Thesis/1-goals-and-outcomes/research_statement_v1.tex
Split 1cbe84ee7e Editorial pass: tactical, operational, and strategic improvements
TACTICAL (sentence-level):
- Improved topic-stress positioning (known → new info)
- Strengthened verb choice and reduced passive voice
- Enhanced stress positions (key info at sentence end)
- Tightened phrasing for clarity and impact

OPERATIONAL (paragraph/section):
- Improved transitions between subsections
- Enhanced flow within sections
- Clarified connections between ideas
- Strengthened section conclusions

STRATEGIC (document-level):
- Reinforced Heilmeier Catechism alignment
- Made Q&A structure more explicit
- Improved section summaries to clearly answer assigned questions
- Enhanced connections between sections
2026-03-09 16:31:15 -04:00

54 lines
4.0 KiB
TeX

% GOAL PARAGRAPH
I develop autonomous control systems that guarantee safe and correct behavior mathematically.
% INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH Hook
Nuclear reactors today depend on extensively trained human operators who follow detailed written procedures and switch between control objectives as plant conditions change.
% Gap
Small modular reactors face a fundamental economic challenge: their per-megawatt staffing costs significantly exceed those of conventional plants, threatening economic viability. Autonomous control could manage complex operational sequences without constant supervision—but only if safety assurance equals or exceeds that of human operators.
% APPROACH PARAGRAPH Solution
I produce hybrid control systems correct by construction by unifying formal methods from computer science with control theory.
% Rationale
Human operators already work this way: discrete logic switches between continuous control modes. Formal methods generate provably correct switching logic but cannot handle continuous dynamics. Control theory verifies continuous behavior but cannot prove discrete switching correctness. Achieving end-to-end correctness requires both approaches working together.
% Hypothesis and Technical Approach
Three stages bridge this gap. First, NASA's Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET) translates written operating procedures into temporal logic specifications, structuring requirements by scope, condition, component, timing, and response. Realizability checking exposes conflicts and ambiguities before implementation begins. Second, reactive synthesis generates deterministic automata that are provably correct by construction. Third, reachability analysis verifies that continuous controllers satisfy the requirements each discrete mode imposes. Engineers design these continuous controllers using standard control theory techniques.
Control objectives classify continuous modes into three types. Transitory modes drive the plant between conditions. Stabilizing modes maintain operation within regions. Expulsory modes ensure safety under failures. Barrier certificates and assume-guarantee contracts prove safe mode transitions, enabling local verification without global trajectory analysis. The methodology demonstrates on an Emerson Ovation control system—the industrial platform nuclear power plants already use.
% Pay-off
This approach manages complex nuclear power operations autonomously while maintaining safety guarantees, directly addressing the economic constraints threatening small modular reactor viability.
% OUTCOMES PARAGRAPHS
This research, if successful, produces three concrete outcomes:
\begin{enumerate}
% OUTCOME 1 Title
\item \textit{Synthesize written procedures into verified control logic.}
% Strategy
A methodology converts written operating procedures into formal specifications.
Reactive synthesis tools then generate discrete control logic from these specifications.
% Outcome
Control engineers generate mode-switching controllers directly from regulatory
procedures. Minimal formal methods expertise required. This reduces barriers to
high-assurance control systems.
% OUTCOME 2 Title
\item \textit{Verify continuous control behavior across mode transitions.}
% Strategy
Reachability analysis verifies that continuous control modes satisfy discrete
transition requirements.
% Outcome
Engineers design continuous controllers using standard practices while
maintaining formal correctness guarantees. Mode transitions occur safely and at
the correct times—provably.
% OUTCOME 3 Title
\item \textit{Demonstrate autonomous reactor startup control with safety
guarantees.}
% Strategy
This methodology demonstrates on a small modular reactor simulation using industry-standard control hardware.
% Outcome
Control engineers implement high-assurance autonomous controls on
industrial platforms they already use, enabling autonomy without retraining
costs or new equipment development.
\end{enumerate}