Integrating Models of Personality and Emotions into Lifelike Characters

A growing number of research projects in academia and industry have recently started to develop lifelike agents as a new metaphor for highly personalised human-machine communication. A strong argument in favour of using such characters in the interface is the fact that they make humancomputer interaction more enjoyable and allow for communication styles common in human-human dialogue. In this paper we discuss three ongoing projects that use personality and emotions to address different aspects of the affective agent-user interface: (a) Puppet uses affect to teach children how the different emotional states can change or modify a character's behaviour, and how physical and verbal actions in social interactions can induce emotions in others; (b) the Inhabited Market Place uses affect to tailor the roles of actors in a virtual market place; and (c) Presence uses affect to enhance the believability of a virtual character, and produce a more natural conversational manner

Exploiting models of personality and emotions to control the behavior of animated interactive agents

The German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) recently started three new projects1 to advance our understanding of the fundamental technology required to drive the social behaviour of interactive animated agents. This initiative has been timed to catch the current wave of research and commercial interest in the field of lifelike characters [1] an

FASTBALLAST

This technical report presents findings from bench-scale verification tests evaluating the performance of the FastBallast compliance monitoring device in freshwater. FastBallast was developed by Chelsea Technologies Ltd. of Surrey, UK. The evaluation of the FastBallast compliance monitoring device began in August 2020 and ended in December 2020 at the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) of the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS) in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. The FastBallast device employs Single Turnover Active Fluorometry (STAF) to rapidly quantify living organisms in ballast water samples in the ≥10 µm and <50 µm (nominally protists) regulated size class, providing an indication of compliance or exceedance of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard (2004). Verification testing composed of three phases in which results using the FastBallast device were compared to results using microscopic methods. Phase I testing was completed in two water types with laboratory-cultured organisms in the protist regulated size class, utilizing the single-celled protist Haematococcus pluvialis and colonial protist Scenedesmus quadricauda. Phase II testing was completed using naturally occurring Great Lakes organisms in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of Lake Superior. Phase III testing was completed using Duluth-Superior harbor water an ambient organism before and after treatment with a ballast water treatment (BWT) technology during three land-based trials. Data from all phases were analyzed for precision, accuracy, and reliability. Quantification/detection limits were calculated using data from Phase I testing. Phase I testing showed that FastBallast was effective at quantifying single-celled protists but was less accurate at counting colonial protists. Increased turbidity and carbon content slightly impacted FastBallast results, however, both water types displayed strong correlations to microscopic counts. FastBallast results were lower than microscopic counts in all trials of Phase I. Phase II testing showed strong correlations between the FastBallast results and microscopic results of protists collected from the Duluth-Superior Harbor, however the counts reported by FastBallast were 4 to 10 times greater than the microscopic counts. Phase III testing showed FastBallast accurately measured uptake and treated discharge water from samples collected during a land-based BWT technology evaluation. FastBallast counts were more similar to the density of protist entities ≥10 µm in any dimension than they were to live density of individual protist cells comprising entities ≥10 µm in minimum dimension. The device was found to have minor operational issues but was found reliable for measuring organisms within the protist size class.LSRI-GWRC would like to thank Chelsea Technologies Ltd. (Surrey, UK) for their application to our laboratory-based testing program and for providing the FastBallast device and the expendable supplies for analysis. Mary Burkitt-Gray and Kevin Oxborough at Chelsea Technologies Ltd. provided operational training support prior to the start of testing and were also instrumental in helping to troubleshoot technical/operational issues that occurred during testing. This work was supported by a grant from the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration’s Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program

Ballast Eye

This technical report presents findings from freshwater verification tests evaluating the performance of the Satake Ballast Eye Viable Organism Analyzer VOA1000K compliance monitoring device, hereafter Ballast Eye. Ballast Eye was developed by Satake Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan. The compliance monitoring device evaluation began in August 2020 and ended in December 2020 at the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) of the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS) in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. Ballast Eye estimates the number of viable organisms and associated risk based on IMO D-2 ballast water discharge standards in the ≥10 and <50 µm (nominally protists) and ≥50 µm (nominally zooplankton) regulated size classes by measuring the fluorescence pulse number from fluorescein diacetate (FDA) stained organisms within a water sample. The verification testing was composed of three phases. Phase I testing was completed in two water types with laboratory-cultured organisms in the two regulated size classes, utilizing the single-celled protist Haematococcus pluvialis and colonial protist Scenedesmus quadricauda, and the zooplankton Daphnia magna and Eucyclops spp. Phase II was completed using naturally occurring Great Lakes organisms in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of western Lake Superior in the two regulated size classes. Phase III testing was completed using Duluth-Superior harbor water and ambient organisms before and after treatment with a ballast water treatment technology (BWT) during three land-based trials. Data from all phases were analyzed for precision, accuracy, and reliability. Quantification/detection limits were calculated for Phase I data. Phase I testing showed Ballast Eye was able to accurately estimate the number of zooplankton in high and low transparency water, while protist concentrations were not accurately determined. Phase II testing showed Ballast Eye was unable to accurately estimate the number or risk of ambient zooplankton or protists in Duluth-Superior harbor water. Phase III testing showed that Ballast Eye was able to accurately classify risk of ambient zooplankton or protists within uptake and treated discharge samples collected during land-based ballast water treatment technology testing at the Montreal Pier Facility located on the Duluth-Superior harbor.LSRI-GWRC would like to thank Satake Corporation (Hiroshima, Japan) and MOL Techno-Trade Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) for their application to our laboratory-based testing program and for providing Ballast Eye and the expendable supplies for analysis. Hiroki Ishizuki, Yoshinori Tazoe, and Shinya Fushida provided operational training support prior to the start of testing and were instrumental in helping to troubleshoot technical/operational issues that occurred during testing. This work was supported by a grant from the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration’s Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program

