City University London

About: City University London is a education organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 5735 authors who have published 17285 publications receiving 453290 citations.

On flow-sensitive security types

Abstract: This article investigates formal properties of a family of semantically sound flow-sensitive type systems for tracking information flow in simple While programs. The family is indexed by the choice of flow lattice.By choosing the flow lattice to be the powerset of program variables, we obtain a system which, in a very strong sense, subsumes all other systems in the family (in particular, for each program, it provides a principal typing from which all others may be inferred). This distinguished system is shown to be equivalent to, though more simply described than, Amtoft and Banerjee's Hoare-style independence logic (SAS'04).In general, some lattices are more expressive than others. Despite this, we show that no type system in the family can give better results for a given choice of lattice than the type system for that lattice itself.Finally, for any program typeable in one of these systems, we show how to construct an equivalent program which is typeable in a simple flow-insensitive system. We argue that this general approach could be useful in a proof-carrying-code setting.

Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research

Abstract: The practitioner lawyer of the past had little need to reflect on process. The doctrinal research methodology developed intuitively within the common law — a research method at the core of practice. There was no need to justify or classify it within a broader research framework. Modern academic lawyers are facing a different situation. At a time when competition for limited research funds is becoming more intense, and in which interdisciplinary work is highly valued and non-lawyers are involved in the assessment of grant applications, lawyer-applicants who engage in doctrinal research need to be able to explain their methodology more clearly. Doctrinal scholars need to be more open and articulate about their methods. These methods may be different in different contexts. This paper examines the doctrinal method used in legal research and its place in recent research dialogue. Some commentators are of the view that the doctrinal method is simply scholarship rather than a separate research methodology. Richard Posner even suggests that law is ‘not a field with a distinct methodology, but an amalgam of applied logic, rhetoric, economics and familiarity with a specialized vocabulary and a particular body of texts, practices, and institutions ...’.1 Therefore, academic lawyers are beginning to realise that the doctrinal research methodology needs clarification for those outside the legal profession and that a discussion about the standing and place of doctrinal research compared to other methodologies is required.

The Role of Explanations on Trust and Reliance in Clinical Decision Support Systems

Abstract: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are increasingly used by healthcare professionals for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment support. However, research has suggested that users often over-rely on system suggestions -- even if the suggestions are wrong. Providing explanations could potentially mitigate misplaced trust in the system and over-reliance. In this paper, we explore how explanations are related to user trust and reliance, as well as what information users would find helpful to better understand the reliability of a system's decision-making. We investigated these questions through an exploratory user study in which healthcare professionals were observed using a CDSS prototype to diagnose hypothetic cases using fictional patients suffering from a balance-related disorder. Our results show that the amount of system confidence had only a slight effect on trust and reliance. More importantly, giving a fuller explanation of the facts used in making a diagnosis had a positive effect on trust but also led to over-reliance issues, whereas less detailed explanations made participants question the system's reliability and led to self-reliance problems. To help them in their assessment of the reliability of the system's decisions, study participants wanted better explanations to help them interpret the system's confidence, to verify that the disorder fit the suggestion, to better understand the reasoning chain of the decision model, and to make differential diagnoses. Our work is a first step toward improved CDSS design that better supports clinicians in making correct diagnoses.