Advertisement

Presentation of Autonomy-Generated Plans: Determining Ideal Number and Extent Differ

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 784)

Abstract

Autonomous tools that can evaluate a course of action (COA) are being developed to assist military leaders. System designers must determine the most effective method of presenting these COAs to operators. To address this challenge, an experimental testbed was developed in which participants were required to achieve the highest score possible in a specific time window by completing mission tasks. For each task, eight possible COAs were presented. Each COA had four parameters—points, time, fuel, and detection. Four experimental visualizations were evaluated, varying in COA number and type: (1) a single COA (most points), (2) four COAs (four highest point values), (3) four COAs (the most points, the least time, the least fuel, and the least chance of detection), and (4) all eight COAs. Both objective and subjective data indicated that the single COA visualization was significantly less effective than the other visualizations. Suggestions are made for follow-on research.

Keywords

Modeling to generate alternatives Parallel coordinates plot Plan comparison Human autonomy interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory.

References

  1. 1.
    Center for Army Lessons Learned: MDMP: Lessons and Best Practices. No. 15-06 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen, M., Calhoun, G., Douglass, S., Evans, D.: Courses of action display for multi-unmanned vehicle control: a multi-disciplinary approach. In: The 2016 AAAI Fall Symposium Series: Cross-Disciplinary Challenges for Autonomous Systems, Technical Report FS-16-03 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behymer, K.J., Mersch, E.M., Ruff, H.A., Calhoun, G.L., Spriggs, S.E.: Unmanned vehicle plan comparison visualizations for effective human-autonomy teaming. In: 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, P.J.: Making brittle technologies useful. In: Smith, P.J., Hoffman, R.R. (eds.) Cognitive Systems Engineering: The Future for a Changing World, Chap. 10, pp. 181–208. CRC Press, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brill, E., Flach, J., Hopkins, L., Ranjithan, S.: MGA: a decision support system for complex, incompletely defined problems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 20(4), 745–757 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Post, D.L., Goode, W.E.: A color-code design tool. In: 19th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InfoscitexDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Air Force Research LaboratoryDaytonUSA
  3. 3.Wright State Research InstituteDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations