MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790477128 · doi:10.2514/1.i010493

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

2018· article· en· W2790477128 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Information Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationOffice of the DirectorNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAutomationCockpitConfusionInferenceComputer scienceMode (computer interface)AeronauticsDeckEngineeringSimulationSystems engineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from 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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it