Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Boolean logic”

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.

58 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1988

Adaptive parallel logic networks

Adaptive, self-organizing concurrent systems (ASOCS) that combine self-organization with massive parallelism for such applications as adaptive logic devices, robotics, process control, and system malfunction management, are presently discussed. In ASOCS, an adaptive network composed of many simple computing elements operating in combinational and asynchronous fashion is used and problems are specified by presenting if-then rules to the system in the form of Boolean conjunctions. During data processing, which is a different operational phase from adaptation, the network acts as a parallel hardware circuit.

Martinez, Tony R.↗
NASA NTRS2017

First Order Temporal Logic Monitoring with BDDs

Runtime verification is aimed at analyzing execution traces stemming from a running program or system. The traditional purpose is to detect the lack of conformance with respect to a formal specification. Numerous efforts in the field have focused on monitoring so-called parametric specifications, where events carry data, and formulas can refer to such. Since a monitor for such specifications has to store observed data, the challenge is to have an efficient representation and manipulation of Boolean operators, quantification, and lookup of data. The fundamental problem is that the actual values of the data are not necessarily bounded or provided in advance. In this work we explore the use of Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) for representing observed data. Our experiments show a substantial improvement in performance compared to related work.

Ulus, Dogan↗
NASA NTRS2005

Biased Randomized Algorithm for Fast Model-Based Diagnosis

A biased randomized algorithm has been developed to enable the rapid computational solution of a propositional- satisfiability (SAT) problem equivalent to a diagnosis problem. The closest competing methods of automated diagnosis are described in the preceding article "Fast Algorithms for Model-Based Diagnosis" and "Two Methods of Efficient Solution of the Hitting-Set Problem" (NPO-30584), which appears elsewhere in this issue. It is necessary to recapitulate some of the information from the cited articles as a prerequisite to a description of the present method. As used here, "diagnosis" signifies, more precisely, a type of model-based diagnosis in which one explores any logical inconsistencies between the observed and expected behaviors of an engineering system. The function of each component and the interconnections among all the components of the engineering system are represented as a logical system. Hence, the expected behavior of the engineering system is represented as a set of logical consequences. Faulty components lead to inconsistency between the observed and expected behaviors of the system, represented by logical inconsistencies. Diagnosis - the task of finding the faulty components - reduces to finding the components, the abnormalities of which could explain all the logical inconsistencies. One seeks a minimal set of faulty components (denoted a minimal diagnosis), because the trivial solution, in which all components are deemed to be faulty, always explains all inconsistencies. In the methods of the cited articles, the minimal-diagnosis problem is treated as equivalent to a minimal-hitting-set problem, which is translated from a combinatorial to a computational problem by mapping it onto the Boolean-satisfiability and integer-programming problems. The integer-programming approach taken in one of the prior methods is complete (in the sense that it is guaranteed to find a solution if one exists) and slow and yields a lower bound on the size of the minimal diagnosis. In contrast, the present approach is incomplete and fast and yields an upper bound on the size of the minimal diagnosis.

Williams, Colin↗
NASA NTRS1995

Model checking

Automatic formal verification methods for finite-state systems, also known as model-checking, successfully reduce labor costs since they are mostly automatic. Model checkers explicitly or implicitly enumerate the reachable state space of a system, whose behavior is described implicitly, perhaps by a program or a collection of finite automata. Simple properties, such as mutual exclusion or absence of deadlock, can be checked by inspecting individual states. More complex properties, such as lack of starvation, require search for cycles in the state graph with particular properties. Specifications to be checked may consist of built-in properties, such as deadlock or 'unspecified receptions' of messages, another program or implicit description, to be compared with a simulation, bisimulation, or language inclusion relation, or an assertion in one of several temporal logics. Finite-state verification tools are beginning to have a significant impact in commercial designs. There are many success stories of verification tools finding bugs in protocols or hardware controllers. In some cases, these tools have been incorporated into design methodology. Research in finite-state verification has been advancing rapidly, and is showing no signs of slowing down. Recent results include probabilistic algorithms for verification, exploitation of symmetry and independent events, and the use symbolic representations for Boolean functions and systems of linear inequalities. One of the most exciting areas for further research is the combination of model-checking with theorem-proving methods.

Dill, David L.↗