Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hierarchical optimization”

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.

147 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Decision-Tree Formulation With Order-1 Lateral Execution

A compact symbolic formulation enables mapping of an arbitrarily complex decision tree of a certain type into a highly computationally efficient multidimensional software object. The type of decision trees to which this formulation applies is that known in the art as the Boolean class of balanced decision trees. Parallel lateral slices of an object created by means of this formulation can be executed in constant time considerably less time than would otherwise be required. Decision trees of various forms are incorporated into almost all large software systems. A decision tree is a way of hierarchically solving a problem, proceeding through a set of true/false responses to a conclusion. By definition, a decision tree has a tree-like structure, wherein each internal node denotes a test on an attribute, each branch from an internal node represents an outcome of a test, and leaf nodes represent classes or class distributions that, in turn represent possible conclusions. The drawback of decision trees is that execution of them can be computationally expensive (and, hence, time-consuming) because each non-leaf node must be examined to determine whether to progress deeper into a tree structure or to examine an alternative. The present formulation was conceived as an efficient means of representing a decision tree and executing it in as little time as possible. The formulation involves the use of a set of symbolic algorithms to transform a decision tree into a multi-dimensional object, the rank of which equals the number of lateral non-leaf nodes. The tree can then be executed in constant time by means of an order-one table lookup. The sequence of operations performed by the algorithms is summarized as follows: 1. Determination of whether the tree under consideration can be encoded by means of this formulation. 2. Extraction of decision variables. 3. Symbolic optimization of the decision tree to minimize its form. 4. Expansion and transformation of all nested conjunctive-disjunctive paths to a flattened conjunctive form composed only of equality checks when possible. If each reduced conjunctive form contains only equality checks and all of these forms use the same variables, then the decision tree can be reduced to an order-one operation through a table lookup. The speedup to order one is accomplished by distributing each decision variable over a surface of a multidimensional object by mapping the equality constant to an index

James, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Machine Learning Approach to Improve Air Traffic Management Initiatives

