Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “human autonomy”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Beyond Point Design: General Pattern to Specific Implementations

We have previously laid out a general framework for Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) and described how we applied this framework to a specific aeronautic task. In this presentation we demonstrate the applicability of these same principles to two familiar areas, photography and driving directions, focusing on bi-directional communication. We argue that good HAT requires communication of situation variables including operator goals and preferences and threats to meeting them, options including rationale, projected outcomes and confidence, and delegation.

human factors↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HAT m:N Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA)

This Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) study was designed to understand the capability of the m:N Tactical Operator (TO) interfaces developed by the Human-Autonomy Teaming Laboratory at NASA Ames to support operators responsible for simplified pilot operations of 100 independently operated small UAS (sUAS) in a constrained geographic area. The m:N sUAS TO interface includes a central Tactical Situation Display (TSD) digital map with moving icons reflecting the sUAS location and planned flight route. The interface also has two side panels. The left panel includes a tabular list of UAS assets and mission tasking, a list of recently viewed assets, and a list of events and alerts. The right panel includes a tabular list of UAS assets and their associated telemetry, text-based chat communication window, and a tabbed checklist window. This CTA was adapted from the incident-based applied cognitive task analysis (Militello & Hutton, 1998) and included demographics questions, scenario-based simulations, a task diagram and knowledge audit methods. In addition to examining the support provided by this m:N sUAS TO interface, this CTA study, conducted with aviation subject matter experts in analogous roles to the future tactical operator, was designed to illuminate and project likely cognitive requirements of the tactical operator. Interviewees participated in two scenario-based simulations using the m:N sUAS TO interfaces. In the first simulation, the interviewees supervised 12 sUAS operating in downtown San Diego, California transiting to and from a central sUAS Hive, restaurant locations, and customer drop off locations. Interviewees were asked to react to a UAS Volume Reservation (UVR) event with a two-phase impact on food delivery operations. In the second scenario, the interviewees supervised 100 sUAS operating in the same airspace and with the same mission. Interviewees used the interfaces to recognize and react to two sUAS air vehicle problems. After each scenario, we asked the interviewees a semi-structured list of questions to elicit their reflections about using the interfaces. Interviewees were confident in their ability to respond to two off-nominal situations in each simulation. Interviewees felt that, given high levels of automation on the sUAS, they would be able to manage the events without requiring additional support or handing off the sUAS to a colleague or supervisor in both the n=12 or n=100 sUAS settings. In the n=12 sUAS condition, interviewees used the center map to understand the asset location and progress along with mission tasking. An additional display window, Asset Telemetry, helped interviewees understand battery state and sUAS altitude. When the number of sUAS increased, interviewees altered their behavior. Rather than maintaining awareness of individual assets, interviewees appeared to become more reactive, managing exceptions. Interviewees reported that they spent less time looking at the nominal aircraft, and focused their attention primarily on the off-nominal aircraft. In addition, in the second simulation with n=100 sUAS, interviewees reported that they relied more on the side panels (Mission Timeline and Asset Telemetry) to gather information.

human-autonomy teaming↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazard Perception & Avoidance (HPA): Part Task 1 - Results Outbrief

n April 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part task HITL began the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals were to assess levels of automation for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation tested manual and automated Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the first version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This was conducted on a fixed-based simulator designed to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study included levels of autonomy (i.e., manual and automated) as well as the types of alerts at the onset of conflicts (i.e., Corrective and RA). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability, and perceived workload. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗
NASA NTRS2017

What Machines Need to Learn to Support Human Problem-Solving

In the development of intelligent systems that interact with humans, there is often confusion between how the system functions with respect to the humans it interacts with and how it interfaces with those humans. The former is a much deeper challenge than the latter it requires a system-level understanding of evolving human roles as well as an understanding of what humans need to know (and when) in order to perform their tasks. This talk will focus on some of the challenges in getting this right as well as on the type of research and development that results in successful human-autonomy teaming. Brief Bio: Dr. Alonso Vera is Chief of the Human Systems Integration Division at NASA Ames Research Center. His expertise is in human-computer interaction, information systems, artificial intelligence, and computational human performance modeling. He has led the design, development and deployment of mission software systems across NASA robotic and human space flight missions, including Mars Exploration Rovers, Phoenix Mars Lander, ISS, Constellation, and Exploration Systems. Dr. Vera received a Bachelor of Science with First Class Honors from McGill University in 1985 and a Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1991. He went on to a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University from 1990-93.

intelligent systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assured Vehicle Automation 1 Sim - Results Outbrief

