This commit is contained in:
Dane Sabo 2025-08-14 17:22:29 -04:00
parent 5964dc8fbd
commit 5031f1c679
665 changed files with 68 additions and 175 deletions

View File

@ -1,132 +0,0 @@
# Notes on [[thesis-ideas-2025-07-30]]
What needs done:
- [X] 1 needs edited and reviewed
- [X] Review outcomes. I really don't like outcome
number 1.
- [X] Review and edit 2
- [X] Review and edit 3
- [X] Write an impact section
- [X] Review and edit 4
- [X] Needs more goal
- [X] Review and edit 5
- [X] Review and edit 6
## Discussion Cheat Sheet
Chat helped with this
### Temporal Logic Specifications for Autonomous Controller
Synthesis
- **Feasibility:** ★★★★★
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★★★
**Scope Boundaries:** Focus on one subsystem (e.g., rod
supervisory control), one specification language, and
existing synthesis tools (TLA+, FRET, Strix).
**Key Risk:** State space explosion during synthesis could
make controller generation intractable.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Use bounded abstractions,
compositional synthesis, and validate the synthesized
controller on a high-fidelity simulation before scaling up.
---
### Formally Verified Runtime Monitoring and Fallback
- **Feasibility:** ★★★★★
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★★☆
**Scope Boundaries:** Single primary controller with one
fallback controller, one LTL specification set, and
integration with ARCADE.
**Key Risk:** Limited novelty if scoped too narrowly or
perceived as a straightforward engineering integration.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Emphasize automation of
specification-to-monitor translation, nuclear-specific
verification, and proof artifact generation to show novelty.
---
### Verified Adaptive Control
- **Feasibility:** ★★★★☆
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★★☆
**Scope Boundaries:** One subsystem (rod control), one
adaptation method, runtime contract monitoring only.
**Key Risk:** Over-scoping to multiple adaptation targets
or attempting plant-wide adaptive control.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Pick representative degradation
types (e.g., HX fouling, pump efficiency drop); limit
adaptation to parameter tuning inside pre-verified safe
envelopes.
---
### Integrating Shielding into Nuclear Power Control
- **Feasibility:** ★★★★☆
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★★☆
**Scope Boundaries:** One ML control task (e.g., startup or
load-following), one shield synthesis approach from temporal
logic.
**Key Risk:** Regulatory and industry reluctance toward ML
in safety-critical nuclear applications.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Demonstrate shielding benefits for
both ML and conventional controllers to broaden acceptance.
---
### Improved: Data-Driven Fault Detection Using
High-Assurance Digital Twins
- **Feasibility:** ★★★★☆
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★★☆
**Scope Boundaries:** Limit to 34 high-impact fault types
(e.g., secondary coolant loss, HX fouling, sensor drift),
residual-based detection with physics-informed models.
**Key Risk:** Scope creep into too many fault scenarios or
overly complex ML methods.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Focus on explainable,
physics-informed detection; tie mitigation responses
directly to NRC-aligned safety procedures.
---
### Formally Verified Neural Network Control of Control Rod
System
- **Feasibility:** ★★★☆☆
- **Impact:** ★★★★☆
- **Merit:** ★★★☆☆
**Scope Boundaries:** Small, well-structured NN
architecture; bounded state space; one primary safety
property (shutdown margin).
**Key Risk:** Scalability issues in SMT/MILP verification
for larger or more complex networks.
**Mitigation Strategy:** Constrain network size and
complexity; limit verification domain to tractable operating
regions; focus on proof-of-concept that shows
nuclear-specific applicability.

View File

@ -5,6 +5,74 @@
## Work
Yesterday Dan and I had our meeting about
[[thesis-ideas-2025-07-30 | topic ideas]]. The results were
as follows:
5. Integrating Shielding in Nuclear Power
3. Formally Verified NN CTRL of CRS
1. Temporal Logic Specifications for Autonomous Control
Synthesis.
1. Formally Verified Runtime Monitoring and Fallback
6. High Assurance Fault Detection with Digital Twins
4. Verified Adaptive Control.
The final topic result?
*Hybrid Controller Synthesis from Temporal Logic
Specifications*
The research will be basically a mix of the third and fourth
idea. More work to come on this one.
I also got roped into making a presentation about Strix for
next week's meeting. So I must learn about that!
## Reading
Yesterday I read more of *The Power of Habit* and I learned
about the **craving**. A craving is what actually makes the
habit loop work. It was explained to me that the brain
releases a spike in activity at first when it recognizes the
reward. Once the cue and routine are associated with the
reward, the brain over time will deliver the activity spike
as an anticipation of the reward *earlier and earlier*. The
result is that the brain gets the activity spike as soon as
it sees the cue, anticipates the reward, and is thus
motivated to do the routine. The craving is what makes
habits easy.
## Personal
Finally my personal info. I feel pretty good today. I didn't
get a lot done this morning but I'm steady cooking now that
I'm working in a Starbucks on campus. I've been
peoplewatching as people slowly move in for the fall
semester. It's fun to see all the different kinds of people
walking around and to see the connection between kids and
parents. The kids definitely look more nervous on average
than the parents. And I get it, the parents know what to
expect, but for the kids, this is the transition to the deep
end. They'll be fine.
On the lady front, here's today's update:
**Miranda:**
Honestly I'm getting a little bored. I think it might just
be a texting issue, or perhaps the infatuation wearing off.
That's okay though, she's really busy this week som maybe
that has something to do with it.
**Abby:**
No update!
**Katarina:**
Also no update, but I'm excited for our date tonight. We'll
see how it goes.
I made some updates to my hinge profile to make things sound
more serious and better indicate what I want / who I am.
Maybe this'll stand out more. Honestly, I tried to write the
profile like one I'd be looking for.

View File

@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
# A random thesis idea I had
This is kind of connected to the high assurance digital twin
idea, but I am currently in the middle of reading and needed
to get this out of my head.
Here's the situation:
Manyu's work made a lot of progress to apply contract based
formal methods to nuclear power. To do this, an assumption
of a certain components output is fed into the input of the
next component. Math is done, and then the output of that
component becomes a guarantee, which is then the assumption
for the next component in line after that.
But here's a question: how do you know that your assumptions
and guarantee's are valid on a real system, in real time?
These contracts are based on having a model of the system
with which you can evaluate the assumptions/guarantee pairs.
But, real systems never will line up perfectly with a model,
and over time or different conditions, will absolutely have
different physical behaviors. Knowing if the contracts still
hold for the real system is a significant problem.
Here's where some online modeling in simulation can come in.
Perhaps, we can use a digital twin to estimate what the
critical model parameters for the contract methods are in
the real system. This is probably most easily accomplished
with either a physics informed neural network (PINN) or some
sort of particle filter bayesian nonsense. Once those
parameters are identified, we can reevaluate the contracts
to know a) if our system is safe, b) what our new
assumptions and safe operating range are, and c) make
strategic decisions about the plant control if necessary.
This relates to the [autonomous framework paper](/Zettelkasten/Literature%20Notes/albertiAutomationLevelsNuclear2023.md)
that talks about getting to higher levels of automation.
Level 3 is exactly this, the automated reactor operation
system being able to detect and diagnose what an error is.

View File

@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
# Therapy Log for CW31 and CW32
- So my crush is not gay (yay!), she has a boyfriend
(despair!)

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More