Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Checking”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Recent Checks on the Radiometric and Spatial Calibration of AIRS In-Orbit

The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the EOS Aqua Spacecraft was launched on May 4, 2002 and is currently fully operational. AIRS acquires hyperspectral infrared radiances in 2378 channels ranging in wavelength from 3.7-15.4 um with spectral resolution of better than 1200, and spatial resolution of 13.5 km with global daily coverage. The AIRS was designed to measure temperature and water vapor profiles for improvement in weather forecast and improved parameterization of climate processes. Currently the AIRS Level 1B Radiance Products are assimilated by NWP centers worldwide and have shown considerable forecast improvement. Although the calibration of AIRS (< 200 mK 3 sigma) is sufficient for data assimilation into Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models, long term trends of Earth’s climate require radiances with stability approaching 10 mK/year, and absolute accuracies better than 100 mK. This investigation uses views of space during roll maneuvers of the Aqua spacecraft to calibrate the mirror emission (one of the largest error sources for AIRS) and reduce the residual errors in cold scenes. We also present results of a secondary study that uses MODIS data to determine the alignment of the AIRS boresight. In this study we match AIRS and MODIS data and iterate on the assumed boresight to find the minimum difference in signal. In this way we are able to confirm the boresight projections determined shortly after launch.

Pagano, Thomas S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NTF Test 201 - FAVOR - F-111 Check Standard

Presentation of test process at the National Transonic Facility, Nasa Langley Research Center. The test showcased was part of a cooperative test effort between ARC, LaRC, GRC, and AEDC collecting aerodynamic and process data on the modified F-111 FAVOR model.

Michael D Treece↗
NASA NTRS2013

Regression Verification Using Impact Summaries

Regression verification techniques are used to prove equivalence of syntactically similar programs. Checking equivalence of large programs, however, can be computationally expensive. Existing regression verification techniques rely on abstraction and decomposition techniques to reduce the computational effort of checking equivalence of the entire program. These techniques are sound but not complete. In this work, we propose a novel approach to improve scalability of regression verification by classifying the program behaviors generated during symbolic execution as either impacted or unimpacted. Our technique uses a combination of static analysis and symbolic execution to generate summaries of impacted program behaviors. The impact summaries are then checked for equivalence using an o-the-shelf decision procedure. We prove that our approach is both sound and complete for sequential programs, with respect to the depth bound of symbolic execution. Our evaluation on a set of sequential C artifacts shows that reducing the size of the summaries can help reduce the cost of software equivalence checking. Various reduction, abstraction, and compositional techniques have been developed to help scale software verification techniques to industrial-sized systems. Although such techniques have greatly increased the size and complexity of systems that can be checked, analysis of large software systems remains costly. Regression analysis techniques, e.g., regression testing [16], regression model checking [22], and regression verification [19], restrict the scope of the analysis by leveraging the differences between program versions. These techniques are based on the idea that if code is checked early in development, then subsequent versions can be checked against a prior (checked) version, leveraging the results of the previous analysis to reduce analysis cost of the current version. Regression verification addresses the problem of proving equivalence of closely related program versions [19]. These techniques compare two programs with a large degree of syntactic similarity to prove that portions of one program version are equivalent to the other. Regression verification can be used for guaranteeing backward compatibility, and for showing behavioral equivalence in programs with syntactic differences, e.g., when a program is refactored to improve its performance, maintainability, or readability. Existing regression verification techniques leverage similarities between program versions by using abstraction and decomposition techniques to improve scalability of the analysis [10, 12, 19]. The abstractions and decomposition in the these techniques, e.g., summaries of unchanged code [12] or semantically equivalent methods [19], compute an over-approximation of the program behaviors. The equivalence checking results of these techniques are sound but not complete-they may characterize programs as not functionally equivalent when, in fact, they are equivalent. In this work we describe a novel approach that leverages the impact of the differences between two programs for scaling regression verification. We partition program behaviors of each version into (a) behaviors impacted by the changes and (b) behaviors not impacted (unimpacted) by the changes. Only the impacted program behaviors are used during equivalence checking. We then prove that checking equivalence of the impacted program behaviors is equivalent to checking equivalence of all program behaviors for a given depth bound. In this work we use symbolic execution to generate the program behaviors and leverage control- and data-dependence information to facilitate the partitioning of program behaviors. The impacted program behaviors are termed as impact summaries. The dependence analyses that facilitate the generation of the impact summaries, we believe, could be used in conjunction with other abstraction and decomposition based approaches, [10, 12], as a complementary reduction technique. An evaluation of our regression verification technique shows that our approach is capable of leveraging similarities between program versions to reduce the size of the queries and the time required to check for logical equivalence. The main contributions of this work are: - A regression verification technique to generate impact summaries that can be checked for functional equivalence using an off-the-shelf decision procedure. - A proof that our approach is sound and complete with respect to the depth bound of symbolic execution. - An implementation of our technique using the LLVMcompiler infrastructure, the klee Symbolic Virtual Machine [4], and a variety of Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers, e.g., STP [7] and Z3 [6]. - An empirical evaluation on a set of C artifacts which shows that the use of impact summaries can reduce the cost of regression verification.

Backes, John↗
NASA NTRS1987

Building validation tools for knowledge-based systems

The Expert Systems Validation Associate (EVA), a validation system under development at the Lockheed Artificial Intelligence Center for more than a year, provides a wide range of validation tools to check the correctness, consistency and completeness of a knowledge-based system. A declarative meta-language (higher-order language), is used to create a generic version of EVA to validate applications written in arbitrary expert system shells. The architecture and functionality of EVA are presented. The functionality includes Structure Check, Logic Check, Extended Structure Check (using semantic information), Extended Logic Check, Semantic Check, Omission Check, Rule Refinement, Control Check, Test Case Generation, Error Localization, and Behavior Verification.

Stachowitz, R. A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

From Partial to Global Assume-Guarantee Contracts: Compositional Realizability Analysis in FRET

Realizability checking refers to the formal procedure that aims to determine whether an implementation exists, always complying to a set of requirements, regardless of the stimuli provided by the system’s environment. Such a check is essential to ensure that the specification does not allow behavior that can force the system to violate safety constraints. In this paper, we present an approach that decomposes realizability checking into smaller, more tractable problems. More specifically, our approach automatically partitions specifications into sets of non-interfering requirements. We prove that checking whether a specification is realizable reduces to checking that each partition is realizable.We have integrated realizability checking and implemented our decomposition approach within the open-source Formal Requirements ElicitationTool (FRET). A FRET user may check the realizability of a specification monolithically or compositionally. We evaluate our approach by comparing monolithic and compositional checking and showcase the strengths of our decomposition approach on a variety of industrial-level case studies

Anastasia Mavridou↗