Safety verification of a fault tolerant reconfigurable autonomous goal-based robotic control system

Fault tolerance and safety verification of control systems are essential for the success of autonomous robotic systems. A control architecture called Mission Data System (MDS), developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, takes a goal-based control approach. In this paper, a method for converting goal network control programs into linear hybrid systems is developed. The linear hybrid system can then be verified for safety in the presence of failures using existing symbolic model checkers. An example task is simulated in MDS and successfully verified using HyTech, a symbolic model checking software for linear hybrid systems

Opportunity to Improve Public Perceptions of Arthropods and Arthropod-Related Benefits

The general public may not recognize the value of conserving insects and spiders in home landscapes. We surveyed individuals to assess public perceptions of 10 arthropods—nine common insects and one common spider species—and to determine whether arthropod-related attitudes could be altered. Additionally, we collected data on survey respondent gender, age, and level of entomology education and found that level of entomology education was strongly associated with respondents\u27 perceptions about arthropods. Moreover, 60% of respondents were willing to change their attitudes after learning about an arthropod\u27s benefits. By promoting arthropods at outreach events, Extension educators could alter arthropod-related attitudes among the general public

Whose Eyes are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public. Instead, the Court uploaded to its website a video of the chase, filmed from inside the pursuing police cruisers, and invited members of the public to make up their own minds after viewing it. We showed the video to a diverse sample of 1,350 Americans. Overall a majority agreed with the Court\u27s resolution of the key issues, but within the sample there were sharp differences of opinion along cultural, ideological, and other lines. We attribute these divisions to the psychological disposition of individuals to resolve disputed facts in a manner supportive of their group identities. The paper also addresses the normative significance of these findings. The result in the case, we argue, might be defensible, but the Court\u27s reasoning was not. Its insistence that there was only one reasonable view of facts itself displayed a characteristic of a form of bias - cognitive illiberalism - that consists in the failure to recognize the connection between perceptions of societal risk and contested visions of the ideal society. When courts fail to take steps to counteract that bias, they needlessly invest the law with culturally partisan overtones that detract from the law\u27s legitimacy

Some Realism About Punishment Naturalism

In this paper we critique the increasingly prominent claims of punishment naturalism – the notion that highly nuanced intuitions about most forms of crime and punishment are broadly shared, and that this agreement is best explained by a particular form of evolutionary psychology. While the core claims of punishment naturalism are deeply attractive and intuitive, they are contradicted by a broad array of studies and depend on a number of logical missteps. The most obvious shortcoming of punishment naturalism is that it ignores empirical research demonstrating deep disagreements over what constitutes a wrongful act and just how wrongful it should be deemed to be. But an equally serious shortcoming of punishment naturalism is that it fails to provide a credible account of the social and cognitive mechanisms by which individuals evaluate both crime and punishment, opting instead for explanations that are either specific and demonstrably wrong or so vague as to be untestable. By way of contrast we describe an alternative approach, punishment realism, that develops the core insights of legal realism via psychology and anthropology. Punishment realism, we argue, offers a more complete account of agreement and disagreement over the criminal law and provides a more detailed and credible account of the social and cognitive mechanisms that move people to either agree or disagree with one another on whether and how much praise or punishment a given act deserves. The differences between these two empirical accounts also entail contrasting implications for how those interested in maximizing social welfare and public satisfaction with the law should approach questions of crime and punishment

A Core of Agreement

In this short comment, we respond to papers by Robinson, Kurzban, and Jones (RKJ) and by Darley, who replied to our paper, Punishment Naturalism. We align ourselves wholeheartedly with Darley’s argument that intuitions of criminal wrongdoing, while mediated by cognitive mechanisms that are largely universal, consist in evaluations that vary significantly across cultural groups. RKJ defend their finding of “universal” intuitions of “core” of criminal wrongdoing. They acknowledge, however, that their method for identifying the core excludes by design factors that predictably generate cultural variance in what behavior counts as murder, rape, theft and other “core” offenses. On this basis, we reiterate our claim that RKJ’s finding of such a “core” - while of considerable academic interest - does not have any normative or prescriptive upshot for debates about issues at the core of political contention and law-reform efforts in criminal justice - including important ones over the definitions of rape, homicide, domestic violence, and fraud

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? \u3ci\u3eScott v. Harris\u3c/i\u3e and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public. Instead, the Court uploaded to its website a video of the chase, filmed from inside the pursuing police cruisers, and invited members of the public to make up their own minds after viewing it. We showed the video to a diverse sample of 1,350 Americans. Overall a majority agreed with the Court\u27s resolution of the key issues, but within the sample there were sharp differences of opinion along cultural, ideological, and other lines. We attribute these divisions to the psychological disposition of individuals to resolve disputed facts in a manner supportive of their group identities. The paper also addresses the normative significance of these findings. The result in the case, we argue, might be defensible, but the Court\u27s reasoning was not. Its insistence that there was only one reasonable view of facts itself displayed a characteristic of a form of bias - cognitive illiberalism - that consists in the failure to recognize the connection between perceptions of societal risk and contested visions of the ideal society. When courts fail to take steps to counteract that bias, they needlessly invest the law with culturally partisan overtones that detract from the law\u27s legitimacy

Some Realism About Punishment Naturalism

In this paper we critique the increasingly prominent claims of punishment naturalism – the notion that highly nuanced intuitions about most forms of crime and punishment are broadly shared, and that this agreement is best explained by a particular form of evolutionary psychology. While the core claims of punishment naturalism are deeply attractive and intuitive, they are contradicted by a broad array of studies and depend on a number of logical missteps. The most obvious shortcoming of punishment naturalism is that it ignores empirical research demonstrating deep disagreements over what constitutes a wrongful act and just how wrongful it should be deemed to be. But an equally serious shortcoming of punishment naturalism is that it fails to provide a credible account of the social and cognitive mechanisms by which individuals evaluate both crime and punishment, opting instead for explanations that are either specific and demonstrably wrong or so vague as to be untestable. By way of contrast we describe an alternative approach, punishment realism, that develops the core insights of legal realism via psychology and anthropology. Punishment realism, we argue, offers a more complete account of agreement and disagreement over the criminal law and provides a more detailed and credible account of the social and cognitive mechanisms that move people to either agree or disagree with one another on whether and how much praise or punishment a given act deserves. The differences between these two empirical accounts also entail contrasting implications for how those interested in maximizing social welfare and public satisfaction with the law should approach questions of crime and punishment

Energy Management of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle Using a Goal-Oriented Control System

Safe human exploration in space missions requires careful management of limited resources such as breathable air and stored electrical energy. Daily activities for astronauts must be carefully planned with respect to such resources, and usage must be monitored as activities proceed to ensure that they can be completed while maintaining safe resource margins. Such planning and monitoring can be complex because they depend on models of resource usage, the activities being planned, and uncertainties. This paper describes a system - and the technology behind it - for energy management of the NASA-Johnson Space Center's Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicles (SEV), that provides, in an onboard advisory mode, situational awareness to astronauts and real-time guidance to mission operators. This new capability was evaluated during this year's Desert RATS (Research and Technology Studies) planetary exploration analog test in Arizona. This software aided ground operators and crew members in modifying the day s activities based on the real-time execution of the plan and on energy data received from the rovers

Emerging La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific : notes for the health community

This report provides information to assist monitoring of vulnerable communities and provide time sensitive information for interventions to reduce negative health impacts. It is prudent for health decision makers to follow the situation for any developments and monitor climate/weather forecasts as part of an early warning-early action approach. Resources and recommendations for monitoring the situation are presented