後付けUIにおける機能の整合性検証

Translated Abstract

In recent years, multimodal interfaces have been attracting attention as they are increasingly being incorporated into off-the-shelf user interfaces (UIs) as extended UIs. However, conflicts in the operation of multiple interfaces can cause system behavior that is contrary to human expectations, but since there is no unified design idea between extended UIs and the system. It is difficult in conventional research to identify behaviors that cause conflicts. In this paper, we propose a method to detect system inconsistencies caused by the combination of a basic UI and an extended UI using model checking, which is a formal method. In the proposed method, a model representing human cognitive activity and a model representing system behavior are integrated via UI as a state transition model to create a model for inspection. We use model checking to identify whether system inconsistencies occur on this integrated model. By analyzing the process by which this behavior occurs based on the results of model checking, we can identify the cause. The case study evaluated an example of operating an air conditioner with a basic UI and an extended UI of remote controls.

References

• [1]   Schirner,  G.,  Erdogmus,  D.,  Chowdhury,  K. and  Padir,  T.: The Future of Human-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical Systems, Computer Volume:46 Issue:1, pp.36-45, 2013.
• [2]   Ospan,  B.,  Khan,  N.,  Augusto,  J.,  Quinde,  M. and  Nurgaliyev,  K.: Context Aware Virtual Assistant with Case-Based Conflict Resolution in Multi-User Smart Home Environment, 2018 CoCoNet, 2018.
• [3]   Kojic,  T.,  Sirotina,  U.: Influence of UI Complexity and Positioning on User Experience During VR Exergames, 2019 QoMEX, 2019.
• [4]   Bolton,  L.,  Bass,  L. and  Siminiceanu,  I.: Using Formal Verification to Evaluate Human-Automation Interaction: A Review, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Systems, vol.43, no.3, pp.488-503, 2013.
• [5]   Norman,  D.: The problem with automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not over-automation, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, vol.327, pp.585-593, 1990.
• [6]   Jamieson,  G. and  Vicente,  K.: Designing effective humanautomation plant interfaces: A control-theoretic perspective, Human Factors, vol.47, no.1, pp.12-34, 2005.
• [7]   Joshi,  A.,  Miller,  S. and  Heimdahl,  M.: Mode confusion analysis of a flight guidance system using formal methods, Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2003. DASC ’03. The 22nd, pp.2.D.1-12 ,2003.
• [8]   Rushbly,  J.: Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises, Reliability Engineering System Safety, pp.167-177, 2002.
• [9]   Andre,  A.,  Degani,  A.: Do you know what mode you ’re in? An analysis of mode error in everyday things, Human-Automation Interaction: Research and Practice, pp.19-28, 1997.
• [10]  Degani, A., Heymann, M.: Formal Verification of Human-Automation Interaction, Human Factors, https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024494838, 2002.
• [11]   Leveson , N.G.: Engineering a Safer Work, The MIT Press, 2012.
• [12]   Molich,  R.,  Nielsen,  J.: Improving a Human-Computer Dialogue, Communications of the ACM, vol.33, no.3, pp.338–348, 1990.
• [13]   Cimatti,  A.,  Clarke,  E.,  Giunchiglia,  F. and  Roveri,  M.: NuSMV: A new symbolic model checker, Software Tools for Technology Transfer, vol.2, no.4, pp410-425, 2000.
• [14]  日本産業標準調査会，「JISX 0131 ソフトウェアの状態遷移の構成及びその表記方法」，日本規格協会，1995．
• [15]  OMG，「OMG Unified Modeling Language Version2.0」，OMG，2005．
• [16]   Hollnagel,  E.: Extended Control Model (ECOM), https://erikhollnagel.com/ideas/ecom.html, 2020.
• [17]   Hoare , C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall International Series in Computer Science, Prentice Hall, 1985.
• [18]  中島震: ソフトウェア工学の道具としての形式手法，NII TR-2007-J007，2007．（Nakajima, S.: Formal Methods as Software Engineering Tools, NII TR-2007-J007, 2007. (in Japanese)）
• [19]   Chen,  H.,  Liu,  S.,  Pang,  L.,  Wanyan,  L. and  Fang,  Y.: Developing an Improved ACT-R Model for Pilot Situation Awareness Measurement, IEEE Access, vol.9, pp.122113-122124, 2021.
• [20]   Cao,  J.,  Wang,  H.: Vision navigation for driver cognitive model in ACT-R architecture, 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI’10), pp.946-951, 2010.
• [21]   Drury ,  J.L.,  Scholtz, J. and  Kieras,  D.: Adapting GOMS to model human-robot interaction, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp.41-48, 2007.
• [22]   Kalpanadevi,  D.: Building an Optimal Model of Cognitive Using KLM and Complexity Theory in Human Computer Interface, 2021 5th ICECA, pp.896-903, 2021.
• [23]   Grudin,  J.: The case against user interface consistency, Communications of the ACM, vol.32, no.10, pp.1164-1173, 1989.
• [24]   Michotte,  B.,  Vanderdonckt,  J.: GrafiXML, a Multi-target User Interface Builder Based on UsiXML, ICAS’08, pp.15-22, 2008.
• [25]  Spaniol, M. J., Rowland, N. J.:AI-assisted scenario generation for strategic planning, Futures & Foresight Science, vol.5, No.2, e148, 2023.
• [26]   Aoki ,. Y,  Ogata,  S.,  Kobayashi,  K. and  Nakagawa,  S.: Verification of CPS Based on Control Loop Using Model Checking, APSEC 2018, pp.678-682, 2018.
• [27]   Ogata,  S.,  Nakagawa,  H.,  Aoki,  Y.,  Kobayashi,  K. and  Fukushima,  Y.: A Tool to Edit and Verify IoT System Architecture Model, MODELS 2017, 2017.
• [28]   Ogata,  S.,  Nakagawa,  H.,  Aoki,  Y. and  Kobayashi,  K.: A Template System for Modeling and Verifying Agent Behaviors, PRIMA2018, 2018.
• [29]   Filieri,  A.,  Tamburrelli,  G. and  Ghezzi,  C.: Supporting Self-Adaptation via Quantitative Verification and Sensitivity Analysis at Run Time, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.42, no.1, pp.75-99, 2016.
• [30]   Nakagawa,  H.,  Toyama,  H.,  Tsuchiya,  T.: Expression Caching for Runtime Verification Based on Parameterized Probabilistic Models, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol 156, pp.300-311, 2019.
• [31]   Fang,  X.,  Calinescu,  R.,  Gerasimou,  S., and  Alhwikem,  F.: Fast Parametric Model Checking through Model Fragmentation, IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2021), pp. 835-846, 2021.
• [32]   Rosenberg,  D.,  Stephens,  M.: Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: Theory and Practice, Apress, 2007.
• [33]   Domis,  D.,  Höfig,  K., and  Trapp,  M.: A Consistency Check Algorithm for Component-Based Refinements of Fault Trees, IEEE 21st International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2010), pp.171-180, 2010.
• [34]   Nakagawa,  H.,  Ohsuga  A., and  Honiden,  S.: A Goal Model Elaboration for Localizing Changes in Software Evolution, The 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2013), pp.155-164, 2013.
• [35]   Xu, S.,  Dong,  Z. and  Meng,  N.: Meditor: Inference and Application of API Migration Edits, 2019 IEEE/ACM 27th ICPC, pp.335-346, 2019.
• [36]   Amann,  S.,  Nguyen , H. A.,  Nadi,  S. and at al.: A Systematic Evaluation of Static API-Misuse Detectors, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.45, No.12, pp.1170-1188, 2019.