Hazard analysis for human-on-the-loop interactions in sUAS systems
Michael Vierhauser, Md Nafee Al Islam, Ankit Agrawal, Jane Cleland-Huang, James Mason
Abstract
With the rise of new AI technologies, autonomous systems are moving towards a paradigm in which increasing levels of responsibility are shifted from the human to the system, creating a transition from human-in-the-loop systems to human-on-the-loop (HoTL) systems. This has a significant impact on the safety analysis of such systems, as new types of errors occurring at the boundaries of human-machine interactions need to be taken into consideration. Traditional safety analysis typically focuses on system-level hazards with little focus on user-related or user-induced hazards that can cause critical system failures. To address this issue, we construct domain-level safety analysis assets for sUAS (small unmanned aerial systems) applications and describe the process we followed to explicitly, and systematically identify Human Interaction Points (HiPs), Hazard Factors and Mitigations from system hazards. We evaluate our approach by first investigating the extent to which recent sUAS incidents are covered by our hazard trees, and second by performing a study with six domain experts using our hazard trees to identify and document hazards for sUAS usage scenarios. Our study showed that our hazard trees provided effective coverage for a wide variety of sUAS application scenarios and were useful for stimulating safety thinking and helping users to identify and potentially mitigate human-interaction hazards.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 08aef495-c4b2-45c0-90e3-df532c021f25Cited by top-tier papers3
- HIFuzz: Human Interaction Fuzzing for Small Unmanned Aerial VehiclesTheodore Chambers, Michael Vierhauser, Ankit Agrawal, Michael Murphy et al.CHI 2024 · 11 citations
- LLM-Agents Driven Automated Simulation Testing and Analysis of small Uncrewed Aerial SystemsVenkata Sai Aswath Duvvuru, Bohan Zhang, Michael Vierhauser, Ankit AgrawalICSE 2025 · 7 citations
- Uncovering Failures in Cyber-Physical System State Transitions: A Fuzzing-Based Approach Applied to sUASTheodore Chambers, Arturo Miguel Russell Bernal, Michael Vierhauser, Jane Cleland-HuangICSE 2026
Builds on1
Related papers
- Formalising Human-in-the-Loop: Computational Reductions, Failure Modes, and Legal-Moral ResponsibilityMaurice Chiodo, Dennis Müller, Paul Siewert, Jean-Luc Wetherall et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Re-examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to DesignQian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn P. Rosé, John ZimmermanCHI 2020 · 604 citations
- Two Heads Are Better Than One: A Dimension Space for Unifying Human and Artificial Intelligence in Shared ControlGabriele Cimolino, T. C. Nicholas GrahamCHI 2022 · 15 citations
- ROCAS: Root Cause Analysis of Autonomous Driving Accidents via Cyber-Physical Co-mutationShiwei Feng, Yapeng Ye, Qingkai Shi, Zhiyuan Cheng et al.ASE 2024 · 4 citations
- What is Human-Centered about Human-Centered AI? A Map of the Research LandscapeTara Capel, Margot BreretonCHI 2023 · 218 citations
