Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A Cognitive-Mechanistic Human Reliability Analysis Framework: A Nuclear Power Plant Case Study

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A cognitive simulation pipeline that replaces expert time estimates can produce nuclear human-error probabilities consistent with established methods.

desk verdict A genuinely new pipeline, but the ACT-R/TimeGAN timing term is nearly inert in the reported HEPs, so the headline numbers are really the analyst's IDHEAS-ECA Pc estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18604 v2 pith:P2QAUORS submitted 2025-04-25 cs.AI

Xingyu Xiao , Peng Chen , Jiejuan Tong , Shunshun Liu , Hongru Zhao , Jun Zhao , Qianqian Jia , Jingang Liang
show 1 more author
Haitao Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords humanreliabilityanalysiscognitivesimulationACT-RTimeGANIDHEAS-ECAdigitaltwinBayesiannetworknuclearpowerplants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes COGMIF, a pipeline that replaces expert-judged task-duration estimates in IDHEAS-ECA human reliability analysis with task times simulated by the ACT-R cognitive architecture and supplemented by TimeGAN-generated synthetic time series. The claim is that this mechanistically grounded data can yield human error probabilities for nuclear power plant procedures that are consistent with the established SPAR-H method and stable under different distributional assumptions. The authors test the pipeline on a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor simulator, comparing simulated task times with times from five, five, and twelve graduate-student trials across three procedures. They then feed the synthetic durations into IDHEAS-ECA's time-failure formula and map the procedural nodes onto a Bayesian network to rank what most influences overall error probability. If the claim holds, human reliability analysis for next-generation plants, where operator data are scarce, could be produced at scale from cognitive simulation instead of costly human-in-the-loop experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ACT-R cognitive architecture, a production-rule model of perception, declarative memory retrieval, goal-directed reasoning, and motor execution, used as a human digital twin to generate task completion times. TimeGAN, a two-stage generative model trained on those ACT-R time series, then produces large synthetic datasets that preserve the temporal structure of the simulated behavior. These synthetic durations enter IDHEAS-ECA through the convolution $P_t = P(T_{\text{reqd}} > T_{\text{avail}}) = \int_0^\infty (1-F_{T_{\text{reqd}}}(t)) f_{T_{\text{avail}}}(t)\,dt$, with the time-available distribution assumed lognormal. A Bayesian network over the procedural steps and their cognitive and time components is used to quantify influence strength and sensitivity, turning the synthetic data into a ranking of risk drivers.

What would settle it

Run the same three procedures with licensed HTGR operators under realistic workload and compare the empirical distribution of step durations with the ACT-R/TimeGAN synthetic distribution; if the synthetic distribution lies outside the confidence bands or the IDHEAS-ECA human error probability differs from the operator-based estimate by more than the SPAR-H spread, the framework's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the time-required distribution in IDHEAS-ECA's time-based failure probability can be supplied by a hybrid ACT-R/TimeGAN generator rather than by expert judgment. For the tested steps, fitting gamma, Weibull, lognormal, and normal distributions to the synthetic task durations gives $P_t = 0.0005$ and an overall human error probability of $8.70\times10^{-3}$ for two procedural steps, with the third step giving $6.19\times10^{-3}$ to $6.29\times10^{-3}$; these values compare with SPAR-H estimates of $1.38\times10^{-3}$ to $3.87\times10^{-3}$. The same $P_t$ values appear across the four distribution families, which the authors read as robustness to distributional assumptions. A Bayesian network built on the same procedural nodes shows that the later steps and the time-related failure probabilities, especially at the first step, dominate overall risk sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumption that task completion times produced by the ACT-R simulation are a faithful proxy for real operator behavior, even though the only check was three graduate students performing three simple tasks and the simulation's variance was much narrower than theirs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For procedures already modeled with ACT-R, human error probabilities can be estimated without new simulator trials: the TimeGAN-augmented duration distribution is enough to drive IDHEAS-ECA.
  • The resulting estimates remain expressed through IDHEAS-ECA's cognitive failure mechanisms, so they stay interpretable within standard probabilistic risk assessment practice.
  • The stability of $P_t$ across fitted distribution families in the tested steps removes one recurring source of modeling uncertainty in time-based failure calculations.
  • The Bayesian network ranking of procedural steps offers a concrete target list for interface redesign and operator training by showing which steps and timing variables most influence overall error probability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework's 'mechanism-informed' contribution is really about time pressure: the time-required distribution is derived from simulated cognition, while the cognitive failure probability $P_c$ still comes from IDHEAS-ECA's expert-scored worksheets.
  • A stronger scalability test would train TimeGAN on the human trial times rather than on ACT-R output; if the synthetic distribution generated from human data reproduced the same human error probabilities, the claim of realistic variance would be on firmer ground.
  • For advanced reactor designs with no operating history, the same pipeline could serve as a design-time screening tool, varying interface parameters in ACT-R to see which procedural steps become time-critical before any operators exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes COGMIF, a framework that combines ACT-R cognitive simulation with TimeGAN-generated synthetic data to feed the IDHEAS-ECA human reliability analysis method. After validating ACT-R task completion times against three graduate students on a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor simulator, the authors train TimeGAN on ACT-R outputs, fit distributions to the synthetic task durations, compute time-based failure probabilities Pt for three procedure steps, compare the resulting HEPs with SPAR-H, and construct a Bayesian network for sensitivity analysis. The paper claims that this pipeline yields scalable, mechanism-informed, and robust estimates of human error probabilities.

