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

Radu I. Siminiceanu

dblp:12/10595 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-robot interaction · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction
human-automation interaction
0.112012
Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2012

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

phenotype generation · 0.3model checking · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 A case study on the lightweight verification of a multi-threaded task server
Néstor Cataño, Ijaz Ahmed 0002, Radu I. Siminiceanu, Jonathan Aldrich
Sci. Comput. Program.3
2013 Using Formal Verification to Evaluate Human-Automation Interaction: A Review
abstract
Failures in complex systems controlled by human operators can be difficult to anticipate because of unexpected interactions between the elements that compose the system, including human-automation interaction (HAI). HAI analyses would benefit from techniques that support investigating the possible combinations of system conditions and HAIs that might result in failures. Formal verification is a powerful technique used to mathematically prove that an appropriately scaled model of a system does or does not exhibit desirable properties. This paper discusses how formal verification has been used to evaluate HAI. It has been used to evaluate human-automation interfaces for usability properties and to find potential mode confusion. It has also been used to evaluate system safety properties in light of formally modeled task analytic human behavior. While capable of providing insights into problems associated with HAI, formal verification does not scale as well as other techniques such as simulation. However, advances in formal verification continue to address this problem, and approaches that allow it to complement more traditional analysis methods can potentially avoid this limitation.
Matthew L. Bolton, Ellen J. Bass, Radu I. Siminiceanu
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst.3
2012 Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking
Matthew L. Bolton, Ellen J. Bass, Radu I. Siminiceanu
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.3
2011 A Systematic Approach to Model Checking Human-Automation Interaction Using Task Analytic Models
abstract
Formal methods are typically used in the analysis of complex system components that can be described as “automated” (digital circuits, devices, protocols, and software). Human-automation interaction has been linked to system failure, where problems stem from human operators interacting with an automated system via its controls and information displays. As part of the process of designing and analyzing human-automation interaction, human factors engineers use task analytic models to capture the descriptive and normative human operator behavior. In order to support the integration of task analyses into the formal verification of larger system models, we have developed the enhanced operator function model (EOFM) as an Extensible Markup Language-based, platform- and analysis-independent language for describing task analytic models. We present the formal syntax and semantics of the EOFM and an automated process for translating an instantiated EOFM into the model checking language Symbolic Analysis Laboratory. We present an evaluation of the scalability of the translation algorithm. We then present an automobile cruise control example to illustrate how an instantiated EOFM can be integrated into a larger system model that includes environmental features and the human operator's mission. The system model is verified using model checking in order to analyze a potentially hazardous situation related to the human-automation interaction.
Matthew L. Bolton, Radu I. Siminiceanu, Ellen J. Bass
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A2