Abstract
A characteristic that many emerging technologies and interaction techniques have in common is a shift towards tighter coupling between human and computer. In addition to traditional discrete interaction, more continuous interaction techniques, such as gesture recognition, haptic feedback and animation, play an increasingly important role. Additionally, many supervisory control systems (such as flight deck systems) already have a strong continuous element. The complexity of these systems and the need for rigorous analysis of the human factors involved in their operation leads us to examine formal and possibly automated support for their analysis. The fact that these systems have important temporal aspects and potentially involve continuous variables, besides discrete events, motivates the application of hybrid systems modelling, which has the expressive power to encompass these issues. Essentially, we are concerned with human-factors related questions whose answers are dependent on interactions between the user and a complex, dynamic system.
In this paper we explore the use of hybrid automata, a formalism for hybrid systems, for the specification and analysis of interactive systems. To illustrate the approach we apply it to the analysis of an existing flight deck instrument for monitoring and controlling the hydraulics subsystem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
H. Bowman, G.P. Faconti, and M. Massink, “Specification and verification of media constraints using UPPAAL,” in [18], 1998, pp. 261–277.
J.C. Campos and M.D. Harrison, “Formally verifying interactive systems: A review,” in M. Harrison and J. Torres (Eds.), Design, Specification, andVerification of Interactive Systems, Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop, Eurographic Books Series, Springer, Granada, Spain, 1997, pp. 109–124.
C. Daws, A. Olivero, S. Tripakis, and S. Yovine, “The tool KRONOS,” in Hybrid Systems III, Verification and Control, Vol. 1066 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 1996, pp. 208–219.
A. Dearden and M. Harrison, “Using executable interactor specifications to explore the impact of operator interaction error,” in P. Daniel (Ed.), SAFECOMP 97: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, Springer, York, U.K., 1997, pp. 138–147.
D. Diaper (Ed.), Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Ellis Horwood Books in Information Technology, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1989.
A. Dix, Formal Methods for Interactive Systems, Academic Press, London, U.K., 1991.
G. Doherty, “A Pragmatic Approach to the Formal Specification of Interactive Systems,” D.Phil. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, 1998.
D. Duke, P. Barnard, J. May, and D. Duce, “Syndetic modelling,” Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 337–393, 1998.
G. Faconti and D. Duke, “Device Models,” in F. Bodart and J. Vanderdonckt (Eds.), Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems'96, Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop, Eurographics Books Series, Springer, Namur, Belgium, 1996, pp. 73–91.
R.E. Fields and N.A. Merriam, “Inference and information resources: A design case study,” in [18], 1998, pp. 41–56.
G. Friedrich, G. Gottlob, and W. Nejdl, “Formalizing the repair process—extended report,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 11, Nos. 1–4, pp. 187–201, 1994. Special Issue on Principles of Model-Based Diagnosis, Baltzer Science Publishers.
M.D. Harrison and D. Duke, “A review of formalisms for describing interactive behaviour,” in R. Taylor and J. Coutaz (Eds.), Workshop on Software Engineering and Human Computer Interaction: Joint Research Issues, Proceedings of the ICSE'94 Workshop, Sorrento, Italy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 896, Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 49–75.
T.A. Henzinger, “The theory of hybrid automata,” in Proceedings of 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, 1996, pp. 278–292.
T.A. Henzinger, P.H. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi, “HyTech: A model checker for Hybrid Systems,” in O. Grumberg (Ed.), Computer Aided Verification, Proceedings of CAV'97, Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1254 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 110–122.
E. Hollnagel, Human Reliability Assessment, Context and Control, Academic Press, London, 1993.
P. Jensen, M. Sørensen, J. Gravgaard, and P. Christensen, “Using autograph to create input for hytech.” Available from http://www.docs.uu.se/docs/rtmv/upaal/.
K. Larsen, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi, “UPPAAL in a nutshell,” International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 134–152, 1997.
P. Markopoulos and P. Johnson (Eds.), Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Proceedings of the 5th Eurographics Workshop, Abingdon, U.K., Eurographics Book Series, Springer, 1998
E. Palmer, “Oops, it didn't arm—a case study of two automation surprises,” in R.S. Jensen and L.A. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1995, pp. 227–232.
J. Rushby, “Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises,” in D. Javaux (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rdWorkshop on Human Error, Safety and System Development (HESSD'99), University of Liege, Belgium, 1999. A revised journal version is due to appear in Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier.
S. Smith, D. Duke, and M. Massink, “The hybrid world of virtual environments,” in P. Brunet and R. Scopigno (Eds.), Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 297–307, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doherty, G., Massink, M. & Faconti, G. Using Hybrid Automata to Support Human Factors Analysis in a Critical System. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 143–164 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011232016683
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011232016683