THE DISPLAY OF UNCERTAINTY INFORMATION ON THE CONTROLLER
WORKING POSITION
Dirk Schaefer, Adrian Gizdavu, EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny, France
David Nicholls, RM Consultants Ltd, Abingdon, United Kingdom
Abstract
In air traffic control – and in many other
domains – decisions are frequently based on
uncertain information, most obviously where they
involve predictions of future system states.
Eliminating the uncertainty completely will not be
possible and may in some cases not be desirable, for
example where it restricts the flexibility of the
human operator to an unacceptable degree. One
might ask whether there are situations in which
quantifying and presenting information about the
inherent uncertainty might provide additional safety
and operational benefits and that, in fact, is the
question the research presented here attempted to
address.
As part of a study under EUROCONTROL’s
innovative research programme [19], existing
implementations of two elements of the likely
future controller working position (CWP) were
complemented with a depiction of uncertainty. The
elements were the Vertical Assistance Window
(VAW), a tool that displays aircraft vertical flight
paths, and the Medium Term Conflict Detection
(MTCD) system. The displays showed ‘uncertainty
bubbles’ in order to represent the predictions’ range
as well as their mean. Experiments were conducted
in order to investigate the usability of the tools and
the impact it may have on controller workload.
The paper discusses the implementation of the
uncertainty display and explains why certain
choices were made. It presents the results of the
experiment and points towards other potential
implementations where uncertainty displays might
offer benefits.
Introduction
If all flights ran exactly on time, if schedules
and routes could be designed to allow gate-to-gate
flights without any conflicts, and if there were no
unforeseen events, there might be no need for any
active air traffic control. Clearly, this is not the case
0-7803-8539-X/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
5.B.3-1
today, and the purpose of Air Traffic Management
(ATM) can therefore be seen as one of managing
aircraft in an uncertain context. ATM is a complex
socio-technical system with a great deal of potential
for uncertainty. Most prominently, uncertainty is
inherent in tools based on aircraft trajectory
predictions that aim at supporting the controller
during conflict detection or resolution.
The sources of uncertainty are manifold,
including:
• Inaccuracy and error in measurements and
display
• Incomplete knowledge about the state of
the ATM system
• Meteorological conditions
• Incomplete knowledge about the intentions
of pilots and other controllers
Variations in aircraft performance
• Ambiguous information
• Subjective uncertainty of users – the degree
of belief or trust in the information they
receive, and in their own judgments or
those of others.
The ultimate result is that the predicted future
state of an aircraft involves a certain degree of
uncertainty. As new ATM concepts, with increased
reliance on predicted information, are introduced, a
substantial degree of uncertainty will, in the
foreseeable future, remain within the system. Yet,
uncertainty is a relatively unfamiliar concept in
ATM, and one can often hear remarks such as ‘but
we don’t have uncertainty in ATM’ or 'we don't
want to know about uncertainty – we can only work
with information that is certain’. Although
controllers are certainly aware of the limitations of
the information they use and the predictions based
upon them, our discussions have indicated that they
do not generally think in terms of ‘uncertainty’, so
presenting such a parameter might require a careful
introduction.
 To date, the ATM culture has largely managed track uncertainty is depicted in Figure 1 where the
uncertainty by seeking to eliminate it at its source, dotted lines identify less certain trajectory
developing ever more reliable and accurate tools. segments.
Uncertainty itself is not part of the information
Similar to the horizontal view, the aircraft
commonly presented on the controllers’ working
trajectory can be displayed in a vertical view. These
positions (CWP) and yet it might be argued that it
displays are less common in ATC, and controllers’
could potentially provide benefits to the air traffic
opinions tend to differ as of their usefulness, but the
controller, ultimately leading to increased safety in
uncertainty inherent in the aircraft’s vertical
air travel.
trajectory might be potentially useful, most
Displaying uncertainty information, i.e. an obviously where it involves climb or descent
indication of how certain and reliable the presented maneuvers.
information is, might lead to a better situation
awareness and thus a better basis for decision-
making; a better indication in case the system is
straying outside normal limits of operation; and a
more motivating working situation because system
predictions are more comprehensible.
