experimental Study of Pilots' Model and Awareness of the Flight Management System," International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0401_1 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[5] Wiener E. L., "Human Factors of Cockpit Automation: A Field Study of Flight Crew Transition," NASA CR 177333, 1985. Google Scholar[6] Wiener E., "Beyond the Sterile Cockpit," Human Factors: Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1985, pp. 75–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088502700107 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[7] Wiener E. L., "Human Factors of Advanced Technology ('Glass Cockpit') Transportation Aircraft," NASA CR 177528, 1989. Google Scholar[8] Javaux D., "Explaining Sarter and Woods' Classical Results. The Cognitive Complexity of Pilot-Autopilot Interaction on the Boeing 737-EIS," Proceedings of Human Error, Safety, and System Development (HESSD'98), International Federation for Information Processing, Seattle, WA, April 1998, pp. 62–77. Google Scholar[9] Javaux D. and De Keyser V., "The Cognitive Complexity of Pilot-Mode Interaction. A Possible Explanation of Sarter and Woods' Classical Result," Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Montreal, May 1998, pp. 49–54. Google Scholar[10] Javaux D. and Polson P., "A Method for Predicting Errors When Interacting with Finite State Machines: The Impact of Implicit Learning on the User's Model of the System," Pre-Proceedings of Human Error, Safety, and System Development (HESSD'99), 1999. Google Scholar[11] Javaux D. and Olivier E., "Assessing and Understanding Pilots Knowledge of Mode Transitions on the A340-200/300," Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics (HCI-Aero'00), Toulouse, France, Sept. 2000, pp. 81–86. Google Scholar[12] Javaux D., "A Method for Predicting Errors When Interacting with Finite State Systems. How Implicit Learning Shapes the User's Knowledge of a System," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 75, No. 2, 2002, pp. 147–165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00091-6 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[13] Degani A., Heymann M., Meyer G. and Shafto M., "Some Formal Aspects of Human-Automation Interaction," NASA TM 209600, 2000. Google Scholar[14] Butler R. W., Caldwell J. L., Carreno V. A., Holloway C. M., Miner P. S. and Di Vito B. L., "NASA Langley's Research and Technology-Transfer Program in Formal Methods," Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 1995, pp. 135–149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/CMPASS.1995.521893 Google Scholar[15] Lee S., Hwang I. and Leiden K., "Intent Inference-Based Flight-Deck Human-Automation Mode-Confusion Detection," Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 8, 2015, pp. 503–518. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010331 LinkGoogle Scholar[16] Vakil S. S. and Hansman R. J., "Feedback Mechanisms to Improve Mode Awareness in Advanced Autoflight Systems," Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, 1995, pp. 243–248. Google Scholar[17] McGhan C. L., Nasir A. and Atkins E. M., "Human Intent Prediction Using Markov Decision Processes," Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2015, pp. 393–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010090 LinkGoogle Scholar[18] Bolton M. L. and Bass E. J., "Enhanced Operator Function Model: A Generic Human Task Behavior Modeling Language," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2009, pp. 2904–2911. Google Scholar[19] Clarke E. M., Grumberg O. and Peled D., Model Checking, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, pp. 35–46. Google Scholar[20] Nandiganahalli J. S., Lee S. and Hwang I., "Formal Verification for Mode Confusion in the Flight Deck Using Intent-Based Abstraction," Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 9, 2016, pp. 343–356. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010393 LinkGoogle Scholar[21] Nandiganahalli J. S., Lyu H. and Hwang I., "Formal Extensions to the Intent-Based Mode Confusion Detection Framework," AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, AIAA Paper 2015-2335, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-2335 LinkGoogle Scholar[22] Das S., Li L., Srivastava A. N. and Hansman R. J., "Comparison of Algorithms for Anomaly Detection in Flight Recorder Data of Airline Operations," 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA Paper 2012-5593, Sept. 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-5593 LinkGoogle Scholar[23] Chu E., Gorinevsky D. and Boyd S., "Detecting Aircraft Performance Anomalies from Cruise Flight Data," AIAA [email protected] 2010, AIAA Paper 2010-3307, April 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-3307. LinkGoogle Scholar[24] Prevot T., "Exploring the Many Perspectives of Distributed Air Traffic Management: The Multi Aircraft Control System MACS," Proceedings of the HCI-Aero, AAAI, 2002, pp. 149–154. Google Scholar[25] Seah C. E. and Hwang I., "Stochastic Linear Hybrid Systems: Modeling, Estimation, and Application in Air Traffic Control," IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2009, pp. 563–575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2008.2001377 IETTE2 1063-6536 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[26] Mohamed M. A. and Gader P., "Generalized Hidden Markov Models. 1. Theoretical Frameworks," IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2000, pp. 67–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/91.824772 IEFSEV 1063-6706 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[27] Zhang X. and Naghdy F., "Human Motion Recognition Through Fuzzy Hidden Markov Model," Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce, Vol. 2, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2005, pp. 450–456. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/CIMCA.2005.1631510 Google Scholar[28] Lyu H., Suraj Nandiganahalli J. and Hwang I., "Human Automation Interaction Issue Detection Using a Generalized Fuzzy Hidden Markov Model," AIAA Information Systems—AIAA [email protected] Aerospace, AIAA Paper 2017-0344, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0344 LinkGoogle Scholar[29] "Descent Below Visual Glidepath and Impact With Seawall Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Boeing 777-200ER, HL7742," National Transportation Safety Board NTSB/AAR-14/01, PB2014-105984, Washington, D.C., 2013. Google Scholar[30] Silva S. S., "Divergence Between the Human State Assumption and Actual Aircraft System State," Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2016. Google Scholar Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byThe need for and conceptual design of an AI model-based Integrated Flight Advisory System15 March 2022 | Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, Vol. 5 What's Popular Volume 15, Number 3March 2018 Metrics CrossmarkInformationCopyright © 2018 by Inseok Hwang. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 2327-3097 (online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp. TopicsAircraft CarriersAircraft Components and StructureAircraft ControlAircraft DesignAircraft Operations and TechnologyAircraft Stability and ControlAircraftsArtificial IntelligenceAutonomous SystemsAvionics SoftwareComputer NetworksComputing and InformaticsComputing, Information, and CommunicationData MiningData ScienceMachine LearningSoftware Systems KeywordsGeneralized Fuzzy Hidden Markov ModelFlight DeckPilotVertical NavigationMode Control PanelFlight DataFlight Management ComputerNational Transportation Safety BoardCockpitSan Francisco International AirportAcknowledgmentThe authors would like to acknowledge that this work is supported by NSF CMMI (National Science Foundation, Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation) 1335084.PDF Received22 July 2016Accepted5 January 2018Published online20 February 2018

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,684
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,382

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle