Auto sync: 2025-08-26 11:21:28 (90 files changed)
R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/CH4System_Representation_S2020pdf2254.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/CH4System_Representation_S2020pdf2254.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/IntroductionDiffusionModels2022.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/IntroductionDiffusionModels2022.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/Kry10TechnicalOverview.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/Kry10TechnicalOverview.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/ME2046_Sampled_Data_Analysis_Reading_Chapter_2pdf2254ME.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/ME2046_Sampled_Data_Analysis_Reading_Chapter_2pdf2254ME.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/ME2046_The_z_transform_Chapter_3pdf2254ME.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/ME2046_The_z_transform_Chapter_3pdf2254ME.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/My Library.bib" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/My Library.bib" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/aModeladoNucleoAnalisis2023.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/aModeladoNucleoAnalisis2023.md" R "Zettelkasten/Literature Notes/.archive/atsumiModifiedBodePlots2012.md" -> ".archive/Literature Notes/.archive/atsumiModifiedBodePlots2012.md"
This commit is contained in:
parent
64f1617e9d
commit
8824324149
|
Before Width: | Height: | Size: 178 KiB After Width: | Height: | Size: 178 KiB |
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: 2025-08-20
|
||||
title: Daily — 2025-08-20
|
||||
type: daily
|
||||
created: 2025-08-20T13:54:13Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-20T19:10:43Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-22T15:06:52Z
|
||||
tags: [daily]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
24
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-22.md
Normal file
24
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-22.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2025-08-22
|
||||
title: Daily — 2025-08-22
|
||||
type: daily
|
||||
created: 2025-08-22T15:41:02Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-22T16:03:15Z
|
||||
tags: [daily]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Daily — 2025-08-22
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick capture
|
||||
|
||||
- Got to work kind of late. Feeling sicky af. Probably no
|
||||
darts tonight with PSM.
|
||||
- Working on moving all my notes into zettels
|
||||
- Lunch w AS today
|
||||
- Okay i'm starting to feel a little better (12:03PM)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ]
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
29
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-25.md
Normal file
29
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-25.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2025-08-25
|
||||
title: Daily — 2025-08-25
|
||||
type: daily
|
||||
created: 2025-08-25T16:02:00Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-26T13:56:53Z
|
||||
tags: [daily]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Daily — 2025-08-25
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick capture
|
||||
|
||||
- Got in a little later today, but the bike is here! Gotta
|
||||
text Alisa about it.
|
||||
|
||||
- I have 2 classes today (grumble grumble grumble).
|
||||
- ME 3100 ERLM is Monday and Wednesday at 1PM-2:15PM
|
||||
- NUCE 2101 - Nuclear Core Dynamics is tonight
|
||||
6PM-8:30PM, like usual
|
||||
|
||||
- I also enrolled in my health insurance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ]
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
19
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-26.md
Normal file
19
Zettelkasten/Fleeting Notes/Daily/2025-08-26.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 2025-08-26
|
||||
title: Daily — 2025-08-26
|
||||
type: daily
|
||||
created: 2025-08-26T15:05:38Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-26T15:06:58Z
|
||||
tags: [daily]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Daily — 2025-08-26
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Capture
|
||||
|
||||
- I started this morning doing some email
|
||||
- Now I'm hangin out in starbucks doing some work for the
|
||||
quad chart n'at
|
||||
- First, what the fuck is a quad chart??
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
38
Zettelkasten/Hub Notes/HUB-20250822135454-formal-methods.md
Normal file
38
Zettelkasten/Hub Notes/HUB-20250822135454-formal-methods.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: HUB-20250822135454
|
||||
title: Formal Methods
|
||||
type: hub
|
||||
created: 2025-08-22T17:54:54Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-22T17:57:39Z
|
||||
tags: [hub]
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Formal Methods
|
||||
|
||||
> The purpose of this hub is to make a high level hub of
|
||||
> everything formal methods related (which is a lot!!!)