Significance. If the ACT-R temporal model were shown to generalize and if the Pt term carried meaningful weight in the final HEPs, COGMIF would be a useful contribution to third-generation HRA: it integrates a cognitive architecture with an established HEP framework and offers a concrete path around resource-intensive human-in-the-loop data collection. The component-level time predictions are close to human means for the reported simple tasks, and the TimeGAN fidelity checks at least demonstrate that the generator reproduces its training distribution. However, the case study does not establish the central mechanistic claim, because the ACT-R/TimeGAN contribution to the final HEPs is nearly negligible and the validation of cognitive error mechanisms is absent. The framework is presented transparently, but its headline conclusions are not supported by the reported evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4), Table 5] The time-based failure term is nearly inert in the reported results. For E-0, E-1, and ES-1.2, Pt is 0.0005, 0.0001, and 0.0005, while Pc is 8.20e-3, 6.19e-3, and 8.20e-3. Setting Pt to zero in PEvent = 1 − (1 − Pc)(1 − Pt) changes the final HEP by only about 6%, 1.6%, and 6%, respectively. Consequently, the reported HEPs, the SPAR-H agreement in Table 5, and the distributional robustness in Tables 6–8 are all dominated by the analyst-supplied Pc values, not by the ACT-R/TimeGAN pipeline. The central claim that COGMIF produces mechanism-informed HEPs via cognitive simulation is therefore not supported by this case study.
  2. [§4.1 and §3.2] The validation of the ACT-R model is limited to mean task durations from three graduate students, with sample sizes of 5, 5, and 12. The simulation variance is far smaller than the human variance (e.g., for E-0, human variance 1.4922 s² versus simulated 0.0139 s²), and Section 3.2 explicitly states that errors were seldom observed in the main setup. Since the ACT-R component enters the HEP calculation only through Pt, and Pt is never validated against real error or timing-under-pressure data, the cognitive-mechanistic grounding of the HEP estimates is an assumption rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [§4.2 and §3.6] There is a circularity concern in the data flow: TimeGAN is trained on ACT-R-generated time series, and the resulting synthetic data are then used to fit Treqd and compute Pt. The KDE comparisons and the MAE/MSE/CV metrics in Table 3 therefore only establish that TimeGAN reproduces ACT-R output; they do not establish that the synthetic data represent human operator behavior. Because the human data enter only through the mean-duration validation of ACT-R, the pipeline cannot independently support the claim that the resulting HEPs are mechanism-informed or behaviorally realistic.
  4. [§4.3, Tables 6–8] The claimed robustness to distributional assumptions is of limited evidentiary value because the quantity being varied, Pt, is near zero for every fitted distribution. The post hoc exclusion of Weibull for S2 and of lognormal/gamma for S3 is justified only by qualitative statements such as 'extreme parameter values' and 'poor fitting performance' without reporting goodness-of-fit statistics or exclusion criteria; this makes the sensitivity analysis difficult to reproduce and assess. The tables therefore demonstrate robustness of an almost inert term, not robustness of the HEP methodology.
  5. [§4.4, Table 9] The Bayesian network sensitivity results are not adequately explained. The sensitivity scores are raw, unnormalized values (ranging from 6.24e5 for Procedure ES1.2 to 69.9 for Procedure E0), the 'maximum approach' is not defined, and the interpretation that Pt1 is a dominant contributor is hard to reconcile with Pt1 = 0.0005 in Table 5. The construction of the network, the node probability inputs, and the sensitivity measure all need to be specified before the key-driver conclusions can be evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The heading 'Metrix' should be corrected to 'Metric' or 'Aspect'.
  2. [§4.2, Table 3] The MAE, MSE, and CV values are presented without units or a baseline for comparison; in particular, the CV values on the order of 1e-3 are not intuitive for time measurements and should be explained.
  3. [§3.6] The 'time available' distribution parameters (e.g., µ=3.50, σ=0.5 for S1) are stated without any justification or source; the paper should explain how these values were derived and how sensitive the results are to them.
  4. [§5] The first sentence of the future-work paragraph is grammatically incomplete: '...and 3D digital human representations holds significant promise...' should be revised.
  5. [§4.3] The text says Pc 'represents the sum of human error probabilities associated with cognitive failure modes,' but Eq. (4) combines Pc and Pt multiplicatively; the wording should be clarified to avoid implying a simple sum.
  6. [References] Several references are incomplete, including [12], [13], and [14], which lack full publication details; these should be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The generative-data stage is self-referential: TimeGAN is fitted to ACT-R outputs and then validated against those same ACT-R outputs, and the resulting Pt is so small that the reported HEPs and SPAR-H agreement are effectively carried by analyst-derived Pc rather than by the cognitive-mechanistic pipeline.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 'Enhancing Data Generation Using TimeGAN' (Figure 13 and Table 3), feeding Section 4.3 Eq. (5) and Table 5.]
    "These segments are used to train a TimeGAN model. We supplemented the dataset with 40 simulated trials generated using the ACT-R cognitive architecture. After training the TimeGAN model with this expanded dataset, we conducted testing... comparing the TimeGAN-generated simulation data ... with the ACT-R model outputs ... The results in Table 3 demonstrate that for S1 to S3, the TimeGAN model achieves very low error values ... validating the model's utility for simulating human-like temporal behavior in procedural task environments."

    TimeGAN is trained on ACT-R-generated time series, and the fidelity evidence in Figure 13 and Table 3 is computed against the same ACT-R outputs; no independent human benchmark is used for the synthetic data. The paper then interprets this self-comparison as validating 'human-like temporal behavior' and feeds the synthetic data into Eq. (5) to obtain Pt in IDHEAS-ECA. The synthetic behavior prediction is therefore a reproduction of its own training distribution by construction, so any bias in ACT-R, such as the paper's admitted much lower variance relative to human data, is propagated uncritically into the Pt calculation.

full rationale

The main equations are not circular in themselves: Eq. (4) is IDHEAS-ECA's standard combination rule, Eq. (5) is the standard convolution of time-required and time-available distributions, and Pc is taken from IDHEAS-ECA guidelines rather than fitted to SPAR-H. ACT-R mean times are anchored, albeit weakly, to external human data from three graduate students. The self-citations to the authors' earlier DRIF and KRAIL work are descriptive and not load-bearing for the HEP algebra. Nevertheless, the paper itself concedes in Section 3.2 that 'errors were seldom observed... our focus was confined to evaluating the temporal plausibility of the ACT-R simulation,' and Section 4.1 notes the simulation 'exhibits significantly lower variance' than human data. The TimeGAN validation is closed-loop, as detailed in the step above. Moreover, Table 5's Pt values (0.0005, 0.0001, 0.0005) are negligible next to Pc (8.20e-3, 6.19e-3, 8.20e-3), so the 'robustness' in Tables 6-8 and the SPAR-H comparison in Table 5 essentially test the analyst-supplied Pc term, not the ACT-R/TimeGAN temporal contribution. These are substantial evidentiary problems and one genuine self-referential validation loop, but they do not make the IDHEAS-ECA equations reduce to their inputs by definition, so the circularity score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed validity of ACT-R defaults, the assumed time available distribution, the subjective Pc values, and the generalization from three graduate students to real operators. These are the main free parameters and assumptions. The pipeline itself is an invented procedure, not a new entity with independent falsifiable predictions.