BallastWISE

This technical report presents findings from freshwater verification tests evaluating the performance of the MicroWISE BallastWISE compliance monitoring device, hereafter BallastWISE. BallastWISE was developed by MicroWISE, located in Ebeltoft, Denmark. The compliance monitoring device evaluation began in August 2020 and ended in December 2020, at the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) of the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS) in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. BallastWISE utilizes separate chambers to enumerate organisms in each of two regulated size classes, ≥10 and <50 µm (nominally protists) and ≥50 µm (nominally zooplankton). Cameras and optical chambers capture video and track motility through software analysis for the zooplankton size class. Fluorescence microscopy evaluates chlorophyll containing organisms in addition to motility tracking in the protist size class. The verification testing was composed of three phases. Phase I testing was completed in two water types with laboratory-cultured organisms in the two regulated size classes, utilizing the single-celled protist Haematococcus pluvialis and colonial protist Scenedesmus quadricauda, and the zooplankton Eucyclops spp. and Daphnia magna. Phase II testing was completed using naturally occurring Great Lakes organisms in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of Lake Superior in the two regulated size classes. Phase III testing was completed using Duluth-Superior Harbor water and ambient organisms before and after treatment with a ballast water treatment technology (BWT) during three land-based trials. Data from all phases were analyzed for precision, accuracy, and reliability. Quantification/detection limits were also calculated from Phase I data . Phase I testing showed BallastWISE was effective at quantifying single-celled protists to within about 20% of the microscopic counts, but undercounted colonial protists. Colonial protist entity counts were close to microscopic entity counts suggesting that individuals within the colonies were not resolved. High total suspended solids (TSS) and (DOC) may slightly reduce BallastWISE sensitivity to protists. BallastWISE overcounted zooplankton in both species tested in both high and low TSS/DOC by between 150% and 420%. Phase II testing from the Duluth-Superior Harbor showed BallastWISE counts of natural assemblages of protists strictly in the ≥10 and <50 μm size class to be slightly below microscopic counts by about 35% and with high precision. Zooplankton were overestimated by BallastWISE by roughly 40% and with considerably more variation compared to microscopic counts. Phase III testing showed low BallastWISE accuracy and precision in untreated protist and zooplankton samples. This may have been caused by organism densities higher than the device’s effective upper limit of detection in the zooplankton samples, but further investigation would be needed to determine the cause of low accuracy and precision in protist analysis. BallastWISE accurately measured treated protist samples as 0 cells/mL in agreement with strict microscopic counts, but overcounted treated zooplankton samples in 2 out of 3 tests, possibly due to the method of treatment. A number of operational issues made enumeration of zooplankton unreliable, but improvements (e.g., software updates, guidance on device operation) from the developer over the period of this assessment have already improved performance. BallastWISE shows promise as a useful device for detecting and measuring protists and zooplankton in the Great Lakes as additional improvements are made.LSRI-GWRC would like to thank MicroWISE (Ebeltoft, Denmark) for their application to our laboratory-based testing program and for providing the BallastWISE system and the expendable supplies for analysis. Pia Haecky, MicroWISE CEO, and Nicholas Blackburn, MicroWISE Software Development, provided operational training support prior to the start of testing and were also instrumental in helping to troubleshoot technical/operational issues that occurred during testing. This work was supported by the United States Maritime Administration (United States Department of Transportation; Washington, D.C)

LAND-BASED EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BAWAT BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MK2-MOBILE TREATMENT UNIT

