Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “adaptive feedback receivers”

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.

Resilience Design Patterns: A Structured Approach to Resilience at Extreme Scale (V.2.0)

Reliability is a serious concern for future extreme-scale high-performance computing (HPC) systems. Projections based on the current generation of HPC systems and technology roadmaps suggest the prevalence of very high fault rates in future systems. The errors resulting from these faults will propagate and generate various kinds of failures, which may result in outcomes ranging from result corruptions to catastrophic application crashes. Therefore, the resilience challenge for extreme-scale HPC systems requires coordination between various hardware and software technologies that are capable of handling a broad set of fault models at accelerated fault rates. Also, due to practical limits on power consumption in future HPC systems, they are likely to embrace innovative architectures, increasing the levels of hardware and software complexities. Therefore, the techniques that seek to improve resilience must navigate the complex trade-off space between resilience and the overheads to power consumption and performance. While the HPC community has developed various resilience solutions, application-level techniques as well as system-based solutions, the solution space of HPC resilience techniques remains fragmented. There are no formal methods to integrate the various HPC resilience techniques into composite solutions, nor are there methods to holistically evaluate the adequacy and efficacy of such solutions in terms of their protection coverage, and their performance & power efficiency characteristics. Additionally, few implementations of current resilience solutions are portable to newer architectures and software environments that will be deployed on future systems. We developed a new structured approach to the management of HPC resilience using the concept of resilience-based design patterns. In general, a design pattern is a repeatable solution to a commonly occurring problem. We identified the well-known solutions that are commonly used to deal with faults, errors and failures in HPC systems. In the initial design patterns specification (version 1.0), we described the various solutions, which address specific problems in the design of resilient HPC environments, in the form of patterns. Each pattern describes a problem caused by a fault, error or failure event in an HPC environment, and then describes the core of the solution of the problem in such a way that this solution may be adapted to different systems and implemented at different layers of the system stack. The catalog of these resilience design patterns provides designers with a collection of design elements. To construct complete resilience solutions using combinations of various patterns, we defined a framework that enhances HPC designers' understanding of the important constraints and the opportunities for the design patterns to be implemented and deployed at various layers of the system stack. The design framework is also useful for establishing interfaces and mechanisms to coordinate flexible fault management across hardware and software components, as well as to consider the trade-off between performance, resilience, and power consumption when constructing a solution. The resilience design patterns specification version 1.1 included more detailed explanations of the pattern solutions, the context in which the patterns are applicable, and the implications for hardware or software design. It also provided several additional examples and detailed case studies to demonstrate the use of patterns to build realistic solutions. In version 1.2 of the specification document, we have improved the pattern descriptions, including graphical representations of the pattern components. These improvements are largely based on critical comments, feedback and suggestions received from pattern experts and readers of the previous versions of the specification. The pattern classification has been modified to further clarify the relationships between pattern categories. This version of the specification also introduces a pattern language for resilience design patterns. The pattern language presents the patterns in the catalog as a network, revealing the relations among the resilience patterns. The language provides designers with the means to explore alternative techniques for handling a specific fault model that may have different efficiency and complexity characteristics. Using the pattern language also enables the design and implementation of comprehensive resilience solutions as a set of interconnected resilience patterns that can be instantiated across layers of the system stack. The overall goal of this work is to provide hardware and software designers, as well as the users and operators of HPC systems, a systematic methodology for the design and evaluation of resilience technologies in HPC systems that keep scientific applications running to a correct solution in a timely and cost-efficient manner despite frequent faults, errors, and failures of various types. Version 2.0 expands the resilience design pattern classification and catalog to include self-stabilization patterns and reliability, availability and performance models for each structural pattern.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Explainable Artificial Intelligence Technology for Predictive Maintenance