On the other hand, displaying additional
information – and expecting the air traffic controller
to process it correctly – might result in a number of
unwanted side effects, including display clutter and
increased cognitive load. Further consequences
might be an increased overall uncertainty and
potential for confusion, because there is more scope
for differences in individual judgment.
Figure 1. Candidate Way of Displaying
In consequence, it seems that how and where Trajectory Uncertainty (Horizontal View)
to display uncertainty information is a question that
needs to be addressed with some prudence, In systems that support the controller during
balancing the advantages and disadvantages it the task of conflict detection, the certainty /
might offer. uncertainty of the detected conflict actually
happening can be calculated as a function of the
uncertainty inherent in the trajectory predictions of
Candidate Displays both aircraft. The uncertainty might be displayed in
Candidate display elements include the both the radar view of the CWP and in a dedicated
horizontal and vertical view of the trajectory, the conflict window.
display of conflict information on the radar view
display and / or in dedicated display items and more More futuristic approaches to ATM, such as
futuristic concepts such as multi-sector planning multi-sector planning (MSP), might benefit from
the display of uncertainty of the future traffic
The horizontal aspect of the aircraft’s situation to enable the operator to make decisions of
trajectory is displayed on the CWP radar view. a more strategic nature. Obviously, the timeline of
Whilst the along track error is likely to increase the prediction and thus the nature of the
with time since deviations from predicted along uncertainties inherent in the predictions are
track progress are not generally corrected for by different from those associated with the horizontal
current aircraft Flight Management Systems (FMS), and vertical conflict prediction views described
the cross track errors generally depend less on the above. This leads to an interesting question, namely
time, since they are predominantly due to when best to display uncertainty information.
inaccuracies in navigation (albeit limited by the Simplistically, we may think in terms of two
FMS) – or a pilot’s conscious decision to fly ‘off- opposing considerations:
track’. A candidate way of displaying the along-

5.B.3-2
• In general, as time progresses towards a
potential conflict, the uncertainty in the
situation decreases and the options available
for action become more limited. This would
imply that uncertainty presentation is most
valuable at early times.
• On the other hand, we could consider the
problem as one in which decisions become
less reversible as time progresses – so that it
becomes more important to make the right
decision at late times. Then, if it is true that
good decisions require an awareness of the
uncertainty in the information on which they
are based, uncertainty presentation could
become more important at later times.
The influence of time is however complex and
may be counter-intuitive and there are exceptions to
these simplistic general rules. For example, as
pointed out in [8], if it is required to keep the
probability of conflict below a given target, there is
a limit on the earliest time of intervention, as well
as on the more obvious limit on the latest time. At
very early times (i.e. long look-ahead times) the
uncertainty is so great that no intervention is
worthwhile. For the design of probabilistic, medium
term support tools, the former, early limit is the
more relevant constraint in practice. Observations
confirm this consideration: controllers are often
reluctant to deal with conflicts too early simply
because the small likelihood of the conflict actually
happening does not justify the action.
The present paper is mainly concerned with
presentations of uncertainty in the vertical view and
on displays for presenting conflict information. The
presentation of uncertainty in the context of multi
sector planning was explored as another strand of
the overall research project [13, 19]. This
complemented the work described here by focusing
on the development and trial application of a user-
centered process for designing innovative
presentations [10], rather than the design and
evaluation of specific products – the potential
displays that are the subject of this paper.
5.B.3-3
Displaying Uncertainty on the
Controller Working Position
Various human-machine interface elements of
the CWP that might offer the possibility to display
uncertainty were studied and two were selected for
a candidate implementation:
• The Potential Problem Display (PPD) of the
Medium Term Conflict Detection System
(MTCD), which displays predicted conflicts
between pairs of aircraft together with the
predicted time of loss of separation and the
minimum distance of the conflict; and the
• Vertical Assistance Window (VAW), which
displays the vertical, i.e. climb/descent
profile of a chosen flight.
The Potential Problem Display (PPD)
MTCD supports the air traffic controller in the
task of detecting conflicts between two or more
aircraft with a timeline of anywhere between 15 and
zero minutes into the future. Unlike the Short-Term
Conflict Alert (STCA) which detects conflicts up to
two to three minutes into the future based on an
extrapolation of the aircrafts’ actual speed vector,
MTCD is based on a trajectory predictor and
considers more complex information, such as the
aircrafts’ flight plans, entry and exit flight levels,
and so forth.
The potential conflicts identified by MTCD are
brought to the controller’s attention via the
Potential Problem Display (PPD). PPD displays the
conflict along two axes, namely the time to closest
point of approach (CPA) and the minimum distance
(distance at CPA). Each conflict is assigned a
unique number – see Figure 2 for a schema.
Figure 2. Potential Problem Display (PPD) –
Schematic
 Intuitively, the conflict’s position in the PPD
would indicate urgency (vertically) and severity
(horizontally); the closer the conflict to the lower
left corner the more attention it would apparently
require. Conflict number 1 would obviously be the
first conflict the controller in this situation would
attempt to resolve. However, the display presents
no information that would help determine whether
it would be beneficial to resolve conflict number 2
before conflict number 3 or vice versa. Which
option to choose might depend on the certainty with
which the two conflicts might occur, arguing that
the more unlikely a conflict the less rewarding to
address it at an early stage.
Figure 3 shows the PPD enhanced with
‘uncertainty bubbles’ displaying the distribution of
the conflict reflecting the 95 percent range of the
conflict prediction. Note that this distribution does
not refer to the geographical area in which the
conflict might happen but purely time to CPA and
distance at CPA – and thus does not have a very
intuitive counterpart.
As can be seen in Figure 3 conflict number 2 is
less uncertain, so the controller may decide to
resolve conflict number 2 first. Note that the colors
depicting the conflict uncertainty range have been
chosen so as to avoid an intuitive misinterpretation:
one would be tempted to interpret the size of the
bubble as an indication of the severity of the
conflict so that uncertain conflicts (large bubbles)
would appear more important to resolve. To balance
this effect, lighter colors were chosen for larger
bubbles.
Advanced implementations such as the
EUROCONTROL MTCD [3], which has recently
been subject to shadow mode field evaluations in
three European control centers, include a number of
other features, but owing to the experimental nature
of the research presented here, the decision was
made to implement the uncertainty displays within
a prototyping platform. Figure 4 depicts the PPD
with uncertainty bubbles as implemented on the
CWP in the context of this study.

Figure 3. Potential Problem Display (PPD) with Uncertainty Displayed – Schematic

Figure 4. Potential Problem Display (PPD) with Uncertainty ‘Bubbles’

5.B.3-4
The Vertical Assistance Window (VAW)
The Vertical Assistance Window (VAW)
displays the vertical aspect of the aircraft trajectory
and can be invoked individually for each aircraft.
Note that the VAW displays trajectories of
individual aircraft only; while conflicts are marked
it does not explicitly serve the visualization of the
vertical dimensions of conflicts identified by
MTCD.
Figure 5 displays the VAW as used in this
study. The aircraft’s vertical profile shows a small
and constant area of uncertainty for the flight
segments without altitude changes. Substantial
uncertainty only applies to the segment with an
altitude change, in this case a descent. The
uncertainty area for the descent is bounded by the
early, steep descent and the late, shallow descent.
Uncertainties concerning the vertical path originate
from two basic sources: the point at which the
aircraft will initiate the climb / descent and the
climb / descent rate. Apart from those, the rotation
rate and different winds in different altitudes may
determine the vertical profile. However, rather than
adding to the substantial amount of work
concerning the development of algorithms for
quantification of uncertainty [1, 7, 8, 9, 14], our
research addressed the benefits of presenting
uncertainty to the controller and to that end used a
rather simplified uncertainty algorithm based on
Gaussian distributions whose standard deviations
increased non-linearly with time.
Figure 5. Vertical Assistance Windows (VAW)
5.B.3-5
Experimental Evaluation
The PPD and the VAW windows were
implemented with uncertainty displays in a CWP
prototyping environment in EUROCONTROL’s
Human Factors Lab. To allow for a comparisons,
the configuration of the tools permitted the
uncertainty display to be either enabled or disabled.
Experiments with a small number of test subjects
were conducted in order to evaluate benefits and
usability of the uncertainty displays. Being aimed at
an evaluation in the concept phase and recognizing
the small number of test subjects, the experiments
were predominantly based on qualitative rather than
quantitative measures, i.e. on the structured
elicitation of subjective feedback from participants.
