A 'Trust But Verify' Design for Course of Action Displays

M. John, D. Manes, G. Osga
{"title":"A 'Trust But Verify' Design for Course of Action Displays","authors":"M. John, D. Manes, G. Osga","doi":"10.21236/ada461061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract : Automation, particularly of complex cognitive tasks, is bound to be incomplete, simplistic, or otherwise less than completely reliable. Recently, we have begun developing Trust but Verify techniques for increasing the effectiveness of even unreliable automation. The user's trust should be conditioned on known situational factors that affect the reliability of the automation, and users should be able to verify the automation results and operation to various qualitative degrees as the level of trust dictates. Here, we describe our preliminary work on these concepts in the domain of Course of Action (COA) selection for an Intruder Interception Task. This task involves deciding which of several available aircraft should be chosen to perform an interception of an unknown aircraft intruding into the air space. Based on repeated interviews with four subject matter experts, we identified and then distilled a set of factors essential to evaluating the optimal COA. We then designed a set of alternative displays to illustrate the factors based on the Trust but Verify concept and general human factors display guidance. Here we analyze the benefits and costs of two major design decisions: whether to display the COA factors using a tabular or graphic organization, and whether or how to integrate the COAs with the map or with each other in a common table.","PeriodicalId":333539,"journal":{"name":"Command and Control Research Program","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Command and Control Research Program","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21236/ada461061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract : Automation, particularly of complex cognitive tasks, is bound to be incomplete, simplistic, or otherwise less than completely reliable. Recently, we have begun developing Trust but Verify techniques for increasing the effectiveness of even unreliable automation. The user's trust should be conditioned on known situational factors that affect the reliability of the automation, and users should be able to verify the automation results and operation to various qualitative degrees as the level of trust dictates. Here, we describe our preliminary work on these concepts in the domain of Course of Action (COA) selection for an Intruder Interception Task. This task involves deciding which of several available aircraft should be chosen to perform an interception of an unknown aircraft intruding into the air space. Based on repeated interviews with four subject matter experts, we identified and then distilled a set of factors essential to evaluating the optimal COA. We then designed a set of alternative displays to illustrate the factors based on the Trust but Verify concept and general human factors display guidance. Here we analyze the benefits and costs of two major design decisions: whether to display the COA factors using a tabular or graphic organization, and whether or how to integrate the COAs with the map or with each other in a common table.
“信任但需验证”的操作过程显示设计
摘要:自动化,特别是复杂的认知任务,必然是不完整的,简单的,或者是不完全可靠的。最近,我们已经开始开发信任但验证技术,以提高即使是不可靠的自动化的有效性。用户的信任应该以已知的影响自动化可靠性的情景因素为条件,并且用户应该能够根据信任水平的要求在不同的定性程度上验证自动化结果和操作。在这里,我们描述了我们在入侵者拦截任务的行动过程(COA)选择领域中对这些概念的初步工作。这项任务包括决定在几架可用的飞机中选择哪一架来拦截入侵空域的未知飞机。基于与四位主题专家的反复访谈,我们确定并提炼了一组对评估最佳COA至关重要的因素。然后,我们设计了一组替代显示来说明基于信任但验证的概念和一般人为因素显示指导的因素。在这里,我们分析两个主要设计决策的收益和成本:是否使用表格或图形组织来显示COA因素,以及是否或如何将COA与地图或在公共表格中相互集成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信