|
||||
|
||||
## Related hubs
|
||||
|
||||
- [[formal-methods-in-machine-learning]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Zettels
|
||||
### Topics
|
||||
|
||||
[[Abstract Interpretation for Formal Methods]]
|
||||
[[Satisfiability Modulo Theory]]
|
||||
[[Mixed Integer Linear Programming]]
|
||||
[[Complete vs. Incomplete Formal Methods]]
|
||||
|
||||
### Tools
|
||||
[[Strix]]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources / Literature
|
||||
|
||||
- [[a-review-of-formal-methods-applied-to-machine-learning]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Open questions / Next actions
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ]
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 20250822134355
|
||||
title: Formal Methods in Machine Learning
|
||||
type: permanent
|
||||
created: 2025-08-22T17:43:55Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-22T17:43:55Z
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Formal Methods in Machine Learning
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 20250822135802
|
||||
title: Abstract Interpretation for Formal Methods
|
||||
type: permanent
|
||||
created: 2025-08-22T17:58:02Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-25T16:01:46Z
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Abstract Interpretation for Formal Methods
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract interpretation in a formal methods context takes
|
||||
something about a system and makes an approximation of it in
|
||||
order to make reasoning about it easier.
|
||||
|
||||
58
Zettelkasten/Permanent Notes/20250826111220-quad-charts.md
Normal file
58
Zettelkasten/Permanent Notes/20250826111220-quad-charts.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: 20250826111220
|
||||
title: Quad Charts
|
||||
type: permanent
|
||||
created: 2025-08-26T15:12:20Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-26T15:20:50Z
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Quad Charts
|
||||
|
||||
Quad charts are the briefest of research proposals, and are
|
||||
a way of conveying a research idea in just one
|
||||
slide.
|
||||
|
||||
The audience for a quad chart is usually non-technical. The
|
||||
content should reflect this.
|
||||
|
||||
Quad charts consist of quadrants:
|
||||
|
||||
## Quadrant 1 (Upper Left): Goals and Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
This quadrant states the goal of the research in a single
|
||||
sentence, and lists the outcomes underneath it. Often you
|
||||
can start with "The goal of this research is to..."
|
||||
|
||||
Then, the outcomes follow: "If this research is
|
||||
successful, we should be able to do the following:
|
||||
|
||||
1. ...
|
||||
2. ...
|
||||
3. ...
|
||||
(4.?)
|
||||
|
||||
It is critical that no jargon is used here. It is very
|
||||
tempting to do so.
|
||||
|
||||
## Quadrant 2 (Bottom Left): Research Approach
|
||||
|
||||
This quadrant answers the question: "What's new in your
|
||||
approach?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Quadrant 3 (Top Right): Pretty Picture
|
||||
|
||||
This is a break for the reader, and likely the first thing
|
||||
they'll actually look at on the chart. This figure should
|
||||
illustrate a key idea about the work that you want the
|
||||
reader to take away.
|
||||
|
||||
No personal information should be included.
|
||||
|
||||
## Quadrant 4 (Bottom Right): Impact and Contact Info
|
||||
|
||||
This quadrant answers the question of "Who cares? What
|
||||
difference will it make if you're successful?"
|
||||
|
||||
This quadrant should also contain contact info of the
|
||||
principal investigator, and if applicable, their advisor.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: LIT-20250822120822
|
||||
title: A Review of Formal Methods applied to Machine Learning
|
||||
type: literature
|
||||
created: 2025-08-22T16:08:22Z
|
||||
modified: 2025-08-22T16:11:25Z
|
||||
citekey:
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# A Review of Formal Methods applied to Machine Learning
|
||||
|
||||
**Category:** This is a review paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** This paper tries to keep up with where formal
|
||||
methods are for machine learning based systems. It is not
|
||||
necessarily a controls paper, but a broader machine learning
|
||||
paper in general.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:** Really well written on the first pass. Easy
|
||||
to understand and things seem well cited.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:** Great citations showing links to
|
||||
different papers and also provides nice spots for forward
|
||||
research. Talks about how verification needs to be done
|
||||
along the whole pipeline: from data prep to training to
|
||||
implementation. There needs to be more work on proving
|
||||
things about model behavior, but in general this review has
|
||||
a positive outlook on the field.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:** Very well written, easy to understand. Except,
|
||||
what is abstractification of a network?
|
||||
|
||||
## Second Pass
|
||||
This review gives an overview of formal
|
||||
methods applied to machine learning. Formal methods has been
|
||||
used for ML to test for robustness for various perturbations
|
||||
on inputs. They start by talking about several types of
|
||||
formal methods, including deductive verification, design by
|
||||
refinement, proof assistants, model checking, and semantic
|
||||
static analysis, and then finally, abstract interpretation
|
||||
of semantic static analysis. The last one has been used the
|
||||
most in FM of ML.