In early 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part-task HITL began the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The results of that sim guided the objectives of the current study, which were to examine pilots’ use of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) rotorcraft variant (Xr) v2 in multiple phases of flight with two separate Xr Modes, fully leverage Xr v2 features (e.g., use radar altimeter data to inform low altitude Resolution Advisory [RA] behavior, utilize the ability to designate “terminal-area intruders,” and display airspeed-based Detect and Avoid [DAA] guidance), emulate a “Traffic Advisory” (TA), and present Xr in a higher-fidelity environment. Therefore, this study was conducted in the Vertical Motion Simulator, and the variables included Phase of Flight (En-route, Hover, and Approach) as well as ACAS Xr Mode (TA/RA and DAA). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability and usability. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazard Perception & Avoidance (HPA), Assured Vehicle Automation 1 Simulation (AVA-1h) Results Outbrief

In late 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This HITL was the lab’s second Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals were to assess detect and avoid technology for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation tested Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the second version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This was conducted at the center's Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), on a motion-based platform, and was configured to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study included ACAS Xr modes (i.e., TA/RA and DAA) and phases of flight (i.e., Cruise, Hover, and Approach). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and pilots' noncompliances to alerts and guidance as well as subjective ratings like acceptability and perceived workload. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

ACAS Xr↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ACAS Xr Part Task Sim, Preliminary Experiment Design

In early 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) will conduct a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part task HITL will begin the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals will be to assess levels of automation for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation will test manual and automated Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the first version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This will be conducted on a fixed-based simulator designed to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study include levels of autonomy (i.e., manual and automated) as well as the types of alerts at the onset of conflicts (i.e., Corrective and RA). The data collected will include response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability, perceived workload, and meaningful human control. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) Ground Control Station: Design Approach and Initial Usability Results

Envisioned future Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) operations will require a transition of aircraft command and control from onboard pilots to remote operators. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has developed a research ground control station (GCS) software called MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) to study the human factors of remote operators in a representative AAM environment, where small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS; simulated or real) act as surrogates for larger AAM aircraft. A primary focus of the research being conducted with the MPATH GCS is scalability (i.e., one human managing multiple vehicles). MPATH has demonstrated to be a useful capability for human factors research and remote operations. Two initial usability studies and a multi-vehicle control assessment were recently conducted, and usability data and operator feedback were collected. Generally, participants rated MPATH high on usability and interface quality, whereas information quality was rated slightly lower. These results were supported by specific feedback. Several generalized GCS design recommendations are proposed based on the results and feedback from these flight activities. Future updates to MPATH will incorporate the proposed recommendations. In practice, these recommendations could be used by any GCS software designer or developer to promote usability and safety.

Advanced Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HAT m:N Activity Overview

Since 2020, researchers from the Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center have conducted human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation research to study a new control paradigm for operations involving multiple remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). Colloquially referred to as "m:N," this paradigm is characterized by multiple operators collaboratively controlling multiple vehicles between them. The m:N name expresses a ratio whereby m is the number of operators and N is the number of vehicles shared between them. In this presentation, HAT Lab researchers provide a high-level overview of the m:N studies that have been performed to-date. These include a study of the m:N concept of operations (CONOPS) and the attending roles and responsibilities ("ConOps/R&R Sim"), a study focused on contingency management involving dynamic, inter-operator transfers of vehicles ("Handoff Sim"), and a study examining the effects of pilot-ATC communication systems on workload ("UAM Comms Sim"). A selection of key results are provided. The presentation concludes with a brief discussion of planned research into m:N operations.

m:N↗
DOE OSTI2024

Exploring the role of judgement and shared situation awareness when working with AI recommender systems

Abstract AI-advised Decision Making is a form of human-autonomy teaming in which an AI recommender system suggests a solution to a human operator, who is responsible for the final decision. This work seeks to examine the importance of judgement and shared situation awareness between humans and automated agents when interacting together in the form of a recommender systems. We propose manipulating both human judgement and shared situation awareness by providing the human decision maker with relevant information that the automated agent (AI), in the form of a recommender system, uses to generate possible courses of action. This paper presents the results of a two-phase between-subjects study in which participants and a recommender system jointly make a high-stakes decision. We varied the amount of relevant information the participant had, the assessment technique of the proposed solution, and the reliability of the recommender system. Findings indicate that this technique of supporting the human’s judgement and establishing a shared situation awareness is effective in (1) boosting the human decision maker’s situation awareness and task performance, (2) calibrating their trust in AI teammates, and (3) reducing overreliance on an AI partner. Additionally, participants were able to pinpoint the limitations and boundaries of the AI partner’s capabilities. They were able to discern situations where the AI’s recommendations could be trusted versus instances when they should not rely on the AI’s advice. This work proposes and validates a way to provide model-agnostic transparency into recommender systems that can support the human decision maker and lead to improved team performance.