free parameters (4)
  • Time available distribution parameters (lognormal mean and sigma per step) = S1: mu=3.50, sigma=0.5, S2: mu=6, sigma=0.15, S3: mu=2.99, sigma=0.15
    The time available is assumed to be lognormal, and its parameters are assumed by the authors. These parameters directly affect Pt, so they are free parameters.
  • IDHEAS-ECA Pc failure mode entries = Pc = 8.2e-3, 6.19e-3, 8.2e-3 per step
    This is a table of values derived from expert interpretation of IDHEAS-ECA guidelines. The exact worksheets are not fully provided, so the values are effectively chosen by the analyst.
  • ACT-R default temporal parameters = not given
    The paper states that ACT-R default parameters were used, plus task-specific adjustments through chunk activation and conflict resolution. These parameters influence the simulated times and are not listed, so the model's timing is partly calibrated by hand.
  • Distribution fit exclusions per step = S2: Weibull excluded; S3: lognormal and gamma excluded
    The paper selects which distributions to include in the HEP sensitivity analysis based on goodness of fit. This is a post hoc model choice that affects which Pt values are reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ACT-R cognitive architecture produces task times that are representative of real nuclear operator performance.
    The paper validates ACT-R against three graduate students on three simple tasks, then uses ACT-R to generate data for HRA. This generalizes beyond the validation set, and the simulation variance is much lower than human variance.
  • domain assumption TimeGAN-generated synthetic data preserves the uncertainty and error structure needed for HRA, not just the marginal time distributions.
    TimeGAN is validated only through KDE comparisons and aggregate MAE/MSE/CV metrics. HRA requires the tail behavior of time-required distributions, which is not specifically validated.
  • domain assumption The IDHEAS-ECA Pc interpretation by the authors is correct and is not a source of error.
    Pc values in Table 5 are derived from IDHEAS-ECA worksheets that are not fully specified. The paper provides the worksheet figure but not a reproducible calculation.
invented entities (1)
  • The COGMIF pipeline itself
    purpose: To generate cognitive simulation data and estimate HEPs without HITL experiments.
    The pipeline is the paper's proposed framework. It is not externally validated against real HEP data. It is validated only against the mean times of three students.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Cognitive-Mechanistic Human Reliability Analysis Framework: A Nuclear Power Plant Case Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2QAUORS

@misc{pith2026250418604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Cognitive-Mechanistic Human Reliability Analysis Framework: A Nuclear Power Plant Case Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2QAUORS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18604}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional human reliability analysis (HRA) methods, such as IDHEAS-ECA, rely on expert judgment and empirical rules that often overlook the cognitive underpinnings of human error. Moreover, conducting human-in-the-loop experiments for advanced nuclear power plants is increasingly impractical due to novel interfaces and limited operational data. This study proposes a cognitive-mechanistic framework (COGMIF) that enhances the IDHEAS-ECA methodology by integrating an ACT-R-based human digital twin (HDT) with TimeGAN-augmented simulation. The ACT-R model simulates operator cognition, including memory retrieval, goal-directed procedural reasoning, and perceptual-motor execution, under high-fidelity scenarios derived from a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) simulator. To overcome the resource constraints of large-scale cognitive modeling, TimeGAN is trained on ACT-R-generated time-series data to produce high-fidelity synthetic operator behavior datasets. These simulations are then used to drive IDHEAS-ECA assessments, enabling scalable, mechanism-informed estimation of human error probabilities (HEPs). Comparative analyses with SPAR-H and sensitivity assessments demonstrate the robustness and practical advantages of the proposed COGMIF. Finally, procedural features are mapped onto a Bayesian network to quantify the influence of contributing factors, revealing key drivers of operational risk. This work offers a credible and computationally efficient pathway to integrate cognitive theory into industrial HRA practices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AutoGraph: A Knowledge-Graph Framework for Modeling Interface Interaction and Automating Procedure Execution in Digital Nuclear Control Rooms

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A knowledge-graph framework for digital nuclear control rooms maps procedure steps to interface paths and automates execution, reducing task completion time in a small simulator study.

