Method and system for determining whether, when, and how an unmanned agent interrupts a human

• US 10,402,730 B2
• Filed: 10/07/2015
• Issued: 09/03/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 10/07/2015
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Honeywell International Inc.
• Original Assignee: Honeywell International Inc.
• Inventors: Whitlow, Stephen, Nelson, Erik T.
• Primary Examiner(s): Cassity, Robert A
• Assistant Examiner(s): Coughlan, Peter D
• Application Number:
  US14/877,362
• Publication Number:
  US 20170103323A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,427 Days
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 9/4818 Priority circuits therefor
• CPC Class Codes: G06N 5/02 Knowledge representation; Symbolic representation
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0631 Resource planning, allocation, distributing or scheduling for enterprises or organisations

Abstract

A method and system for determining whether, when, and how an unmanned agent interrupts a human is provided. The provided method and system uses a two-step multivariate analysis to (i) process a request for human interaction to determine whether to interrupt a human, and (ii) determine when and how to interrupt the human. The provided method and system interrupts the human in a manner that reflects analysis of variables such as mission criticality, whether a delay in the mission is acceptable, and the propriety of interrupting the human.

Claims

1. A method for managing requests from autonomous unmanned agents (UAs) on a mission with a human for engagement with the human, the method comprising:

at a human interruption (HI) determiner in direct electrical connection with multiple UAs, the HI determiner comprising a processor and a software program, the processor, when executing the software program, performs operations comprising;

receiving, from a UA of the multiple UAs, a request for the human to interact with the UA on a mission task that the UA is able to complete, as a default solution, without the human, the request comprising the mission and the mission task;

processing the mission and mission task to determine whether the mission can succeed without interrupting the human;

retrieving, from a database, a human model reflective of the mission task, the human model comprising a human task completion time for the mission task and whether a value of human input for the mission task is greater than a value of the default solution that the UA is able to complete;

determining to interrupt the human (i) when the value of human input for the mission task is greater than the value of a default solution, and (ii) when the mission cannot succeed without interrupting the human; and

upon determining to interrupt the human,

(a) determining whether a mission criticality exceeds a predetermined mission criticality threshold;

(b) monitoring activities of the human to determine whether an interruptability level exceeds a predetermined interruptability threshold, wherein monitoring activities comprises keeping track of a current task that the human is engaged in;

(c) determining whether a mission delay is acceptable; and

(d) interrupting the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality with respect to the predetermined mission criticality threshold, and the acceptability of a mission delay;

wherein the step of interrupting the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay comprises generating a first action if the mission criticality does not exceed the predetermined mission criticality threshold.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of interrupting the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay comprises generating the first action if both (i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold and (ii) the interruptability level exceeds the predetermined interruptability threshold.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the step of interrupting the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay comprises generating a second action upon all three of:

(i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold, (ii) the interruptability level does not exceed the predetermined interruptability threshold, and (iii) a mission delay is not acceptable.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the step of interrupting the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay comprises generating a third action upon all three of:

(i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold, (ii) the interruptability level does not exceed the predetermined interruptability threshold, and (iii) a mission delay is acceptable.

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:

detecting whether the human responds to the third action within a predetermined temporal deadline; and

if the human did not respond before the predetermined deadline, generating the second action.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein the first action, second action, and third action comprise rendering symbology on a display, and wherein the symbology rendered on the display for each of the first action, second action, and third action are visually distinguishable from each other.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the second action further comprises generating aural or haptic feedback.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein monitoring activities of the human to determine whether an interruptability level exceeds a predetermined interruptability threshold comprises monitoring:

(i) an amount of work, (ii) a criticality of work, and (iii) an impact of interruption.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the request further comprises a time constraint and wherein determining whether to interrupt the human further comprises processing the time constraint and the human model to determine whether there is time to engage the human.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein determining whether to interrupt the human further comprises processing the mission task and the human model to determine whether the human can perform the mission task.

11. A human interruption (HI) determiner for managing requests from unmanned agents (UAs) on a mission with a human for engagement by the human, the system comprising:

a database comprising human models for performing mission tasks, mission information and mission task information;

a display device;

a user interface; and

a processor coupled to the database, the user interface, the display, and in direct electrical connection with multiple UAs, the processor, when executing a software program, configured to;

receive, from a UA of the multiple UAs, a request for the human to interact with the UA on a mission task that the UA is able to complete, as a default solution, without the human, the request comprising the mission and the mission task,

process the mission and mission task to determine whether the mission can succeed without interrupting the human;

retrieve, from the database, the human model for the mission task, comprising a human task completion time for the mission task and whether a value of human input for the mission task is greater than a value of the default solution that the UA is able to complete,

determine to interrupt the human (i) when the value of human input for the mission task is greater than the value of a default solution, and (ii) when the mission cannot succeed without interrupting the human; and

upon determining to interrupt the human,

(a) determine whether a mission criticality exceeds a predetermined mission criticality threshold;

(b) monitor activities of the human to determine whether an interruptability level exceeds a predetermined interruptability threshold, wherein monitoring activities comprises keeping track of a current task that the human is engaged in,

(c) determine whether a mission delay is acceptable; and

(d) interrupt the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality with respect to the predetermined mission criticality threshold, and the acceptability of a mission delay;

wherein the processor is further configured to interrupt the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay by generating a first action if the mission criticality does not exceed the predetermined mission criticality threshold.

12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to interrupt the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay by generating the first action if both (i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold and (ii) the interruptability level exceeds the predetermined interruptability threshold.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to interrupt the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay by generating a second action upon all three of:

(i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold, (ii) the interruptability level does not exceed the predetermined interruptability threshold, and (iii) a mission delay is not acceptable.

14. The system of claim 13 wherein the processor is further configured to interrupt the human in a manner that reflects the interruptability level, the mission criticality, and the acceptability of mission delay by generating a third action upon all three of:

(i) the mission criticality exceeds the predetermined mission criticality threshold, (ii) the interruptability level does not exceed the predetermined interruptability threshold, and (iii) a mission delay is acceptable.

15. The system of claim 14, wherein the first action, second action, and third action comprise rendering symbology on a display, and wherein the symbology rendered on the display for each of the first action, second action, and third action are visually distinguishable from each other.

16. The system of claim 15, wherein the second action further comprises generating aural or haptic feedback.