Guided self-organisation in open distributed systems

[no abstract

Trusted community : a novel multiagent organisation for open distributed systems

[no abstract

Foundations of Trusted Autonomy

Trusted Autonomy; Automation Technology; Autonomous Systems; Self-Governance; Trusted Autonomous Systems; Design of Algorithms and Methodologie

Robust hybrid central/self-organising multi-agent systems in intersections without traffic lights

[no abstract

Alter ego, state of the art on user profiling: an overview of the most relevant organisational and behavioural aspects regarding User Profiling.

This report gives an overview of the most relevant organisational and\ud behavioural aspects regarding user profiling. It discusses not only the\ud most important aims of user profiling from both an organisation’s as\ud well as a user’s perspective, it will also discuss organisational motives\ud and barriers for user profiling and the most important conditions for\ud the success of user profiling. Finally recommendations are made and\ud suggestions for further research are given

Designing Usable and Secure Authentication Mechanisms for Public Spaces

Usable and secure authentication is a research field that approaches different challenges related to authentication, including security, from a human-computer interaction perspective. That is, work in this field tries to overcome security, memorability and performance problems that are related to the interaction with an authentication mechanism. More and more services that require authentication, like ticket vending machines or automated teller machines (ATMs), take place in a public setting, in which security threats are more inherent than in other settings. In this work, we approach the problem of usable and secure authentication for public spaces. The key result of the work reported here is a set of well-founded criteria for the systematic evaluation of authentication mechanisms. These criteria are justified by two different types of investigation, which are on the one hand prototypical examples of authentication mechanisms with improved usability and security, and on the other hand empirical studies of security-related behavior in public spaces. So this work can be structured in three steps: Firstly, we present five authentication mechanisms that were designed to overcome the main weaknesses of related work which we identified using a newly created categorization of authentication mechanisms for public spaces. The systems were evaluated in detail and showed encouraging results for future use. This and the negative sides and problems that we encountered with these systems helped us to gain diverse insights on the design and evaluation process of such systems in general. It showed that the development process of authentication mechanisms for public spaces needs to be improved to create better results. Along with this, it provided insights on why related work is difficult to compare to each other. Keeping this in mind, first criteria were identified that can fill these holes and improve design and evaluation of authentication mechanisms, with a focus on the public setting. Furthermore, a series of work was performed to gain insights on factors influencing the quality of authentication mechanisms and to define a catalog of criteria that can be used to support creating such systems. It includes a long-term study of different PIN-entry systems as well as two field studies and field interviews on real world ATM-use. With this, we could refine the previous criteria and define additional criteria, many of them related to human factors. For instance, we showed that social issues, like trust, can highly affect the security of an authentication mechanism. We used these results to define a catalog of seven criteria. Besides their definition, we provide information on how applying them influences the design, implementation and evaluation of a the development process, and more specifically, how adherence improves authentication in general. A comparison of two authentication mechanisms for public spaces shows that a system that fulfills the criteria outperforms a system with less compliance. We could also show that compliance not only improves the authentication mechanisms themselves, it also allows for detailed comparisons between different systems

Automation bias and prescribing decision support – rates, mediators and mitigators

Purpose: Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are implemented within healthcare settings as a method to improve clinical decision quality, safety and effectiveness, and ultimately patient outcomes. Though CDSSs tend to improve practitioner performance and clinical outcomes, relatively little is known about specific impact of inaccurate CDSS output on clinicians. Although there is high heterogeneity between CDSS types and studies, reviews of the ability of CDSS to prevent medication errors through incorrect decisions have generally been consistently positive, working by improving clinical judgement and decision making. However, it is known that the occasional incorrect advice given may tempt users to reverse a correct decision, and thus introduce new errors. These systematic errors can stem from Automation Bias (AB), an effect which has had little investigation within the healthcare field, where users have a tendency to use automated advice heuristically. Research is required to assess the rate of AB, identify factors and situations involved in overreliance and propose says to mitigate risk and refine the appropriate usage of CDSS; this can provide information to promote awareness of the effect, and ensure the maximisation of the impact of benefits gained from the implementation of CDSS. Background: A broader literature review was carried out coupled with a systematic review of studies investigating the impact of automated decision support on user decisions over various clinical and non-clinical domains. This aimed to identify gaps in the literature and build an evidence-based model of reliance on Decision Support Systems (DSS), particularly a bias towards over-using automation. The literature review and systematic review revealed a number of postulates - that CDSS are socio-technical systems, and that factors involved in CDSS misuse can vary from overarching social or cultural factors, individual cognitive variables to more specific technology design issues. However, the systematic review revealed there is a paucity of deliberate empirical evidence for this effect. The reviews identified the variables involved in automation bias to develop a conceptual model of overreliance, the initial development of an ontology for AB, and ultimately inform an empirical study to investigate persuasive potential factors involved: task difficulty, time pressure, CDSS trust, decision confidence, CDSS experience and clinical experience. The domain of primary care prescribing was chosen within which to carry out an empirical study, due to the evidence supporting CDSS usefulness in prescribing, and the high rate of prescribing error. Empirical Study Methodology: Twenty simulated prescribing scenarios with associated correct and incorrect answers were developed and validated by prescribing experts. An online Clinical Decision Support Simulator was used to display scenarios to users. NHS General Practitioners (GPs) were contacted via emails through associates of the Centre for Health Informatics, and through a healthcare mailing list company. Twenty-six GPs participated in the empirical study. The study was designed so each participant viewed and gave prescriptions for 20 prescribing scenarios, 10 coded as “hard” and 10 coded as “medium” prescribing scenarios (N = 520 prescribing cases were answered overall). Scenarios were accompanied by correct advice 70% of the time, and incorrect advice 30% of the time (in equal proportions in either task difficulty condition). Both the order of scenario presentation and the correct/incorrect nature of advice were randomised to prevent order effects. The planned time pressure condition was dropped due to low response rate. Results: To compare with previous literature which took overall decisions into account, taking individual cases into account (N=520), the pre advice accuracy rate of the clinicians was 50.4%, which improved to 58.3% post advice. The CDSS improved the decision accuracy in 13.1% of prescribing cases. The rate of AB, as measured by decision switches from correct pre advice, to incorrect post advice was 5.2% of all cases at a CDSS accuracy rate of 70% - leading to a net improvement of 8%. However, the above by-case type of analysis may not enable generalisation of results (but illustrates rates in this specific situation); individual participant differences must be taken into account. By participant (N = 26) when advice was correct, decisions were more likely to be switched to a correct prescription, when advice was incorrect decisions were more likely to be switched to an incorrect prescription. There was a significant correlation between decision switching and AB error. By participant, more immediate factors such as trust in the specific CDSS, decision confidence, and task difficulty influenced rate of decision switching. Lower clinical experience was associated with more decision switching (but not higher AB rate). The rate of AB was somewhat problematic to analyse due to low number of instances – the effect could potentially have been greater. The between subjects effect of time pressure could not be investigated due to low response rate. Age, DSS experience and trust in CDSS generally were not significantly associated with decision switching. Conclusion: There is a gap in the current literature investigating inappropriate CDSS use, but the general literature supports an interactive multi-factorial aetiology for automation misuse. Automation bias is a consistent effect with various potential direct and indirect causal factors. It may be mitigated by altering advice characteristics to aid clinicians’ awareness of advice correctness and support their own informed judgement – this needs further empirical investigation. Users’ own clinical judgement must always be maintained, and systems should not be followed unquestioningly

Proceedings, MSVSCC 2015

The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center (VMASC) of Old Dominion University hosted the 2015 Modeling, Simulation, & Visualization Student capstone Conference on April 16th. The Capstone Conference features students in Modeling and Simulation, undergraduates and graduate degree programs, and fields from many colleges and/or universities. Students present their research to an audience of fellow students, faculty, judges, and other distinguished guests. For the students, these presentations afford them the opportunity to impart their innovative research to members of the M&S community from academic, industry, and government backgrounds. Also participating in the conference are faculty and judges who have volunteered their time to impart direct support to their students’ research, facilitate the various conference tracks, serve as judges for each of the tracks, and provide overall assistance to this conference. 2015 marks the ninth year of the VMASC Capstone Conference for Modeling, Simulation and Visualization. This year our conference attracted a number of fine student written papers and presentations, resulting in a total of 51 research works that were presented. This year’s conference had record attendance thanks to the support from the various different departments at Old Dominion University, other local Universities, and the United States Military Academy, at West Point. We greatly appreciated all of the work and energy that has gone into this year’s conference, it truly was a highly collaborative effort that has resulted in a very successful symposium for the M&S community and all of those involved. Below you will find a brief summary of the best papers and best presentations with some simple statistics of the overall conference contribution. Followed by that is a table of contents that breaks down by conference track category with a copy of each included body of work. Thank you again for your time and your contribution as this conference is designed to continuously evolve and adapt to better suit the authors and M&S supporters. Dr.Yuzhong Shen Graduate Program Director, MSVE Capstone Conference Chair John ShullGraduate Student, MSVE Capstone Conference Student Chai