Objectives
The objectives of the experiments were:
• To evaluate the potential benefits of
displaying uncertainty information on with
Uncertainty Areas the controller working
position (CWP), more specifically the
Vertical Assistance Windows (VAW) and
the Potential Problem Display (PPD).
• To obtain feedback that helps to improve
existing display concepts for the
presentation of uncertainty information on
the CWP.
Method
Eight air traffic controllers, four active and
four retired, participated in the experiment. After a
general introduction about the concept of
uncertainty and the aims of the experiments and two
training exercises, each controller was presented
with four simulation exercises of 60 minutes
duration. The traffic samples involved two high
traffic (67 aircraft/hour) and two medium traffic (55
aircraft/hour) scenarios. The independent variables
were:
• Uncertainty display enabled / disabled
• Traffic high / medium.
The experimental design involved a within-
subject comparison of both independent variables.
The sequence was Latin-square counterbalanced to
avoid order effects.
 The controllers worked a standalone sector,
adjacent sectors were implemented as automatic
feed sectors. Controllers did not work in teams
(each controller fulfilled both the Planning and
Executive Controller roles) and the experiment did
not involve pseudo pilots.
Controllers’ workload was elicited using the
NASA Task Load Index. Post-exercise
questionnaires were administered after each run.
After the last run an end-of-day questionnaire was
administered. A semi-structured group debriefing
concluded the experiment.
Figure 6. Airspace Organization
Simulation Environment
Figure 7 shows the experimental setup in the
Human Factors Lab. The controllers worked a
standalone sector, adjacent sectors were
implemented as automatic feed sectors. Four runs
were conducted in parallel.
The controller working positions were
equipped with a 28” LCD monitor, keyboard and
mouse. The CWP involved the radar view display
5.B.3-6
Airspace
The simulated airspace involved two existing
upper airspace sectors (FL245 - FL490) in northern
France with a certain percentage of traffic arriving /
departing from Charles-de-Gaulle airport (CDG).
The two sectors were combined into one for the
sake of the exercise.
The separation minima were 5NM horizontally
and 1000 ft vertically. The airspace organization is
displayed in Figure 6.
plus the MTCD PPD and the VAW. The VAW was
displayed on controller request whilst the PPD was
visible at all times. MTCD conflict information was
also depicted on the radar view display by means of
red segments in the involved aircrafts’ trajectories.
A Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) tool was
available and configured so as to provide the
controller with conflict information with a two
minute look-ahead time.
 Figure 8. VAW and PPD Evaluation
Questionnaire Results

Figure 7. Experimental Setup in the Human Workload

Factors Laboratory
Results
Usability
Out of the sixteen items in the end-of-day
questionnaire, only five provided significant results.
Controllers tended to disagree significantly with the
following statements:
• ‘The display of uncertainty on the VAW
increased my situation awareness.’
• ‘I would like a display of uncertainty on the
VAW in my working environment.’
• ‘I would like a display of uncertainty on the
PPD in my working environment.’
• ‘Overall, the display of uncertainty helped
me to make better decisions.’
• ‘I would like a display of uncertainty in my
working environment.’
Five out of eight controllers stated that the
display of uncertainty did not increase their
workload. These results were identical for the PPD,
the VAW and the display of uncertainty in general.
Figure 9 shows the results of NASA TLX;
even though the results do not provide significant
evidence other than the effect of traffic load on
workload, the data seem to suggest an interaction
between uncertainty and traffic load to the end that
displaying uncertainty actually reduces workload
under high traffic. This effect should be studied in
more detail involving a greater number of
participants.

Figure 8 gives an overview of some of the

questions specific to the PPD and the VAW. As can
be seen, the results are slightly more favorable for
the PPD than for the VAW.

Figure 9. NASA TLX Results

5.B.3-7
Debriefing Results
Controllers agreed that the display of
uncertainty on the PPD might enable them to
prioritize conflicts and might increase their situation
awareness – even though this statement seems to
contradict an opinion expressed in the
questionnaires. They suggested that the changing
color was a useful feature. They also stated that the
display did not increase their workload.
Controllers expressed the opinion that the
VAW was not helpful since it required extra effort
to invoke the VAW window. Rather than
contributing to situation awareness, the display
might even cause additional workload. In addition,
since it referred to individual aircraft only, the
VAW was not considered a tool very suitable for
the detection and resolution of conflicts and hence
the display of uncertainty was not considered a very
useful feature.
