4.7 Article

A formal method for including the probability of erroneous human task behavior in system analyses

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 213, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107764

Keywords

Human error; Formal methods; Model checking; Probabilistic modeling; Human reliability

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation, USA [1918314, 1918140]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [1918314] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [1918140] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study introduces a new method that combines formal methods with human reliability analysis, probabilistic and statistical model checking to compute the probability of different outcomes in reactive human-automation interaction systems. The method is demonstrated with an automated teller machine example, and future research directions are discussed.
Formal methods have been making inroads into the engineering of human-automation interaction (HAI) by allowing engineers to use mathematical proofs to determine whether normative or unanticipated erroneous human behavior can ever cause problems. However, these approaches are limited because they do not give engineers a way to assess the relative likelihood of different outcomes. In this work, we address this shortcoming by defining a new approach that combines formal approaches with human reliability analysis and probabilistic and statistical model checking. This approach ultimately allows analysts to compute the probability of different outcomes occurring in reactive HAI systems. We describe how this method was realized, assess its scalability, and demonstrate its capabilities with an automated teller machine example. We ultimately discuss our results and describe directions of future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available