Srivastava, Divya↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thinking outside the box: The human role in increasingly automated aviation systems

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence are enabling automated systems to operate in an increasingly autonomous manner in domains that previously required the involvement of human operators. Examples are rail transport systems, self-driving cars, and warehouse delivery systems. From time to time, such automation encounters operational conditions that fall outside a “competency box” within which the system has been designed to operate. Human operators add resilience because they can see and act outside the competency box of scenarios and environments for which the system was designed. The system’s competencies can be expanded over time with modifications to software, sensors, etc.; however, it is unclear at what point the competency box becomes large enough to safely eliminate the role of the human operator. One area where advanced automation may be applied is Urban Air Mobility (UAM). Current UAM concepts envision fleets of highly automated air vehicles providing on-demand transport for people and goods. A phased development of UAM has been proposed, beginning with on-board pilots and transitioning to a future state where automated vehicles operate with minimal human involvement. Proponents of UAM note that this final state reduces cost as well as eliminating pilot error, identified as a contributing factor in many aircraft accidents. However, eliminating human involvement also risks eliminating their positive contributions to system resilience. Here we examine Concepts of Operation proposed for future UAM systems and explore how humans can best be incorporated to maintain resilience while minimizing cost and risk. A human-autonomy teaming approach is suggested.

Advanced Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2017

Beyond Point Design: General Pattern to Specific Implementations

Elsewhere we have discussed a number of problems typical of highly automated systems and proposed tenets for addressing these problems based on Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT)[1]. We have examined these principles in the context of aviation [2,3]. Here we discuss the generality of these tenets by examining how they might be applied to photography and automotive navigation. While these domains are very different, we find application of our HAT tenets provides a number of opportunities for improving interaction between human operators and automation. We then illustrate how the generalities found across aviation, photography and navigation can be captured in a design pattern.

Lachter, Joel Benjamin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

m:N Operations High Complexity Simulation

The Human Autonomy Teaming Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) is planning to conduct an experiment investigating system-level effects operational vertiport disruptions on Urban Air Mobility (UAM) traffic in a simulated vertiport network in Denver, CO. The simulation will involve two parties, one at NASA ARC and another at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), each playing the role of a UAM Operator. This study, referred to as the "High Complexity Sim," features a 3-by-2-by-2 mixed subjects design. The variables to be manipulated are the scale of the disruption (Disruption, three levels: Small, Medium, and Large, affecting 1, 2, and 3+, vertiports, respectively), m:N ratio (Ratio, two levels: 2:6 and 2:12), and the assumption of UAM corridors (Corridors, two levels: With and Without). Local and system-wide capacity (i.e., throughput), efficiency (scale and number of flight delays, filed-vs-flown flight times), and human performance metrics (workload, situation awareness, heart rate/heart rate variability, eye gaze/fixation and saccades, stress) will be measured. This presentation details the experimental design and planned timeline for the study.

multi-vehicle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Autonomous sUAS Separation Methods on Subjective Workload, Situation Awareness, and Trust

The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) concept was designed to support autonomous small UAS operations at a large-scale and without direct human intervention. However, human-autonomy interactions will be impacted by situation awareness, workload, and trust in the autonomy. Method: Nine participants monitored live small UAS operations in a representative UTM system during a series of traffic conflict scenarios and then provided subjective responses regarding situation awareness, workload, and trust in the autonomous separation method. The study employed a 3 (Separation Method: Autonomous Sense and Avoid, Geofence, Manual) × 2 (Incursion: High, Medium) within subjects design. Results: Situation awareness ratings for both autonomous separation methods were significantly lower than the manual condition. An interaction indicated differential workload ratings for the Autonomous Sense and Avoid separation ratings. Trust ratings significantly dropped when the Geofencing separation method failed. Conclusion: Subjective responses of remote operators in the UTM system are affected by the vehicle separation methods. Operators’ understanding of decisions made by the autonomous systems onboard the vehicle likely influence this effect

UAS↗
NASA NTRS2001

Empirical Requirements Analysis for Mars Surface Operations Using the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station

Living and working on Mars will require model-based computer systems for maintaining and controlling complex life support, communication, transportation, and power systems. This technology must work properly on the first three-year mission, augmenting human autonomy, without adding-yet more complexity to be diagnosed and repaired. One design method is to work with scientists in analog (mars-like) setting to understand how they prefer to work, what constrains will be imposed by the Mars environment, and how to ameliorate difficulties. We describe how we are using empirical requirements analysis to prototype model-based tools at a research station in the High Canadian Arctic.