|
||||
|
||||
A large part of the paper focuses on formal methods for
|
||||
neural network perturbation robustness. They split up the
|
||||
methods into two types: complete and incomplete formal
|
||||
methods. Complete formal methods are *sound* and *complete*.
|
||||
This means they do not have false positives or false
|
||||
negatives. These methods generally do not apply well to
|
||||
large networks (beyond hundreds gets rough), but give the
|
||||
highest level of assurance. Here, there are two more
|
||||
subcategories: SMT based solvers and MILP-based solvers.
|
||||
|
||||
SMT solvers are Satisfiability Modulo Theory solvers. These
|
||||
solvers a set of constraints and check to see whether or not
|
||||
all of the constraints can be satisfied. Safety conditions
|
||||
are encoded as the *nA Review of Formal Methods applied to Machine Learningegation* of the safety constraint. That
|
||||
way, if a safety condition is violated, the SMT solver will
|
||||
pick it up as a counter example.
|
||||
|
||||
MILP based solvers are Mixed Integer Linear Programming
|
||||
solvers. MILPs use linear programming where certain
|
||||
constraints are integers to reduce the solving space.
|
||||
Instead of having an explicity satisffiability condition on
|
||||
safety or not, MILPs instead can use a minimizing function
|
||||
to generate counter examples. For example, a MILP saftey
|
||||
condition might be formalized as: $$ \text{min}\space
|
||||
\bf{x}_n$$ where a negative value of $\bf{x}_n$ is 'a valid
|
||||
counter example'.
|
||||
|
||||
There are also 'incomplete formal methods'. These incomplete
|
||||
methods are sound, meaning they will not produce false
|
||||
negatives, but they may not be complete, meaning they may
|
||||
produce false positives. They scale better, but the false
|
||||
positives can be pretty annoying.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the main incomplete methods is abstract
|
||||
interpretation. Things get very weird very fast--this is all
|
||||
about zonotopes and using over approximation of sets to say
|
||||
things about stability. There is weird stuff going on with
|
||||
cell splitting and merging that seems like a to grasp. But,
|
||||
apparently it works.
|
||||
|
||||
Next, they spend some time talking about other machine
|
||||
learning methods and the formal methods that have been
|
||||
applied to them. Of particular interest to me is the formal
|
||||
method application to support vector machines and decision
|
||||
trees. There are some useful methods for detecting
|
||||
robustness to adversarial inputs, and knowing what the
|
||||
nearest misclassification adversarial case is.
|
||||
|
||||
## Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is a review paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
This paper tries to keep up with where formal methods are for machine
|
||||
learning based systems. It is not necessarily a controls paper, but a broader
|
||||
machine learning paper in general.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Really well written on the first pass. Easy to understand and things seem
|
||||
well cited.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Great citations showing links to different papers and also provides nice spots
|
||||
for forward research. Talks about how verification needs to be done along the
|
||||
whole pipeline: from data prep to training to implementation. There needs to
|
||||
be more work on proving things about model behavior, but in general this
|
||||
review has a positive outlook on the field.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Very well written, easy to understand. Except, what is abstractification of a
|
||||
network?
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
This review gives an overview of formal methods applied to machine learning.
|
||||
Formal methods has been used for ML to test for robustness for various
|
||||
perturbations on inputs. They start by talking about several types of formal
|
||||
methods, including deductive verification, design by refinement, proof
|
||||
assistants, model checking, and semantic static analysis, and then finally,
|
||||
abstract interpretation of semantic static analysis. The last one has been
|
||||
used the most in FM of ML.
|
||||
|
||||
A large part of the paper focuses on formal methods for neural network
|
||||
perturbation robustness. They split up the methods into two types: complete
|
||||
and incomplete formal methods. Complete formal methods are *sound* and
|
||||
*complete*. This means they do not have false positives or false negatives.
|
||||
These methods generally do not apply well to large networks (beyond
|
||||
hundreds gets rough), but give the highest level of assurance. Here, there
|
||||
are two more subcategories: SMT based solvers and MILP-based solvers.
|
||||
|
||||
SMT solvers are Satisfiability Modulo Theory solvers. These solvers a set
|
||||
of constraints and check to see whether or not all of the constraints can be
|
||||
satisfied. Safety conditions are encoded as the *negation* of the safety constraint.
|
||||
That way, if a safety condition is violated, the SMT solver will pick it up as a
|
||||
counter example.
