Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Pipeline, Machine Learning, Automation”

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.

3 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Object and Gas Source Detection with Robotic Platforms in Perceptually-Degraded Environments

In exploration-oriented robotic missions for disaster relief in unknown subterranean environments, it is of prime importance for a human supervisor to rapidly gain situational awareness of salient objects within the environment. In this paper we present an automated object detection pipeline that is adaptable to heterogeneous robots with arbitrary sensor configurations. It has been deployed in time-critical scenarios with multiple collaborative robots in a variety of demanding underground environments. For visually observable objects, detections are made in both the visible and thermal spectra using a state-of-the-art machine learning framework for object detection and classification. Our pipeline can be rapidly adapted to a specific task by using a small, structured dataset to fine-tune a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN). Relative localization is separated from the CNN for speed of operation. A robust architecture for localization is used with outlier rejection and a hierarchy of fall-back distance measurement methods. Point-source objects such as gas and WiFi hotspots can also be detected, by tracking signal strength over time and presenting an intuitive visualization on a map. Observations of each object types are presented to the operator in ranked confidence order for final evaluation.

Agha-mohammadi, Ali-akbar↗
NASA NTRS2026

Machine Learning for Predicting Team Functioning in HERA Missions

Team functioning is integral to success in future long term space exploration missions. Proactively detecting declines in team functioning can mitigate conflict and ensure mission success. This project developed a speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that unobtrusively predicts degradation in team functioning, including performance and cohesion, in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5. The AI system conducted automated analysis of the prosodic (tone of voice) and linguistic (language content) components of speech, modeling interpersonal dynamics at both the turn-taking and day-wide levels. We investigated team functioning via observing structured interactions (i.e., multi-mission space exploration vehicle-extra vehicular activity [MMSEV-EVA], team interaction battery [TIB]) and unstructured interactions before the MMSEV-EVA task. We developed machine learning models to predict team functioning (objective task accuracy, self reported team efficacy and self reported team cohesion) by analyzing OpenSmile acoustic features, linguistic descriptors extracted via the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) dictionary, and semantic embeddings. In the TIB, static models using logistic regression and random forests were not able to predict task accuracy, but predicted team efficacy and cohesion during both the decision making and relational tasks to a moderate level (60-70%). Majority voting on the individual turns to predict day long team efficacy further increased accuracies (70-80%). Finally, long short-term memory (LSTM) models showed the best performance across all variables (80-91%), including task performance. In the MMSEV-EVA, static models achieved an accuracy of 60% with majority voting, which increased to 80% through the incorporation of mission day as a variable, accounting for the learning effect. A key finding across both tasks was the "team-dependent" nature of these interactions; models achieved much higher accuracy when trained on prior days of the same team's data rather than attempting to generalize across entirely different teams, with even 1-2 days of prior data per team achieving 5-15% improvement over team-independent models. In addition, the incorporation of pre-task data from the same team also improves model performance, e.g., incorporating data from the decision-making task of the TIB, which preceded the relational task, improved the prediction of team efficacy and cohesion during the latter. We compared model performance when trained on machine-generated data compared to data that had been further corrected by human annotators. Overall, models trained on human-corrected data exhibited a modest improvement in performance, particularly when acoustic features were used. We found no significant correlation between word error rate (WER) and model accuracy (r(55) = -0.08, p = 0.51), but model’s accuracy was significantly higher for medium/high quality transcription (0.74 (SD = 0.48)) compared to the low-quality group (0.64 (SD = 0.36)) (t(63)=2.82, p = 0.006). Based on these, several design recommendation emerge, that could inform Standards at NASA. Models predicting team functioning should incorporate at least one to two days of historical interaction data, include brief pre-task discussions, and explicitly model temporal learning effects, especially for longer operational tasks. Minimum quality standards for automated speech-processing pipelines are needed, given the performance gains observed with manually corrected acoustic data. Finally, systems should leverage both acoustic features and language embeddings in complementary ways, with modality choices and fusion strategies tailored to mission context, task demands, and data quality requirements.

Shrivatsa Mishra↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

GeoAI advances in specific landform mapping

Landform mapping (also referred to as geomorphology or geomorphometry) can be divided into two domains: general and specific (Evans 2012). Whereas general landform mapping categorizes all elements of the study area into landform classes, such as ridges, valleys, peaks, and depressions, the mapping of specific landforms requires the delineation (even if fuzzy) of individual landforms. The former is mainly driven by physical properties such as elevation, slope, and curvature. The latter, however, must consider the cognitive (human) reasoning that discriminates individual landforms in addition to these physical properties (Arundel and Sinha 2018). Both mapping forms are important. General geomorphometry is needed to understand geological and ecological processes and as boundary layer input to climate and environmental models. Specific geomorphometry supports such activities as disaster management and recovery, emergency response, transportation, and navigation. In the United States, individual landforms of interest are named in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geographic Names Information System, a point dataset captured specifically to digitize geographic names from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection (HTMC). Named landform extent is represented only by the name placement in the HTMC. Recent work has investigated CNN-based deep learning methods to capture these extents in machine-readable form. These studies first relied on physical properties (Arundel et al. 2020) and then included the HTMC as a band in RGB images in limited testing (Arundel et al. 2023). Results from the HTMC dataset surpassed those using just physical properties and using the HTMC alone performed best due to the hillshading and elevation (contour) data incorporated into the topographic maps. However, results fell short of an operational capacity to map all named landforms in the United States. Thus, our current work expands upon past research by focusing on the HTMC and physical information as inputs and the named landform label extents. Specifically, we propose to leverage pre-trained foundation models for segmentation and optical character recognition (OCR) models to jointly map landforms in the United States. Our approach aims to bridge the disparities among the independent information sources to facilitate informed decision-making. The modeling pipeline performs (1) segmentation using the physical information and (2) information extraction using OCR, in parallel. Then a computer vision approach merges the two branches into a labeled segmentation. References: Arundel, Samantha T., Wenwen Li, and Sizhe Wang. 2020. “GeoNat v1.0: A Dataset for Natural Feature Mapping with Artificial Intelligence and Supervised Learning.” Transactions in GIS 24 (3): 556–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12633. Arundel, Samantha T, and Gaurav Sinha. 2018. “Validating GEOBIA Based Terrain Segmentation and Classification for Automated Delineation of Cognitively Salient Landforms BT - Proceedings of Workshops and Posters at the 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017).” In Proceedings of Workshops and Posters at the 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017), Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, edited by Paolo Fogliaroni, Andrea Ballatore, and Eliseo Clementini, 9–14. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Arundel, Samantha T., Gaurav Sinha, Wenwen Li, David P. Martin, Kevin G. McKeehan, and Philip T. Thiem. 2023. “Historical Maps Inform Landform Cognition in Machine Learning.” Abstracts of the ICA 6 (August): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-6-10-2023. Evans, Ian S. 2012. “Geomorphometry and Landform Mapping: What Is a Landform?” Geomorphology 137 (1): 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.029.

machine learning↗