Clancey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Advancing Aircraft Operations in a Net-Centric Environment with the Incorporation of Increasingly Autonomous Systems and Human Teaming

NextGen has begun the modernization of the nation’s air transportation system, with goals to improve system safety, increase operation efficiency and capacity, provide enhanced predictability, resilience and robustness. With these improvements, NextGen is poised to handle significant increases in air traffic operations, more than twice the number recorded in 2016, by 2025.1 NextGen is evolving toward collaborative decision-making across many agents, including automation, by use of a Net-Centric architecture, which in itself creates a very complex environment in which the navigation and operation of aircraft are to take place. An intricate environment such as this, coupled with the expected upsurge of air traffic operations generates concern respecting the ability of the human-agent to both fly and manage aircraft within. Therefore, it is both necessary and practical to begin the process of increasingly autonomous systems within the cockpit that will act independently to assist the human-agent achieve the overall goal of NextGen. However, the straightforward technological development and implementation of intelligent machines into the cockpit is only part of what is necessary to maintain, at minimum, or improve human-agent functionality, as desired, while operating in NextGen. The full integration of Increasingly Autonomous Systems (IAS) within the cockpit can only be accomplished when the IAS works in concert with the human, formulating trust between the two, thereby establishing a team atmosphere. Imperative to cockpit implementation is ensuring the proper performance of the IAS by the development team and the human-agent with which it will be paired when given a specific piloting, navigation, or observational task. Described in this paper are the steps taken, at NASA Langley Research Center, during the second and third phases of the development of an IAS, the Traffic Data Manager (TDM), its verification and validation by human-agents, and the foundational development of Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT) between the two.

Houston, Vincent E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Examining the Changing Roles and Responsibilities of Humans in Envisioned Future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems

Advances in technology are enabling new concepts of operations that will trans-form aviation including increasingly autonomous capabilities to handle evolving complex dynamic ecosystems like those associated with Advanced Aerial Mobility. A major challenge is how to ensure today’s safety levels are maintained as the system scales for rapid detection and timely mitigation of safety issues. NASA has developed a concept of operation for In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS) that represents a system-of-system perspective on interconnected capabilities needed to proactively reduce risk in complex operational environments where unknown hazards may exist. As a result, NASA research priorities include under-standing how the balance between humans and automation changes in such envisioned systems, which may lead to novel human-machine interaction paradigms and human-autonomy teaming for informed contingency management.

Lawrence Prinzel↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Remote, Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation of a Multiple-Drone Delivery Operation

Over time, advances in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have enabled a shift in the operational paradigm from one operator managing one aircraft to that of multiple operators working together to manage multiple aircraft. This shift has highlighted the need for effective human-autonomy teaming methods to maintain manageable workload levels for operators as well as high standards of system performance and safety. This paper presents a study aimed at evaluating whether automation can help operators manage workload during small UAS (sUAS) package delivery scenarios featuring contingency situations. These contingency situations, resulting from unplanned UAS Volume Reservations (UVRs), required flight path reroutes for multiple aircraft simultaneously. The study manipulated the number of aircraft affected by the UVRs and the level of automation support. The presence of terrain conflicts was also controlled within each scenario. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, subjects were not able to gain direct access to the Ground Control System (GCS). Therefore, the study was conducted using a subject-surrogate paradigm that required subjects to relay commands through a verbal protocol from remote locations outside of the lab to a researcher surrogate who had direct control of the GCS interfaces at the lab location. Results show that the automated support condition was associated with faster reroute response times, more efficient reroute maneuvers, and significantly lower levels of perceived workload than the manual reroute condition. However, the automation support level did not significantly impact pilots’ ability to avoid the UVR successfully; pilots were overwhelmingly capable of avoiding the UVR in all conditions. The presence of terrain conflicts primarily impacted pilot performance by leading to multiple uploads per vehicle, which was not typically required when pilots only needed to maneuver laterally. Although subjects did not have direct control over the GCS, subjective ratings indicate that the displays under test provided them with sufficient information to manage their aircraft and promptly respond to the unplanned UVRs. Overall, the objective and subjective data strongly suggest that the verbal protocol and subject-surrogate paradigm were effective methods for collecting data remotely amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

multi-UAS↗