Collaborating closely with commercial air carriers and related organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) regulates air traffic and ensures the safety and efficiency of air operations. Air traffic controllers make strategic decisions, such as delaying, rerouting, or canceling flights, partly based on guidance provided by the FAA’s Air TrafficControl System Command Center (ATCSCC). The guidance includes, among other things, control measures known asTraffic Management Initiatives (TMIs) designed to enhance safety and improve operational efficiency. TMIs play a crucial role in managing the demand and capacity within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). Two major TMIs that are routinely used (primarily to mitigate the adverse effects of bad weather) are Ground Delay Programs (GDPs) andGround Stops (GSs). In a GDP, flights destined for airports facing thunderstorm activity experience delays at their origin airports. This proactive approach minimizes the risk of routing aircraft through hazardous weather conditions and also replaces (fuel burning) airborne delays with ground delays. In a GS, a temporary restriction is imposed on the departure or arrival of aircraft at a specific airport or within a designated airspace. Although other TMIs (e.g., miles-in-trail) are also implemented as part of (air) traffic flow management in the NAS, the focus of this work is on GDPs and GSs. Since TMIs, by design, lead to flight delays or cancellations, it is crucial to put in place the right set of parameters(e.g., scope and duration of the GDP). For example, when the end time of a GDP extends beyond what is necessary, it imposes unnecessary delays on departing flights. This situation could occur as a result of inaccurate prediction of the(required) duration of the GDP based on the weather forecast. On the other hand, if a GDP ends prematurely before the underlying capacity constraints are resolved at the destination airport, it may result in airborne holding. The delicate balance lies in matching the termination of the GDP precisely with the resolution of capacity constraints, avoiding both the imposition of unnecessary ground delays and the need for airborne holding due to premature program termination.Failing to specify the right parameters for TMIs also leads to flight delays, creating a significant obstacle in managing the increasing traffic volumes causing increased work load for the controllers. To address this issue, we propose the integration of Machine Learning (ML) models in the traffic flow management(TFM) pipeline. In current operations, decisions are made by human experts based on extensive training, historical patterns, available traffic and weather data. Since we have an abundance of data from past events that tell us the likely impact of various TMIs, by ingesting historical data, properly trained ML models can offer valuable insights and aid human decision-making. With the FAA increasingly exploring advanced analytics, ML emerges as a focal point for enhancing TFM within the National Airspace System (NAS). As a first step, this study aims to provide traffic controllers with decision-making support for the issuance and adjustment of TMIs. Data analytics and machine learning have been previously employed to address some of the challenges associated with TMIs. Numerous studies have concentrated on various facets of TMI issuance, exploring factors influencing TMI parameters, including arrival rate, airport capacity, and delay prediction. For example, using weather forecasts, several statistical methods were used to produce probabilistic capacity profiles which in conjunction with deterministic models provided insights into the GDP planning process [1–4]. The downside of using deterministic models is that they rely on fixed inputs and predetermined rules, which lack the ability to account for the inherent uncertainty and variability present in real-world scenarios. In a separate series of studies, researchers aimed to predict the occurrences of GDPs and GSs. The majority of these studies utilized various supervised learning methods, including Decision Trees, Naive Bayes, Support VectorMachines, and Random Forests to analyze the influence of weather conditions and arrival demand on TMI incidents[5–8]. However, these studies primarily focused on predicting the incidence of TMIs without explicitly addressing the scope of TMIs, including their duration and their geographical coverage. Furthermore, the emphasis of these studies was largely on GDPs, given their higher frequency and longer duration when compared to GSs. A limited number of studies focused on predicting the parameters of TMIs, specifically addressing their duration and extent. In one such study focusing on optimizing the TMI parameters at San Francisco International Airport (SFO),the authors utilized a probabilistic forecast of fog [9]. They simulated various capacity scenarios based on the (fog)burn-off forecasts, selecting GDP parameters that minimized airborne and overall ground delays. However, this approach exclusively emphasizes stratus (fog) burn-off as the primary determinant of GDP and GS, neglecting other influential factors like severe weather events, runway closures, lower capacity than traffic demand, and other important variables. Given the complexity of predicting the TMI and determining its scope, we seek a more holistic approach. We aim to consider all significant factors that could impact TMIs and their parameters. What sets this research apart is the fusion of all data sources relevant to the issuance and adjustment of TMIs and it represents the first comprehensive attempt to optimize TMIs in this manner. Since this comprehensive solution involves various aspects, we break down the problem into smaller components and input all parameters into a unified model called the “TMI Adjuster”. Figure 1 shows the overall framework and the list of datasets used in each model. The objective of the TMI Adjuster module is to deliver reliable, consistent and expedited recommendations for the progression, adjustment, and termination of TMIs. The ML solution entails developing a pipeline capable of predicting the necessity of a TMI (e.g., GS or GDP) along with its various parameters. For example, in the case of a GS, this includes the scope of the GS either in terms of distance from the destination airport or based on pre-defined airspace sectors. Here, scope refers to those regions and departing airports that are subject to the GS. In this paper, we concentrate on the issuance of GSs in the three major airports in the New York area — LaGuardia(LGA), John F. Kennedy International (JFK), and Newark Liberty International (EWR). We fuse traffic, weather and other relevant aviation data from years 2017 to 2019 to train and validate the ML models. In particular, we use the following datasets: •Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF): meteorological forecasts specific to each airport, issued four times a day, covering predefined time periods. •TMI data: includes all GSs and GDPs along with their respective parameters. •Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM): includes traffic related data such as aircraft delays, arrival, and departure rates. •Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs): utilized to extract runway closure data and manage interdependencies between terminals in close proximity. •Flight cancellation data •Airspace Flow Programs (AFP): includes information on flight airborne holdings caused by TMIs. The data preprocessing entails transforming ASPM, TMI, AFP, NOTAMs, and weather data into an hourly format and consolidating all datasets by merging them based on date and time as the primary key. The TMI Adjuster framework comprises two parallel models: one dedicated to GS and a second model focused on GDP. As previously mentioned, our specific focus is on the GS model as a multi-classification problem. In this framework, each data point of the GS model input summarizes ten hours of data. Specifically, the data loader for the GS model generates the input and output of the model as follows: at a given time step, the input includes the actual traffic, weather, and TMI data from the two-hour window before the time step, alongside the weather forecast and scheduled traffic for the next 8 hours starting from the time step. Based on this information, the output of the GS model for each time interval consists of three dimensions. The first dimension represents a binary decision on whether there should be a GS in place for the next hour or not. The second dimension is related to the scope of the GS in the United States, and the third dimension is related to the scope of the GS in Canada (i.e., to determine if the GS impacts airports in Canada).One of the challenges with TMI modeling is the sparsity of TMI events, particularly regarding its scope. To address this challenge in the scope of the GS model output, we implement grouping. The GS scope for the US region is defined based on a list of centers that should be included when the GS is in place. With 20 centers in the US, we utilized historical data to group them into 4 categories. In particular, we summarized our historical data in a graph format where nodes represent centers, and link weights are defined based on the co-occurrence of centers in the scope parameter ofTMIs. By identified strongly connected components in this graph, we were able to partition the centers into four groups. We consider two model structures for the GS Model. Firstly, a hierarchical classification model [10], where the human decision-making for a GS is of hierarchical nature. The decision-maker first decides whether there is a need fora GS, and if the answer is yes, determines the scope. A hierarchical classification model organizes the problem into a class hierarchy, typically a tree or a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure, and considers the dependency of the decision in the previous step to the next component [10]. Here, we employ the local classifier per level approach, which involves training one multi-class classifier for each level of the class hierarchy. The second structure is the independent structure. In this setting, as the name suggests, we do not consider the dependency of the decisions in the different dimensions of the output of the model. Instead, for each dimension, we train a multi-class classifier independently. Table 1 summarizes GS model statistics for training, validation and testing. The table documents the effect of limiting data to the time steps when there was actually a TMI in place or when a TMI had just terminated. This resulted in a more balanced distribution of the GS class(GS positive class)versus “No GS”(GS negative class), which might help the training process. While JFK and LGA follow very similar distributions, with 40% and 42% GS positive class respectively, EWR has proportionally fewer GS incidents at 28%. Our subsequent phase involves evaluating the performance of both hierarchical structure and independent structure using different state-of-the-art multi-class classifier models such as Random Forest, Decision Trees, K-nearest Neighbors, and Logistic Regression and forecast the duration and scope of the GSs.

Farzan Masrour Shalmani↗