  2. InSight-R: A Framework for Risk-informed Human Failure Event Identification and Interface-Induced Risk Assessment Driven by AutoGraph

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An interface knowledge graph combined with logged operator behavior can identify human failure events from error-prone and time-deviated paths, and simple layout metrics can be mapped to interface risk levels, but val...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 111080 (2025)

    Xiao, X., Qi, B., Liu, S., Chen, P., Liang, J., Tong, J., Wang, H.: A dynamic risk- informed framework for emergency human error prevention in high-risk industries: A nuclear power plant case study. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 111080 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    : The spar-h human reliability analysis method

    Gertman, D., Blackman, H., Marble, J., Byers, J., Smith, C., et al. : The spar-h human reliability analysis method. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230(4), 35 (2005) 27

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Technical report, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2012)

    Boring, R.L.: Fifty years of therp and human reliability analysis. Technical report, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (2020)

    Xing, J., Chang, Y., DeJesus, J.: Integrated human event analysis system for event and condition assessment (idheas-eca). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 194, 106235 (2020)

    Jung, W., Park, J., Kim, Y., Choi, S.Y., Kim, S.: Hurex–a framework of hra data collection from simulators in nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 194, 106235 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    : The sacada database for human reliability and human performance

    Chang, Y.J., Bley, D., Criscione, L., Kirwan, B., Mosleh, A., Madary, T., Nowell, R., Richards, R., Roth, E.M., Sieben, S., et al. : The sacada database for human reliability and human performance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 125, 117–133 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Nuclear Engineering and Design 218(1-3), 249–257 (2002)

    Zhang, Z., Yu, S.: Future htgr developments in china after the criticality of the htr-10. Nuclear Engineering and Design 218(1-3), 249–257 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Progress in Nuclear Energy 73, 75–85 (2014)

    Locatelli, G., Bingham, C., Mancini, M.: Small modular reactors: A comprehen- sive overview of their economics and strategic aspects. Progress in Nuclear Energy 73, 75–85 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Jia, Q., Qu, R., Zhang, L.: Control room conceptual design of nuclear power plant with multiple modular high temperature gas-cooled reactors (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Energies 16(15), 5601 (2023)

    Miao, R., Jia, Q., Li, D., Dong, Z.: A comprehensive situation awareness measure- ment method for analyzing the operators’ situation awareness of multi-module high temperature gas-cooled reactor plants. Energies 16(15), 5601 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Sandia Corporation, ??? (1964)

    Swain, A.D.: Therp. Sandia Corporation, ??? (1964)

    1964

  4. [12]

    In: Conference Record for 1985 IEEE Third Conference on Human Factors and Nuclear Safety (1985)

    Hannaman, G., Spurgin, A., Lukic, Y.: A model for assessing human cognitive reliability in pra studies. In: Conference Record for 1985 IEEE Third Conference on Human Factors and Nuclear Safety (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    Elsevier, ??? (1998)

    Hollnagel, E.: Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM). Elsevier, ??? (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Technical report, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1996)

    Cooper, S.E., Ramey-Smith, A., Wreathall, J., Parry, G.: A technique for human error analysis (atheana). Technical report, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    RIL-2021-XX (2021)

    Xing, J., CHANG, Y., SEGARRA, J.: Draft—integrated human event analysis system for human reliability data (idheas-data). RIL-2021-XX (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18627 (2024)

    Xiao, X., Chen, P., Qi, B., Zhao, H., Liang, J., Tong, J., Wang, H.: Krail: A knowledge-driven framework for base human reliability analysis integrating idheas 28 and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18627 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 221, 108326 (2022)

    Park, J., Boring, R.L., Ulrich, T.A., Lew, R., Lee, S., Park, B., Kim, J.: A frame- work to collect human reliability analysis data for nuclear power plants using a simplified simulator and student operators. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 221, 108326 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92(8), 997–1013 (2007)

    Chang, Y., Mosleh, A.: Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the idac model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92(8), 997–1013 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 13(1), 37–70 (2006)