|
||||
|
||||
MILP based solvers are Mixed Integer Linear Programming solvers. MILPs use
|
||||
linear programming where certain constraints are integers to reduce the
|
||||
solving space. Instead of having an explicity satisffiability condition on safety
|
||||
or not, MILPs instead can use a minimizing function to generate counter
|
||||
examples. For example, a MILP saftey condition might be formalized as:
|
||||
$$ \text{min}\space \bf{x}_n$$
|
||||
where a negative value of $\bf{x}_n$ is 'a valid counter example'.
|
||||
|
||||
There are also 'incomplete formal methods'. These incomplete methods are
|
||||
sound, meaning they will not produce false negatives, but they may not be
|
||||
complete, meaning they may produce false positives. They scale better, but
|
||||
the false positives can be pretty annoying.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the main incomplete methods is abstract interpretation. Things get very
|
||||
weird very fast--this is all about zonotopes and using over approximation of sets
|
||||
to say things about stability. There is weird stuff going on with cell splitting
|
||||
and merging that seems like a to grasp. But, apparently it works.
|
||||
|
||||
Next, they spend some time talking about other machine learning methods and
|
||||
the formal methods that have been applied to them. Of particular interest to me
|
||||
is the formal method application to support vector machines and decision
|
||||
trees. There are some useful methods for detecting robustness to adversarial
|
||||
inputs, and knowing what the nearest misclassification adversarial case is.
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This paper is a literature review
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Mukul says that there are a whole bunch of thrusts out there about neural
|
||||
network based controllers, and that there needs to be a better way to
|
||||
parse what research is what
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Looks good to me I suppose.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Here's the most important figure in the whole thing:
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20250721095146.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Well written.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
alias: tee-hee-hee
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# An autonomous control framework for advanced reactors notes
|
||||
|
||||
## First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is a vision-like paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Dr. Wood is a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennesse.
|
||||
He started working at UT after working at ORNL for 20+ years where he was
|
||||
a senior researcher. He works on common cause failures.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
There are not many citations, and a lot of the paper seems like it is off-the-cuff.
|
||||
This was an invited article though in the *Nuclear Engineering and Technology*
|
||||
journal. He's also got quite the resume.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Dr. Wood gives a good overview of where we are (automated control), and
|
||||
where we need to go (autonomous control). Comparisons are made to other
|
||||
industries, and how they've addressed these challenges. Clarifications are made
|
||||
with respect to how the nuclear industry is unique.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Well written and clear, but a bit wordy at times. Examples are used but
|
||||
sometimes it just feels like a mouthful.
|
||||
|
||||
## Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
Wood talks a lot about what it means for a system to be autonomous. He
|
||||
actually starts with a etymological argument- "*automatos* means self-acting,
|
||||
whereas *autonomos* means independent." The point of an autonomous system
|
||||
is that it must be able to make intelligent decisions that a human would
|
||||
otherwise make. Knowing how to handle degraded or faulty sensors or
|
||||
actuators, switching controller trains, and knowing when scramming is
|
||||
necessary are all decisions that an autonomous system would make, that
|
||||
a simple automated system could not. The key is in the decision making.
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
Dr. Wood compares a lot to NASA control systems for the Mars rovers. These
|
||||
systems use two tiers of controllers: a decision layer and a functionality layer.
|
||||
The functionality layer does what you think--it manages the physical
|
||||
functioning. The decision layer is different. It decides on controller modes and
|
||||
works instead with operational level goals.
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
The biggest findings are that an autonomous control system for a nuclear
|
||||
power plant is possible, but by far the biggest roadblock is a high assurance
|
||||
decision making system.
|
||||
|
||||
## Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is a paper following a workshop. It is kind of a big picture / idea
|
||||
type paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
This paper was written after a workshop took place to talk about recent NRC
|
||||
regulations. They talk about how different industries categorize the level
|
||||
of autonomy in systems, and create autonomous levels of reactor control.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Vivek Agarwal chaired ANS in Chicago this past year. He's the real deal
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
They contribute a first thought on how to go about creating milestones for
|
||||
autonomous systems, and give us a language to use when describing what level
|
||||
of autonomy a system is gunning for.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Clearly written. Very nice!
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
|
||||
<!The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The dog takes a nice nap. :)>
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Systematic Review
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
This paper is from the civil engineering school at the University of Leeds.
|
||||
They are doing an overview of economics and finance research of small
|
||||
modular reactors.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Can not say. Is a review!