This technical report represents the land-based evaluation of the Bawat Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Mk2 – Mobile Treatment Unit, developed by Bawat A/S Agern Alle, 2970 Horsholm, Denmark (www.bawat.com). This work was conducted to evaluate the potential of the system to be used as a flow-through water treatment method for the Laurentian Great Lakes, treating via heat treatment with one pass of water through the treatment system. The evaluation began in September 2021 and ended October 2021. All analyses were conducted at either the Montreal Pier Facility or the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) at the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS), both located in Superior, WI, USA. Biological effectiveness was examined at the Montreal Pier Facility during a commissioning trial and four efficacy trials with a single pass of harbor water through the Bawat BWMS Mk2 – Mobile Treatment Unit. Harbor water was amended to achieve ETV Protocol challenge conditions. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of remaining live organisms in three size classes per unit volume: organisms ≥50 µm in minimum dimension (nominally zooplankton), organism entities ≥10 µm in any dimension and with cell sizes <50 µm in minimum dimension (nominally protists), and organisms <10 µm in minimum dimension (e.g., total culturable heterotrophic bacteria, total coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., and toxigenic Vibrio cholerae O1 and O139). Samples were compared to the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (USCG, 2012) with a focus on the reduction in the number of propagules in the treated water. The Bawat BWMS Mk2 was found to be highly effective at reducing the densities of organisms in all three regulated size classes. E. coli and Enterococcus spp., and Vibrio cholerae densities on discharge were below the USCG ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) in all trials. Protist densities were below the USCG BWDS in all but the final trial. Temperature of discharge water was approximately 5°C higher than uptake water, but other water quality parameters were minimally impacted by treatment

LAND-BASED EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OPTIMARIN BALLAST SYSTEM IN THE GREAT LAKES

This technical report presents the land-based evaluation of the Optimarin Ballast System, Model 334/340FX2. This work was conducted to evaluate the potential of the system to be used as a flow-through water treatment method for the Laurentian Great Lakes, treating via filtration and UV exposure on uptake and UV exposure again on discharge. The evaluation began September 2021 and ended October 2021. All analyses were conducted at either the Montreal Pier Facility or the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) at the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS), both located in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. Biological effectiveness was examined during a commissioning trial and five efficacy trials with overnight retention of harbor water at the Montreal Pier Facility that was amended to achieve ETV Protocol challenge conditions. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of remaining live organisms in three size classes per unit volume: organisms ≥50 µm in minimum dimension (nominally zooplankton), organism entities ≥10 µm in any dimension and with cell sizes 95% compared to control discharge samples

LAND-BASED EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OPTIMARIN DN100 AND DN150 BALLAST SYSTEMS IN THE GREAT LAKES

This technical report presents the land-based evaluation of two Optimarin Ballast System models. The focus was primarily on the Model 68/340FX2 using a DN100 chamber but also includes data for one trial using the Model 334/340FX2 with a DN150 ultraviolet (UV) chamber. This work evaluated the potential of the systems to be used as a flow-through water treatment methods for the Laurentian Great Lakes, treating via filtration and UV exposure on uptake and UV exposure again on discharge. The evaluation began August 2022 and ended October 2022. All analyses were conducted at either the Montreal Pier Facility or the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) at the University of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS), both located in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. Biological effectiveness was examined during five efficacy trials, which included overnight retention of treated harbor water at the Montreal Pier Facility that had been amended to achieve ETV Protocol challenge conditions (NSF International, 2010). Trial 1 assessed performance of both systems consecutively during a short timeframe to ensure water quality was as similar as possible. In Trials 2-5, the Model 68/340FX2 with a DN100 UV chamber was tested. Biological effectiveness was assessed in terms of remaining live organisms in three size classes per unit volume: • Organisms ≥50 µm in minimum dimension (nominally zooplankton), • organisms ≥10 µm and <50 µm in minimum dimension (nominally protists), • and organisms <10 µm in minimum dimension (nominally bacteria; e.g., total culturable heterotrophic bacteria, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., and toxigenic Vibrio cholerae O1 and O139). Samples were compared to the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (U.S. Coast Guard, 2012) with a focus on the reduction in the number of propagules in treated water versus control water. The Model 68/340FX2 Optimarin system using a DN100 UV chamber was found to be effective at reducing the densities of organisms in all three regulated size classes. The densities of zooplankton in treatment discharge samples did not meet the USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS) but were >98% lower than control discharge in all trials. The densities of protists in the treatment discharge samples were above the USCG BWDS in all trials but had decreased by >84% when compared to control discharge samples. All indicator bacteria (i.e., E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Vibrio Cholerae) were below the USCG BWDS on uptake and discharge and decreased to less than the limit of detection after treatment. The Optimarin system Model 334/340FX2 using a DN150 ultraviolet (UV) chamber showed very similar trends to in all size classes when compared to testing completed in 2021 (Polkinghorne et al., 2022) and when compared to testing completed in 2022 with Model 68/340FX2 Optimarin system using a DN100 UV chamber