Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Modeling Operator Behavior in the Safety Analysis of Collaborative Robotic Applications

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10488))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Human-Robot Collaboration is increasingly prominent in people’s lives and in the industrial domain, for example in manufacturing applications. The close proximity and frequent physical contacts between humans and robots in such applications make guaranteeing suitable levels of safety for human operators of the utmost importance. Formal verification techniques can help in this regard through the exhaustive exploration of system models, which can identify unwanted situations early in the development process. This work extends our SAFER-HRC methodology with a rich non-deterministic formal model of operator behaviors, which captures the hazardous situations resulting from human errors. The model allows safety engineers to refine their designs until all plausible erroneous behaviors are considered and mitigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Zot bounded satisfiability checker. http://github.com/fm-polimi/zot

  2. Anderson, J.R.: ACT: a simple theory of complex cognition. Am. Psychol. 51, 355–365 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Askarpour, M.: Risk assessment in collaborative robotics. In: Proceedings of FM-DS (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Askarpour, M., Mandrioli, D., Rossi, M., Vicentini, F.: SAFER-HRC: safety analysis through formal verification in human-robot collaboration. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9922, pp. 283–295. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45477-1_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baresi, L., Pourhashem Kallehbasti, M.M., Rossi, M.: Efficient scalable verification of LTL specifications. In: Proceedings of ICSE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Basnyat, S., Palanque, P.: A task pattern approach to incorporate user deviation in task models. In: Proceedings of ADVISES (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bolton, M.L.: Automatic validation and failure diagnosis of human-device interfaces using task analytic models and model checking. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 19, 288–312 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolton, M.L.: Model checking human-human communication protocols using task models and miscommunication generation. J. Aerospace Inf. Syst. 12, 476–489 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolton, M.L., Bass, E.J., Siminiceanu, R.I.: Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 70(11), 888–906 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bolton, M.L., Bass, E.J., Siminiceanu, R.I.: Using formal verification to evaluate human-automation interaction: a review. IEEE Trans. SMC Syst. 43(3), 488–503 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Butterworth, R., Blandford, A., Duke, D.: The role of formal proof in modelling interactive behaviour. In: Markopoulos, P., Johnson, P. (eds.) Proceedings of DSV-IS, pp. 87–101. Springer, Vienna (1998). doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-3693-5_7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Butterworth, R., Blandford, A., Duke, D.: Demonstrating the cognitive plausibility of interactive system specifications. Form. Asp. Comp. 12, 237–259 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Cerone, A., Lindsay, P.A., Connelly, S.: Formal analysis of human-computer interaction using model-checking. In: Proceedings of SEFM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cranor, L.F.: A framework for reasoning about the human in the loop. In: Proceedings of UPSEC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Curzon, P., Blandford, A.: From a formal user model to design rules. In: Forbrig, P., Limbourg, Q., Vanderdonckt, J., Urban, B. (eds.) DSV-IS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2545, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-36235-5_1

    Google Scholar 

  17. Curzon, P., Blandford, A.: Formally justifying user-centred design rules: a case study on post-completion errors. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 461–480. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24756-2_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Curzon, P., Rukšėnas, R., Blandford, A.: An approach to formal verification of human-computer interaction. Form. Asp. Comput. 19(4), 513–550 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Dix, A.J., Ghazali, M., Gill, S., Hare, J., Ramduny-Ellis, D.: Physigrams: modelling devices for natural interaction. Form. Asp. Comput. 21, 613 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Feng, L., Humphrey, L., Lee, I., Topcu, U.: Human-interpretable diagnostic information for robotic planning systems. In: Proceedings of IROS (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feng, L., Wiltsche, C., Humphrey, L., Topcu, U.: Synthesis of human-in-the-loop control protocols for autonomous systems. IEEE T-ASE 13(2), 450–462 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fields, R.E.: Analysis of erroneous actions in the design of critical systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fu, J., Topcu, U.: Synthesis of joint control and active sensing strategies under temporal logic constraints. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Furia, C.A., Mandrioli, D., Morzenti, A., Rossi, M.: Modeling Time in Computing (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hollnagel, E.: Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM) (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  26. International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 60812: 2006: Analysis techniques for system reliability - Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis

    Google Scholar 

  27. International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 60812: 2006: Fault tree analysis

    Google Scholar 

  28. International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 61882: Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) - Application guides

    Google Scholar 

  29. International Standard Organisation: ISO12100: 2010, Safety of machinery - General principles for design - Risk assessment and risk reduction

    Google Scholar 

  30. International Standard Organisation: ISO14121-2: 2007, Safety of machinery - Risk assessment - Part 2

    Google Scholar 

  31. International Standard Organisation: ISO/TS15066: 2015, Robots and robotic devices - Collaborative robots

    Google Scholar 

  32. Junges, S., Jansen, N., Katoen, J., Topcu, U.: Probabilistic model checking for complex cognitive tasks - A case study in human-robot interaction. CoRR (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kim, N., Rothrock, L., Joo, J., Wysk, R.A.: An affordance-based formalism for modeling human-involvement in complex systems for prospective control. In: Proceedings of WSC (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laird, J.E.: The Soar Cognitive Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lindsay, P.A., Connelly, S.: Modelling erroneous operator behaviours for an air-traffic control task. In: Proceedings of AUIC (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pan, D., Bolton, M.L.: Properties for formally assessing the performance level of human-human collaborative procedures with miscommunications and erroneous human behavior. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Paterno, F., Mancini, C., Meniconi, S.: ConcurTaskTrees: a diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In: Howard, S., Hammond, J., Lindgaard, G. (eds.) INTERACT 1997. IFIP AICT, pp. 362–369. Springer, Boston, MA (1997). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35175-9_58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Paternò, F., Santoro, C.: Preventing user errors by systematic analysis of deviations from the system task model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 56, 225–245 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Ritter, F.E., Rooy, D.V., Amant, R.S., Simpson, K.: Providing user models direct access to interfaces: an exploratory study of a simple interface with implications for HRI and HCI. IEEE Trans. SMC Syst. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ruksenas, R., Back, J., Curzon, P., Blandford, A.: Verification-guided modelling of salience and cognitive load. Form. Asp. Comput. 21, 541 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Salvucci, D.D., Lee, F.J.: Simple cognitive modeling in a complex cognitive architecture. In: Proceedings of CHI (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Shin, D., Wysk, R.A., Rothrock, L.: Formal model of human material-handling tasks for control of manufacturing systems. IEEE Trans. SMC Syst. 36(4), 685–696 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Werther, B., Schnieder, E.: Formal cognitive resource model: modeling of human behavior in complex work environments. In: Proceedings of CIMCA-IAWTIC (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Young, R.M., Green, T.R.G., Simon, T.J.: Programmable user models for predictive evaluation of interface designs. In: Proceedings of CHI (1989)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which helped us improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEIB, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Mehrnoosh Askarpour, Dino Mandrioli & Matteo Rossi

  2. CNR, ITIA, Milan, Italy

    Federico Vicentini

Authors
  1. Mehrnoosh Askarpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dino Mandrioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matteo Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Vicentini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehrnoosh Askarpour .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy

    Stefano Tonetta

  2. AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria

    Erwin Schoitsch

  3. Thales Deutschland GmbH, Ditzingen, Germany

    Friedemann Bitsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Askarpour, M., Mandrioli, D., Rossi, M., Vicentini, F. (2017). Modeling Operator Behavior in the Safety Analysis of Collaborative Robotic Applications. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10488. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66266-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66266-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66265-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66266-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics