Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Len Breslow

dblp:28/7918 · also Leonard A. Breslow · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 75% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 25%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning › knowledge-based planning
case-based planning
0.012001
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
case-based reasoning
0.012001
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hierarchical planning
0.012001
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › hierarchical problem solving
task decomposition
0.012001
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

task decomposition · 0.0case-based reasoning · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Dynamic Operator Overload: A Model for Predicting Workload During Supervisory Control
abstract
Crandalland Cummings & Mitchell introduced fan-out as a measure of the maximum number of robots a single human operator can supervise in a given single-human-multiple-robot system. Fan-out is based on the time constraints imposed by limitations of the robots and of the supervisor, e.g., limitations in attention. Adapting their work, we introduced a dynamic model of operator overload that predicts failures in supervisory control in real time, based on fluctuations in time constraints and in the supervisor's allocation of attention, as assessed by eye fixations. Operator overload was assessed by damage incurred by unmanned aerial vehicles when they traversed hazard areas. The model generalized well to variants of the baseline task. We then incorporated the model into the system where it predicted in real time, when an operator would fail to prevent vehicle damage and alerted the operator to the threat at those times. These model-based adaptive cues reduced the damage rate by one-half relative to a control condition with no cues.
Len Breslow, Daniel Gartenberg, J. Malcolm McCurry, J. Gregory Trafton
IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst.1
2013 Adaptive automation and cue invocation: the effect of cue timing on operator error
abstract
Adaptive automation (AA) can improve performance while addressing the problems associated with a fully automated system. The best way to invoke AA is unclear, but two ways include critical events and the operator's state. A hybrid model of AA invocation, the dynamic model of operator overload (DMOO), that takes into account critical events and the operator's state was recently shown to improve performance. The DMOO initiates AA using critical events and attention allocation, informed by eye movements. We compared the DMOO with an inaccurate automation invocation system and a system that invoked AA based only on critical events. Fewer errors were made with DMOO than with the inaccurate system. In the critical event condition, where automation was invoked at an earlier point in time, there were more memory and planning errors, while for the DMOO condition, which invocated automation at a later point in time, there were more perceptual errors. These findings provide a framework for reducing specific types of errors through different automation invocation.
Daniel Gartenberg, Len Breslow, Joo Park, J. Malcolm McCurry, J. Gregory Trafton
CHI2
2003 Assessing Elaborated Hypotheses: An Interpretive Case-Based Reasoning Approach
J. William Murdock, David W. Aha, Len Breslow
ICCBR3
2001 Bridging the Lesson Distribution Gap
David W. Aha, Rosina O. Weber, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow, Kalyan Moy Gupta
IJCAI4
2001 SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition
Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha, Dana S. Nau, Rosina O. Weber, Len Breslow, Fusun Yaman
IJCAI5
2001 Conversational Case-Based Reasoning
David W. Aha, Len Breslow, Hector Muñoz-Avila
Appl. Intell.2
2000 An Intelligent Lessons Learned Process
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow
ISMIS4
1999 Using Guidelines to Constrain Interactive Case-Based HTN Planning
Hector Muñoz-Avila, Daniel C. McFarlane, David W. Aha, Len Breslow, James A. Ballas, Dana S. Nau
ICCBR4
1997 Refining Conversational Case Libraries
David W. Aha, Len Breslow
ICCBR2