    Liu, Y., Feyen, R., Tsimhoni, O.: Queueing network-model human processor (qn- mhp) a computational architecture for multitask performance in human-machine systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 13(1), 37–70 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Human–Computer Interaction 12(4), 439–462 (1997)

    Anderson, J.R., Matessa, M., Lebiere, C.: Act-r: A theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human–Computer Interaction 12(4), 439–462 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    EJNMMI research 7, 1–10 (2017)

    Andersson, M., Johansson, L., Eckerman, K., Mattsson, S.: Idac-dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the icrp adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI research 7, 1–10 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety 254, 110541 (2025)

    Azarkhil, M., Mosleh, A., Ramos, M.: Team-centered idac: Modeling and simula- tion of operating crew in complex systems–part 1: Team model and fundamentals. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 254, 110541 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Energies 17(10), 2439 (2024)

    Xiao, X., Liang, J., Tong, J., Wang, H.: Emergency decision support techniques for nuclear power plants: Current state, challenges, and future trends. Energies 17(10), 2439 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    International Journal of Performability Engineering 10(7) (2014)

    COYNE, K., MOSLEH, A.: Nuclear plant control room operator modeling within the ads-idac, version 2, dynamic pra environment: Part 1-general description and cognitive foundations. International Journal of Performability Engineering 10(7) (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, vol

    Chen, P., Tong, J.: Influence of nuclear power plant interface complexity on oper- ator performance: A modeling study. In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, vol. 88230, pp. 003–03011 (2024). American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    2024

  18. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 9(3), 463–475 (2008)

    Wu, C., Tsimhoni, O., Liu, Y.: Development of an adaptive workload manage- ment system using the queueing network-model human processor (qn-mhp). IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 9(3), 463–475 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol

    Tsimhoni, O., Liu, Y.: Modeling steering using the queueing network—model 29 human processor (qn-mhp). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 47, pp. 1875–1879 (2003). SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA

    2003

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp

    Lebi` ere, C., Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M.: Error modeling in the act-r production system. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 555–559 (2019). Routledge

    2019

  21. [29]

    Cogni- tion and multi-agent interaction: From cognitive modeling to social simulation, 29–52 (2006)

    Taatgen, N.A., Lebiere, C., Anderson, J.R.: Modeling paradigms in act-r. Cogni- tion and multi-agent interaction: From cognitive modeling to social simulation, 29–52 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    : Computational cognitive modeling of pilot performance in pre-flight and take-off procedures

    Cao Ph D, S., Kearns Ph D, S.K., Niechwiej-Szwedo Ph D, E., Irving Ph D, E., et al. : Computational cognitive modeling of pilot performance in pre-flight and take-off procedures. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research 33(4), 2 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42(4), 359–370 (2012)

    Jo, S., Myung, R., Yoon, D.: Quantitative prediction of mental workload with the act-r cognitive architecture. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42(4), 359–370 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55(1), 41–84 (2001)

    Byrne, M.D.: Act-r/pm and menu selection: Applying a cognitive architecture to hci. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55(1), 41–84 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Nature reviews neuroscience 1(1), 41–50 (2000)

    Eichenbaum, H.: A cortical–hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature reviews neuroscience 1(1), 41–50 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Tulving, E.: How many memory systems are there? American psychologist 40(4), 385 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Human Factors 59(2), 299–313 (2017)

    Atashfeshan, N., Razavi, H.: Determination of the proper rest time for a cyclic mental task using act-r architecture. Human Factors 59(2), 299–313 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09527 (2025)

    Chen, P., Bu, P., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Guo, J., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Song, J., Yang, S., et al.: Combatvla: An efficient vision-language-action model for combat tasks in 3d action role-playing games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09527 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16565 (2023)

    Chen, P., Wei, X., Lu, M., Zhu, Y., Yao, N., Xiao, X., Chen, H.: Diffusiontalker: Personalization and acceleration for speech-driven 3d face diffuser. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16565 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04955 (2024) 30

    Chen, P., Wei, X., Wuwu, Q., Wang, X., Xiao, X., Lu, M.: Mixedgaussianavatar: Realistically and geometrically accurate head avatar via mixed 2d-3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04955 (2024) 30

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.