Enhancing the EAST-ADL error model with HiP-HOPS semantics

EAST-ADL is a domain-specific modelling language for the engineering of automotive embedded systems. The language has abstractions that enable engineers to capture a variety of information about design in the course of the lifecycle — from requirements to detailed design of hardware and software architectures. The specification of the EAST-ADL language includes an error model extension which documents language structures that allow potential failures of design elements to be specified locally. The effects of these failures are then later assessed in the context of the architecture design. To provide this type of useful assessment, a language and a specification are not enough; a compiler-like tool that can read and operate on a system specification together with its error model is needed. In this paper we integrate the error model of EAST-ADL with the precise semantics of HiP-HOPS — a state-of-the-art tool that enables dependability analysis and optimization of design models. We present the integration concept between EAST-ADL structure and HiP-HOPS error propagation logic and its transformation into the HiP-HOPS model. Source and destination models are represented using the corresponding XML formats. The connection of these two models at tool level enables practical EAST-ADL designs of embedded automotive systems to be analysed in terms of dependability, i.e. safety, reliability and availability. In addition, the information encoded in the error model can be re-used across different contexts of application with the associated benefits for cost reduction, simplification, and rationalisation of dependability assessments in complex engineering designs

Improving performance through concept formation and conceptual clustering

Research from June 1989 through October 1992 focussed on concept formation, clustering, and supervised learning for purposes of improving the efficiency of problem-solving, planning, and diagnosis. These projects resulted in two dissertations on clustering, explanation-based learning, and means-ends planning, and publications in conferences and workshops, several book chapters, and journals; a complete Bibliography of NASA Ames supported publications is included. The following topics are studied: clustering of explanations and problem-solving experiences; clustering and means-end planning; and diagnosis of space shuttle and space station operating modes

A framework for modelling mobile radio access networks for intelligent fault management

Postprin

Probabilistic Guarantees for Safe Deep Reinforcement Learning

Deep reinforcement learning has been successfully applied to many control tasks, but the application of such agents in safety-critical scenarios has been limited due to safety concerns. Rigorous testing of these controllers is challenging, particularly when they operate in probabilistic environments due to, for example, hardware faults or noisy sensors. We propose MOSAIC, an algorithm for measuring the safety of deep reinforcement learning agents in stochastic settings. Our approach is based on the iterative construction of a formal abstraction of a controller's execution in an environment, and leverages probabilistic model checking of Markov decision processes to produce probabilistic guarantees on safe behaviour over a finite time horizon. It produces bounds on the probability of safe operation of the controller for different initial configurations and identifies regions where correct behaviour can be guaranteed. We implement and evaluate our approach on agents trained for several benchmark control problems

In defense of compilation: A response to Davis' form and content in model-based reasoning

In a recent paper entitled 'Form and Content in Model Based Reasoning', Randy Davis argues that model based reasoning research aimed at compiling task specific rules from underlying device models is mislabeled, misguided, and diversionary. Some of Davis' claims are examined and his basic conclusions are challenged about the value of compilation research to the model based reasoning community. In particular, Davis' claim is refuted that model based reasoning is exempt from the efficiency benefits provided by knowledge compilation techniques. In addition, several misconceptions are clarified about the role of representational form in compilation. It is concluded that techniques have the potential to make a substantial contribution to solving tractability problems in model based reasoning

Model compilation: An approach to automated model derivation

An approach is introduced to automated model derivation for knowledge based systems. The approach, model compilation, involves procedurally generating the set of domain models used by a knowledge based system. With an implemented example, how this approach can be used to derive models of different precision and abstraction is illustrated, and models are tailored to different tasks, from a given set of base domain models. In particular, two implemented model compilers are described, each of which takes as input a base model that describes the structure and behavior of a simple electromechanical device, the Reaction Wheel Assembly of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The compilers transform this relatively general base model into simple task specific models for troubleshooting and redesign, respectively, by applying a sequence of model transformations. Each transformation in this sequence produces an increasingly more specialized model. The compilation approach lessens the burden of updating and maintaining consistency among models by enabling their automatic regeneration

A study of mapping exogenous knowledge representations into CONFIG

Qualitative reasoning is reasoning with a small set of qualitative values that is an abstraction of a larger and perhaps infinite set of quantitative values. The use of qualitative and quantitative reasoning together holds great promise for performance improvement in applications that suffer from large and/or imprecise knowledge domains. Included among these applications are the modeling, simulation, analysis, and fault diagnosis of physical systems. Several research groups continue to discover and experiment with new qualitative representations and reasoning techniques. However, due to the diversity of these techniques, it is difficult for the programs produced to exchange system models easily. The availability of mappings to transform knowledge from the form used by one of these programs to that used by another would open the doors for comparative analysis of these programs in areas such as completeness, correctness, and performance. A group at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) is working to develop CONFIG, a prototype qualitative modeling, simulation, and analysis tool for fault diagnosis applications in the U.S. space program. The availability of knowledge mappings from the programs produced by other research groups to CONFIG may provide savings in CONFIG's development costs and time, and may improve CONFIG's performance. The study of such mappings is the purpose of the research described in this paper. Two other research groups that have worked with the JSC group in the past are the Northwest University Group and the University of Texas at Austin Group. The former has produced a qualitative reasoning tool named SIMGEN, and the latter has produced one named QSIM. Another program produced by the Austin group is CC, a preprocessor that permits users to develop input for eventual use by QSIM, but in a more natural format. CONFIG and CC are both based on a component-connection ontology, so a mapping from CC's knowledge representation to CONFIG's knowledge representation was chosen as the focus of this study. A mapping from CC to CONFIG was developed. Due to differences between the two programs, however, the mapping transforms some of the CC knowledge to CONFIG as documentation rather than as knowledge in a form useful to computation. The study suggests that it may be worthwhile to pursue the mappings further. By implementing the mapping as a program, actual comparisons of computational efficiency and quality of results can be made between the QSIM and CONFIG programs. A secondary study may reveal that the results of the two programs augment one another, contradict one another, or differ only slightly. If the latter, the qualitative reasoning techniques may be compared in other areas, such as computational efficiency