trust based decision making for energy aware device management n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Trust-based Decision-Making for Energy-Aware Device Management PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Trust-based Decision-Making for Energy-Aware Device Management

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Trust-based Decision-Making for Energy-Aware Device Management - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 115 Views
  • Uploaded on

Trust-based Decision-Making for Energy-Aware Device Management. Stephan Hammer , Michael Wißner , and Elisabeth André Human Centered Multimedia Augsburg University, Germany. Motivation.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Trust-based Decision-Making for Energy-Aware Device Management' - yanni


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
trust based decision making for energy aware device management

Trust-based Decision-Making forEnergy-Aware Device Management

Stephan Hammer, Michael Wißner,and Elisabeth André

Human Centered Multimedia

Augsburg University, Germany

slide2

Motivation

Smart environmentthat is able to support users in saving energy by proactively performing energy-aware adaptations.

HomeMatic CCU tocontrolelectronic appliances

  • Sensors:
  • to recognize situations such as „user leaves room and light is on“
  • Examples:
    • Smart Plugs
    • Brightness
    • Ultrasound

Displays

slide3

Motivation

Problem:

If the system performs an adaptation which:

  • the users do not understand,
  • the users consider inconvenient,
  • makes the users feel they are no longer in control,

then the users’ trust in the system might be impaired, resulting in lesser acceptance of and, in the worst case, disuse of the system.

slide4

Our Goals

  • Develop a user model, which:
    • chooses adequate actions to reduce energy consumption
    • models user trust in adaptive environments
    • chooses that action that will result in the highest user trust
    • User Trust Model (UTM)
  • Initialize the UTM with data gathered in an online survey
  • Evaluate users’ experience, acceptance, and trust towards a system that uses the UTM in a real setting
slide5

Building theUTM -

Whatis „Trust“?

  • Trust is a very subjective concept
  • Trust is a non-deterministic concept
  • Trust is a multi-dimensional concept:
    • Comfort of use
    • Controllability
    • Transparency
    • Reliability
    • Security
    • Credibility
    • Seriousness
slide6

Building theUTM –

Example: Device = Light

Application-specific layer

Generic part (applicable for different kinds of self-adaptive systems) [1]

slide7

Initializing the UTM –

GatheringEmpirical Data

  • Online survey (38 Participants)
    • Descriptions of concrete system reactions in concrete situations
    • Example: “You leave your desk for a short time (for example to get something from a shelf) and your display is switched off automatically.”

Switch off Display

AskTo Switch off Display Via Mobile Phone

Do Nothing

Switch off Light

Ask Via Mobile Phone

Ask Via Display

Do Nothing

slide8

Initializing the UTM –

GatheringEmpirical Data

  • Online study (38 Participants)
    • Descriptions of concrete system reactions in concrete situations
    • Example: “You leave your desk for a short time (e.g. to get something from a shelf) and your display is switched off automatically.”
    • Ratings for the following statements (5-point Likert scale):
      • Q1: I understood why the system was reacting in this way.
      • Q2: I had control over the system.
      • Q3: I found the system comfortable to use.
slide9

Initializing the UTM

Questions1-3 =>

slide10

Evaluating the UTM –

User Study

24 Participants (18 male, 6 female, Age: 23-33)

Setting:

  • “Typical” day in an office
  • Different tasks
  • Changing context
  • After each system reaction:
    • Transparency, User Control, Comfort of Use, Trust
    • Preferred system action
  • User Experience and User Trust
slide11

Evaluating the UTM –

Results

Ratings on a 5-point LikertScale

  • System actions (Light):
    • Consistently high ratings concerning Transparency, Controllability, Comfort of Use and Trust
    • Lowest average rating (M: 3.92, SD: .86):
      • Criterion: Trust
      • Situation: User is leaving the room
      • System action: Ask to switch the light off via the user’s mobile phone
      • Reason: No Feedback on Phone
    • System actions and users’ preferences differed
      • Reason: Repeated confirmations of system actions via the mobile phone are uncomfortable and obtrusive.
slide12

Evaluating the UTM –

Results

Ratings on a 5-point LikertScale

  • System actions (Display):
    • System reactions matched the users’ preferences in all situations
    • Users wanted the system to decide autonomously
    • Only moderate ratings concerning Controllability (M: 2.5 – 3.46)
    • Lower ratings concerning Trust (M: 3.63 – 3.88)
      • Reasons: No Feedback when leaving, No authentication mechanism when arriving
    • Still high ratings concerning Transparency (M: 3.79 – 5.0) and Comfort of Use (M: 4.0 – 4.58)
slide13

Evaluating the UTM –

Further Results

  • Participants were satisfied (M: 3.96; SD: .68)
  • Participants did not feel:
    • distracted (M: 2.00; SD: 1.00)
    • restricted (M: 1.83; SD: 1.07)
    • observed (M: 2.33; SD: 1.18)
  • Participants acknowledged that the system:
    • supported them in saving energy (M: 4.71; SD: .54)
    • behaved adequately (M: 4.38; SD: .70)
    • was unobtrusive (M: 3.71; SD: 1.10)
    • was transparent (M: 4.96; SD: .20)
slide14

Conclusion

  • User Trust Model (UTM):
    • Generic approach for trust-based decision-making for the adaptation of smart environments
    • Based on an empirically grounded Bayesian Network which aims at maintaining user trust
  • Construction, initialization with empirical data, integration in an office setting
  • User Study:
    • UTM succeeded in maintaining users’ trust in a smart office environment
slide15

Future Steps

  • Further analysis of the collected data:
    • Influence of user-specific attitudes (e.g. trust disposition) on preferences concerning system actions and trust dimensions (e.g. Distrust towards technical systems -> Higher level of control by the user)
  • Decision-making for more than one user
slide16

UMAP 2014

Thank you!

Any Question?

For more detailed information about the generic part of the UTM:

[1] Kurdyukova, E., Andre, E., Leichtenstern, K.: Trust managementofubiquitous multi-display environments. In Krueger, A., Kuik, T., eds.: UbiquitousDisplay Environments. Cognitive Technologies. Springer (2012)

http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/en/chairs/swt/se/projects/oc-trust/

http://www.it4se.net/