Controllers mentioned that ‘the concept of
uncertainty seems rather strange to them’. They
estimated that, altogether, the tools as presented did
not have a beneficial effect on their work.
The participants tended to agree that the
display of uncertainty would be potentially more
useful for the Planning Controller than for the
Executive Controller.
Controller Suggestions
Controllers generally mentioned that the
various support tools could be better integrated.
Even though this comment refers to the tools
themselves rather than the uncertainty display, it
holds interesting ideas for improvements. The
suggestion was made that the conflict dot in the
radar label – which is a feature of MTCD – could
be displayed in a color reflecting the uncertainty of
the conflict, similar to the color of the conflict in
the PPD. In the same context, controllers agreed
that there is no need to have the uncertainty area
depicted in great detail and that a small number of
categories – such as certain, less certain, uncertain –
might be sufficient to help prioritize conflicts.
Another comment referred to the integration of
arrival, departure, and enroute management tools; in
particular the uncertainty of the departure time in
relation to the CDM (Collaborative Decision
5.B.3-8
Making) elements of an airport. The reason for
suggesting this was that aircraft still at the airport
have a considerable effect on the future workload
and complexity in the control sectors and,
accordingly, need to be taken into consideration for
their calculation. This comment referred more to the
calculation of traffic complexity but is interesting in
as far as the influence of the uncertainty of the
departure time is mentioned as an important
contributor to complexity and workload.
A number of controllers mentioned that the
display of uncertainty might be useful for planning
tools such as multi-sector planning. Ground control
was also mentioned as a potential application of
uncertainty displays.
Critique of the Results
Some limitations of the experiments need to be
taken into consideration when interpreting the
results presented here:
• About half of the controllers were unfamiliar
with Medium Term Conflict Detection and
the PPD. More often than not, comments
related to these tools in general, not
specifically to the uncertainty displays that
this study attempted to assess.
• Controllers were equally unfamiliar with the
Vertical Assistance Window and many
comments referred to the usability and
usefulness of this tool in general.
• There were few occasions in which a
conflict was seen against the VAW
uncertainty area, and hence not many
opportunities to use this display.
• Furthermore one specific technical problem
with VAW impeded the correct display of
the vertical flight profile in some cases, and
this may have contributed to a general
negative opinion about the VAW.
• The number of participants and the
prototyping nature of the experiments helps
to get some interesting feedback and
indications but, in most cases, did not
provide statistically significant results.
Discussion
The general opinion of most of the controllers
participating in the experiments was that the display
of uncertainty on the CWP, at least in the way
implemented in this study, provides very little
benefit. Even though the experimental setup might
partly have contributed to certain reservations, it
needs to be considered whether the presented
concepts might need to be modified.
Some important lessons have been learned in
the course of the study which could have
applications beyond the case study tools. The key
guidance points can be summarized as follows:
• Controllers expressed a preference for
integrated displays and tools. Even though
this comment applies to the CWP as a whole
it has implications for the display of
uncertainty, namely that displaying
uncertainty on the main CWP window may
have advantages over displaying it on
secondary windows.
• The advantage of displaying uncertainty as a
potentially useful source of additional
information stands against the additional
workload which processing this information
causes. It is therefore desirable to limit the
complexity of both the concept and the
display of uncertainty. It might be
advantageous to present a small number of
‘uncertainty levels ’ rather than the more
explicit graphical representations assessed
here.
• Careful consideration of the time dimension
is required; however, the usefulness of
uncertainty as source of information was
generally believed to be greater for working
positions with a more strategic orientation,
such as Planning Controller of Multi-Sector
Planner, than for the more ‘immediate’ work
of the Executive Controller
• There was a clear preference for uncertainty
to be presented only on demand – although
this has to be balanced against the general
principle of HMI design that information
should be consistently presented to all users,
and the potential advantages of continuous
presentation of uncertainty in providing a
more complete picture and better situation
awareness
5.B.3-9
Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored in the context of the
program Co-operative Actions of R&D in
EUROCONTROL (CARE) Innovative Actions.