The domestic nuclear power plant fleet has relied on labor-intensive and time-consuming preventive maintenance programs, thus driving up operation and maintenance costs to achieve high-capacity factors. Artificial intelligence and machine learning can help simplify complex problems, such as diagnosing equipment degradation, to enable more effective decision-making. Benefits will be felt not only within existing analog and digital instrumentation and control, but also work processes, the integration of people with technology, and most importantly, the business case. Together, these hold promise to make nuclear power more efficient and reduce costs associated with operation and maintenance. While the artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies hold significant promise in the nuclear industry, there are challenges or barriers to their adoption. This report outlines the those different machine learning adoption barriers (categorized as historical, technical, economic, regulatory, and user) that the industry must overcome to realize the full benefits of artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities for long-term economic sustainability. This report also provides solutions for some of these barriers by focusing on improving the explainability of machine learning to encourage trust from the end-user. Trust and explainability are essential to machine learning adoption. This report focuses on research-developed solutions to some of these barriers while analyzing a non-safety-related system, namely the circulating water system. This system frequently experiences waterbox fouling which our models preemptively diagnoses then explains to the operator how those conclusions were reached. This report presents and discusses the inherent trade-off between machine learning performance (in terms of accuracy) and explainability, where highly accurate machine learning methods (such as deep-learning) are the least explainable, and the most explainable methods (such as decision trees) are the least accurate. In addition, explainability of artificial intelligence techniques in terms of transparency and post-hoc metrics are discussed. This report outlines the importance of data novelty and value of new information in evaluating both the explainability and trustworthiness. Novelty detection helps to establish consistency or inconsistency of the new data with respect to the training data. On the other hand, value of information could be a part of the user-centric visualization recommendation system that request additional information to be collected, thereby strengthening the machine learning outcomes. During this project, a copyrighted user-centric visualization that aligns with a human-in-the-loop approach was developed. The user-centric visualization presents different levels of information and can be tailored as per user credentials to gain user confidence. One of the salient features of the user-centric visualization is it presents machine learning methods with explainability metrics. A simplified version of the user-centric visualization was presented to 32 users with varying levels of machine learning expertise. Feedback was solicited to test the hypothesis that the app contained sufficient explainability and that the users would trust the algorithm. Overall, the app was positively received, and the hypothesis was supported. This report discusses the trust-but-verify framework – a potential approach to build user trust artificial intelligence. The framework discusses trust from the human level to artificial intelligence level. The fundamental premise of the trust but verify framework is derived from an observation of nuclear safety culture (i.e., nuclear power plant personnel do not rely on a singular source of data to make a decision). This also ties back to the user-centric visualization that presents different levels of information to achieve both explainability and trustworthiness of artificial intelligence. Even so, the adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the nuclear industry faces additional barriers, namely regulatory and stakeholder readiness. To overcome these challenges, new solutions must gain regulatory approval and cater to stakeholder needs. The Nuclear Regulatory Committee has a 5-year strategic plan which prepares them for reviewing artificial intelligence technologies in licensee submissions. Early and frequent engagement with the regulator is encouraged. Additionally, artificial intelligence solutions should incorporate human-in-the-loop considerations and offer explainability. Stakeholders must prepare by hiring or training staff to adapt to advancing technology in everyday plant tasks.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

National and Regional Initiatives to Promote Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Through State Energy Offices

The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office (WIP) over a ten year period to provide technical assistance, research and analyses, and enhanced coordination between DOE and the State and Territory Energy Offices. Over the life of the agreement, NASEO worked with WIP and the states to provide statewide strategic energy plan analyses and recommendations, including customized technical assistance to the states; peer to peer financing assistance via NASEO’s Financing Committee and supporting activities; training on core energy policies and programs, including dialogues and resources to support energy-air coordination, a training for new State Energy Office Directors, peer to peer exchange via a rural energy taskforce, and support to states to enhance buildings efficiency, home energy labeling, and technology deployment opportunities; support for State Energy Program metrics; and regional coordination via regional coordinators and peer exchange opportunities both in-person and online. Over the life of the project, the position and role of State Energy Offices within state government has changed, with now 80 percent of State Energy Office Directors serving as their Governor’s energy advisor, or reporting directly to their Governor’s energy advisor. This shift in stature has made it ever more crucial for State Energy Offices to receive timely and relevant technical assistance across a range of energy issue areas. NASEO, in collaboration with WIP, was able to deliver this technical assistance, and energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment has accelerated across the country. The State Energy Office Directors and their staff continue to engage in NASEO’s Committees – many of which were supported through this agreement – and have provided formal and informal feedback on the value of the programs supported through this award (e.g., reporting via survey increased understanding of their roles and technical assistance offerings provided by WIP and NASEO following the New Director Trainings). Moreover, resources developed through this award (e.g., Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines, State Energy Loan Fund Database, Rural Data Resources for State Energy Planning and Programs, The Value of Adding home Energy Score to Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs, etc.) have been cited by states as instrumental to their understanding of specific energy issue areas and in many cases led directly to enhanced program design within a state (e.g. Iowa citing their review of NASEO’s Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines as a necessary first step in their planning process, later following may of the steps outlined in the guidelines). The priorities of the states and federal government have evolved over the last decade, with an increasing focus on climate mitigation and adaptation, equity impacts and considerations, energy security and resilience, and enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology deployment, but the roots of these new priorities are based in the state and federal policies and programs, and research and analyses, that were supported in part through this award and other complementary initiatives. NASEO looks forward to continuing to support the states, and collaborate and coordinate with DOE, as we build on this important foundation in the years ahead.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