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
They do a good break down of the research we have done ('what we know') and
|
||||
what needs done ('what we do not know'). They point out a big discrepancy that we do not have a lot of research on operations and maintenance costs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Nicely written. Easy to understand.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:** This paper is an experimental paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** The context of this paper is using a couple different techniques
|
||||
synthesize control programs using different formal methods tools.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:** I trust Max's integrity. Some of the citations were funky and
|
||||
the intro was fluffy though.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
This paper shows that using LTL and other formal methods still struggles to
|
||||
generate controllers for significantly challenging systems. The high bay
|
||||
warehouse used to create this paper had to be simplified. Then, they introduce
|
||||
an SMT solver based method to try to generate code.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
The intro and conclusion do not provide very strong clarity on what they
|
||||
actually did other than "high assurance is high difficulty", and that we're not
|
||||
really there yet on HACPS.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is a methods paper.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
This paper proposes a way of using mixed integer linear programming (MILP)
|
||||
to evaluate properties of neural networks.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Formal
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
They do nifty things with bounds tightening and presolving that makes their
|
||||
solver very fast compared to the state of the art or Reluplex. They also talk
|
||||
about stable and unstable neurons.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
They have a really good explanation of what a MILP problem is and how one
|
||||
might encode a neural network as one.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
The main thrust is their new solving method of MILPs for neural networks.
|
||||
With their method, neural networks can have their neurons analyzed to
|
||||
prove whether or not the network is robust to input perturbations. This is
|
||||
especially important for classifiers, who need to know if there are sneaky
|
||||
nonlinearities that can be harmful to a built system (like a glitch). This
|
||||
method of bounds tightening and MILP usage makes their solver much faster
|
||||
and therein more capable to handle large networks.
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
They have a whole bunch of experimental results.
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
MILPs and bound tightening is very good!
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is a weird one. This paper is essentially just a 'state-of-the-FRET' paper
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
FRET comes from NASA and is a tool to line up requirements in a temporal
|
||||
language.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Formal. But they don't really go into details.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Really I don't think they contribute much here than an explanation of what's
|
||||
going on.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Easy to read.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Methods paper
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Using NN w/ LiDAR to say safety reliability claims using FM
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Assumptions seem good, other than anticipating LiDAR as a
|
||||
continuous data stream.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
1. Framewok for formally proving safety properties of autonomous robots using LiDAR and NNs
|
||||
2. Something something imaging-adapted partitions. A 'notion'
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Very well written and clear.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
creation date: 2024-08-08
|
||||
modification date: Thursday 8th August 2024 09:57:16
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Research
|
||||
- "#Survey"
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Preamble
|
||||
### Notable Links
|
||||
[[ARCADE Implementation at the University of Pittsburgh]]
|
||||
[[1. A shortlist of ARCADE Experiments]]
|
||||
## What are we doing?
|
||||
Collecting and organizing papers about HiTL testing. Making notes about 'em. Stuff like that.
|
||||
## Why are we doing it?
|
||||
08-08-2024: I'm writing a paper for [[2. (SR-CIST) Workshop on Security and Resiliency of Critical Infrastructure and Space Technologies]] and really need to know about hardware in the loop testing.
|
||||
## Who cares?
|
||||
Me. Andrew, probably. Dan, a lot.
