Thesis/1-goals-and-outcomes/research_statement_v1.tex
Split 6732bbd007 Copy edit: multi-level editorial pass
TACTICAL (sentence-level):
- Improved issue-point positioning and topic-stress alignment
- Strengthened verb choices and eliminated weak constructions
- Tightened sentence flow and eliminated redundancies
- Enhanced clarity through better subordination

OPERATIONAL (paragraph/section):
- Improved transitions between paragraphs
- Enhanced coherence within sections
- Streamlined narrative flow
- Better connected ideas across subsections

STRATEGIC (document-level):
- Strengthened Heilmeier catechism alignment throughout
- Made Heilmeier questions more explicit in section summaries
- Improved section linkages and forward/backward references
- Enhanced global coherence of the proposal narrative
2026-03-09 16:50:02 -04:00

54 lines
4.0 KiB
TeX

% GOAL PARAGRAPH
My research develops autonomous control systems with mathematical guarantees of safe and correct behavior.
% 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: 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 it provides safety assurance equal to or exceeding that of human operators.
% APPROACH PARAGRAPH Solution
My approach produces hybrid control systems that are correct by construction, 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. End-to-end correctness requires both.
% 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 structured by scope, condition, component, timing, and response. Realizability checking exposes conflicts and ambiguities before implementation begins. Second, reactive synthesis generates deterministic automata provably correct by construction. Third, reachability analysis verifies that continuous controllers satisfy each discrete mode's requirements. 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 mode transitions are safe. This enables local verification without global trajectory analysis. I demonstrate this methodology 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. It directly addresses 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 with minimal formal methods expertise. 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}