Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Feedforward algorithms”

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.

111 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design and Analysis of Convolutional Neural Network for RF Signal Modulation Classification for In-Orbit Deployment

To effectively transmit data to and from satellites requires a complex and robust RF communication system. Commonly, several different types of signal modulations may be required to maximize satellite efficiency depending on a variety of unexpected channel impairments. We propose a neural network algorithm capable of learning these RF signal modulations using a supervised learning technique designed for low power, high-efficiency in-orbit deployment. The work presented demonstrates a convolutional neural network (CNN) capable of learning and recognizing a set of modulation schemes commonly used to transmit RF information. We are capable of recognizing the modulation scheme from the I and Q data channels directly, with no preprocessing or data conversion required other than breaking the incoming signal into a set of uniform normalized samples. We perform a network design and size analysis, showing that reasonably high accuracy can be obtained using networks with a relatively low number of trainable parameters. Given that a user of a system such as this may wish to receive a signal using a modulation scheme that the network has not previously learned, we demonstrate that transfer learning can learn new modulation schemes by retraining only the fully connected layers in the CNN. Thus, this type of network would excel in outer space deployment using high-efficiency transfer learning hardware. Modulation recognition can be performed through rapid feedforward computation, and the CNN training process is significantly simplified when learning new modulations is required.

CNN↗
NASA NTRS2024

Recommendations on Evidence and Process for Certification of Learning-enabled Components in Aerospace Systems

This report primarily identifies a collection of relevant and necessary evidence for assurance of machine learnt components (MLCs)—also known as learning-enabled components—integrated into aircraft systems, and gives preliminary suggestions on the elements of a certification process that invoke the identified evidence. The main focus is on feedforward neural networks that are static and trained offline through supervised learning. A brief background on the generic elements of the lifecycle of an MLC is given to contextualize the assurance considerations and, consequently, the evidence that is relevant and necessary to support certification. At the level of an MLC, those considerations relate to: (i) the consistency and correctness of MLC contributions to system functions in the context of a validated functional intent; and (ii) the absence of MLC contributions to aircraft-level failure conditions. At an ML model level, confidence in model and data properties contribute to assurance of the containing MLC, in particular: (a) generalizability and robustness of models, in the presence of inputs not previously seen during training, disturbances to inputs, and unexpected inputs; and (b) valid data, i.e., data that are at least representative, relevant, complete, and accurate. Evidence for the above span the elements of the ML lifecycle, and includes, at a minimum, lifecycle artifacts that pertain to: (1) properties of requirements capturing functional intent, safety constraints, and aspects of the intended use and operating environment; (2) model performance, model complexity and design, and algorithm choice; (3) achievement of required performance at the levels of a trained model during model development, a trained model after model development is complete, and a trained model that is transformed into an executable equivalent; (4) model implementation aspects necessary for transforming a trained model into the executable equivalent; (5) integration of the executable trained model into the containing MLC, and eventually the larger system; and, (6) lastly, the verification and validation (V&V) of each of the above. Such V&V lifecycle artifacts themselves include: aspects of coverage, e.g., of various levels of requirements by the input space of the model and the data; traceability (where applicable); application of formal methods for property specification, analysis, and checking. Examples of evidence generation methods and tools further ground the discussion on what constitutes evidence, and the contribution to assurance during certification. The identified assurance considerations and supporting evidence is not a comprehensive set. Additionally, neither what should be considered as sufficient evidence relative to the assigned criticality of an MLC, nor how criticality ought to be determined and adjusted, have been considered in this report. However, suggestions are made for potential activities of the ML lifecycle that are aimed at providing confidence that an MLC can be relied upon when integrated into its containing (aircraft) system. Those activities are proposed as candidate elements of a certification process for MLCs. The main purpose of this report to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.

Aviation safety↗
NASA NTRS2003

Flight Test of an Intelligent Flight-Control System

The F-15 Advanced Controls Technology for Integrated Vehicles (ACTIVE) airplane (see figure) was the test bed for a flight test of an intelligent flight control system (IFCS). This IFCS utilizes a neural network to determine critical stability and control derivatives for a control law, the real-time gains of which are computed by an algorithm that solves the Riccati equation. These derivatives are also used to identify the parameters of a dynamic model of the airplane. The model is used in a model-following portion of the control law, in order to provide specific vehicle handling characteristics. The flight test of the IFCS marks the initiation of the Intelligent Flight Control System Advanced Concept Program (IFCS ACP), which is a collaboration between NASA and Boeing Phantom Works. The goals of the IFCS ACP are to (1) develop the concept of a flight-control system that uses neural-network technology to identify aircraft characteristics to provide optimal aircraft performance, (2) develop a self-training neural network to update estimates of aircraft properties in flight, and (3) demonstrate the aforementioned concepts on the F-15 ACTIVE airplane in flight. The activities of the initial IFCS ACP were divided into three Phases, each devoted to the attainment of a different objective. The objective of Phase I was to develop a pre-trained neural network to store and recall the wind-tunnel-based stability and control derivatives of the vehicle. The objective of Phase II was to develop a neural network that can learn how to adjust the stability and control derivatives to account for failures or modeling deficiencies. The objective of Phase III was to develop a flight control system that uses the neural network outputs as a basis for controlling the aircraft. The flight test of the IFCS was performed in stages. In the first stage, the Phase I version of the pre-trained neural network was flown in a passive mode. The neural network software was running using flight data inputs with the outputs provided to instrumentation only. The IFCS was not used to control the airplane. In another stage of the flight test, the Phase I pre-trained neural network was integrated into a Phase III version of the flight control system. The Phase I pretrained neural network provided realtime stability and control derivatives to a Phase III controller that was based on a stochastic optimal feedforward and feedback technique (SOFFT). This combined Phase I/III system was operated together with the research flight-control system (RFCS) of the F-15 ACTIVE during the flight test. The RFCS enables the pilot to switch quickly from the experimental- research flight mode back to the safe conventional mode. These initial IFCS ACP flight tests were completed in April 1999. The Phase I/III flight test milestone was to demonstrate, across a range of subsonic and supersonic flight conditions, that the pre-trained neural network could be used to supply real-time aerodynamic stability and control derivatives to the closed-loop optimal SOFFT flight controller. Additional objectives attained in the flight test included (1) flight qualification of a neural-network-based control system; (2) the use of a combined neural-network/closed-loop optimal flight-control system to obtain level-one handling qualities; and (3) demonstration, through variation of control gains, that different handling qualities can be achieved by setting new target parameters. In addition, data for the Phase-II (on-line-learning) neural network were collected, during the use of stacked-frequency- sweep excitation, for post-flight analysis. Initial analysis of these data showed the potential for future flight tests that will incorporate the real-time identification and on-line learning aspects of the IFCS.

Davidson, Ron↗