Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Len Breslow
dblp:28/7918 · also Leonard A. Breslow
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning › knowledge-based planning
case-based planning |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
case-based reasoning |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hierarchical planning |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › hierarchical problem solving
task decomposition |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Dynamic Operator Overload: A Model for Predicting Workload During Supervisory ControlabstractCrandalland 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 errorabstractAdaptive 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 |
CHI | 2 |
| 2003 | Assessing Elaborated Hypotheses: An Interpretive Case-Based Reasoning Approach
J. William Murdock, David W. Aha, Len Breslow |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2001 | Bridging the Lesson Distribution Gap
David W. Aha, Rosina O. Weber, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow, Kalyan Moy Gupta |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 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 |
IJCAI | 5 |
| 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 |
ISMIS | 4 |
| 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 |
ICCBR | 4 |
| 1997 | Refining Conversational Case Libraries
David W. Aha, Len Breslow |
ICCBR | 2 |