|
||||
# Papers
|
||||
## Summary Table
|
||||
```dataview
|
||||
table without id
|
||||
link(file.path, title) as "Title", year as "Year", authors as "Authors", readstatus as "Read Status"
|
||||
from outgoing([[]])
|
||||
where readstatus or readstatus=False
|
||||
sort readstatus desc, year desc
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Papers about ARCADE
|
||||
[[maccaroneADVANCEDREACTORCYBER]]
|
||||
[[chenFullscopeHighfidelitySimulatorbased2024]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Hardware In The Loop Papers
|
||||
[[mihalicHardwareintheLoopSimulationsHistorical2022]]
|
||||
[[bullockHardwareintheloopSimulation2004]]
|
||||
[[puysHardwareInTheLoopLabsSCADA2021]]
|
||||
[[choiRealTimeHardwareintheLoopHIL2021]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Cybersecurity of OT Papers
|
||||
[[sunSoKAttacksIndustrial2021]]
|
||||
[[mclaughlinControllerawareFalseData2014]]
|
||||
[[chekoleEnforcingMemorySafety2018]]
|
||||
[[kushnerRealStoryStuxnet2013]]
|
||||
[[CyberAttackGerman2015]]
|
||||
[[sguegliaFederalOfficialsInvestigating2023]]
|
||||
## Formal Methods and PLCs
|
||||
[[fernandezadiegoApplyingModelChecking2015]]
|
||||
[[lopez-miguelPLCverifStatusFormal2022]]
|
||||
[[kleinFormallyVerifiedSoftware2018]] -- Littlebird paper
|
||||
|
||||
## Kry10
|
||||
[[Kry10TechnicalOverview]]
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:** Experimental Results
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** They used a F1/10 model of an autonomous car to test out a simplex
|
||||
safety structure on a neural network based controller. They try several
|
||||
different neural net types. Their trick is they use real time reachability to tell
|
||||
when to switch between an optimal controller and the simplex guard.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
They seem to do things pretty well and by the book. All of their explanations
|
||||
make sense and they do a good job citing sources. They do punt when it comes
|
||||
to talking about the formal verification of the switching mechanism, but they
|
||||
do make note that's future work.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
They show how a simplex system can work and the difficulties of the *sim2real* transition for machine learning controllers.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Really nicely written.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
They use a simplex style controller setup with real time reachability to know when to use a optimal ML based controller vs. a safety oriented controller. They use the reachability to do this in real time, and demonstrate how different ML models line up against one another.
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
They ran a whole bunch of experiments. They published all of the results, with their main metrics being Mean ML usage.
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
The biggest findings are that when obstacles are introduced (or other general advesary behavior), the amount that the safety controller kicks in goes up by a lot. Sims can use around about 50+% ML controller based on the speed of the car, but when using the real track, the ML useage goes down below 20%. They also note their real track is much smaller than the simulation track.
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Method
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Expanding SMT solvers to work with ReLU functions. They then applied this technology to a prototype DNN for a ACAS Xu (aircraft collision avoidance system for Autonomous Aircraft) system
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Seems good to me. Need to do deeper dive, can't really say correct or not at this point.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Reluplex: a SMT algorithim that incorporates functionality for ReLU functions commonly found in DNN. This drastically impacts the types of networks that can be verified in scale.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Well written and clear.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
This is an economics research paper looking at how costs of microreactors will
|
||||
change with remote operation centers being introduced, and the proliferation
|
||||
of Digital Twins (DT)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
These are INL Researchers doing an LDRD.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
A lot of dubious statements. Suspicious about their hailing of a digital twin as a
|
||||
savior but they don't really address a lot of the cybersecurity concerns of
|
||||
remote operation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Someone had to say the obvious that less control rooms will be less expensive
|
||||
to operate.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Mediocre writing.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Simulation paper that talks about using a recovery controller in combination
|
||||
with a nominal controller that is learned. The boundary to swtich between
|
||||
the two is a learned boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Drones
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Not very. They do really well in the intro and methodology, but shit hits the fan
|
||||
when it comes to the results. They don't explain things well, and also don't
|
||||
really establish why their learned boundary between nominal and recovery
|
||||
controllers should be successful.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
The biggest contributions these guys make is demonstrating feasibility of their
|
||||
reinforcement learned switching from the recovery controller and the nominal
|
||||
controller.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Well written until the whole thing came apart at the end.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
I read this a second time but I don't think it's worth it.
|
||||
|
||||
Their main contribution is trying to use RL to learn when to switch to a
|
||||
recovery controller.
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Method
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Making RL agents safe by 'shielding' - baking in specification checking into training by providing feedback to the network when an output (even while the system is live) produces an unsafe control
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Cited 1000+ times. I think it's correct.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
Shielding, a way to use RL in high assurance systems.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Well written and easy to understand.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
# First Pass
|
||||
**Category:**
|
||||
Framework / Modelling
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:**
|
||||
Showing that CPS can't be modeled like linear systems.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correctness:**
|
||||
Who knows.
|
||||
|
||||
**Contributions:**
|
||||
A big focus on **deterministic** models
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
Some grammar mistakes and significant jabbering.
|
||||
|
||||
# Second Pass
|
||||
**What is the main thrust?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What is the supporting evidence?**
|
||||
|
||||
**What are the key findings?**
|
||||
|
||||
# Third Pass
|
||||
**Recreation Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Hidden Findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Points? Strong Points?**
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
# tee hee
|
||||
|
||||
there is something here
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user