We wish to thank Mick van Gool, Poul-Eric
Jorgensen, and Seppo Kauppinen for their support
and insights into a complex matter. Our thanks are
also due to the controllers who participated in the
experimental evaluation in Brétigny.
References
[1] Bakker, GJ, HJ Kremer and HAP Blom, 2000,
Geometric and Probabilistic Approaches towards
rd
Conflict Prediction, 3 USA/ Europe ATM R&D
Seminar, Napoli.
[2] EUROCONTROL CARE website,
www.eurocontrol.int/care/innovative/projects2002/c
s/
[3] EUROCONTROL, Operational Requirements
for EATCHIP Phase III ATM Added Functions
Volume 5 – Medium Term Conflict Detection -
OPR.ET1. ST04. DEL01.5 Edition 2,
EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.
[4] Gizdavu, A, 2003, Uncertainty 2003 Real-Time
Simulation Controller’s Information Book,
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny,
France.
[5] Gizdavu, A, 2003. Uncertainty 2003 Real-Time
Simulation Facility Specification,
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny,
France.
[6] Hansman, RJ & HJ Davison, 2000. The Effect
of Shared Information on Pilot/ Controller and
rd
Controller/ Controller Interactions. 3 USA/ Europe
ATM R&D Seminar, Napoli.
[7] Irvine R, 2001, A Geometrical Approach to
th
Conflict Probability Estimation, 4 USA/ Europe
ATM R&D Seminar, Santa Fe. Also published in
Air Traffic Control Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2 pp85-
113.
[8] Irvine R, 2003, Lateral Conflict Resolution in
the Medium Term - achieving a Required
 th
Probability of Conflict Estimation, 5 USA/ Europe
ATM R&D Seminar, Budapest
[9] Mondolini S, 2002, Common Trajectory
Modeling for Air Traffic Management Decision
Support Tools. ICAS Conference, September 2002,
Toronto.
[10] Marti P & C Moderini, 2003, A Medieval
Triptych, Cameos and Books, Innovative Concepts
th
for future ATM scenarios, 5 USA/ Europe ATM
R&D Seminar, Budapest
[11] Meckiff C, R Chone and J-P Nicolaon, 1998,
The Tactical Load Smoother for Multi-Sector
nd
Planning, 2 USA/ Europe ATM R&D Seminar,
Orlando.
[12] Nicholls DB, P Battino, P Marti and S Pozzi,
2003, Presenting Uncertainty to Controllers and
Pilots, 5th USA/ Europe ATM R&D Seminar,
Budapest.
[13] Nicholls DB, 2003, Presenting Uncertainty to
Controllers & Pilots, Project Report CARE-
Innovative-RMC-T4-D2-1.0 Available via the
EUROCONTROL CARE website.
[14] Paelli RA & H Erzberger, Conflict Probability
Estimation Generalised to Non-Level Flight, Air
Traffic Control Quarterly, Vol. 7, Number 3, 1999,
pp.195 - 222.
[15] Schaefer D, M Flynn & G Skraaning, 2003,
The Presentation of Conflict Resolution Advisories
5.B.3-10
to Air Traffic Controllers - A Human Factors
Perspective, In: Harris, Duffy, Smith, Stephanidis
(Eds.) Human Centred Computing, Vol. 3,
Lawrence Erlbaum.
[16] Schaefer D, Meckiff C Magill, A Pirard B &
Aligne, F, 2001, Air Traffic Complexity as a Key
Concept for Multi-Sector Planning, Digital Avionics
Systems Conference, Daytona Beach, FL, Oct.
2001.
[17] Sorrentino RM & Roney CJR, 1999, The
Uncertain Mind, London, Psychology Press, Taylor
& Francis.
[18] Van Doorn B, B Bakker & C Meckiff, 2000,
Evaluation of Advanced Conflict Modelling in the
rd
Highly Interactive Problem Solver, 3 USA/ Europe
ATM R&D Seminar, Napoli.
[19] Van Gool M, 2001. CARE Innovative
rd
Research and External Technologies. 3 ATM R&D
Symposium. Madri, EUROCAE.
Email Addresses
Dirk Schaefer, dirk.schaefer@eurocontrol.fr
David Nicholls, david.nicholls@rm-
consultants.co.uk
Adrian Gizdavu,
adrian.gizdavu@eurocontrol.fr