1 / 12

Model-based Programming as Estimating, Planning and Executing based on Hidden State

Model-based Programming as Estimating, Planning and Executing based on Hidden State. Brian C. Williams Artificial Intelligence and Space Systems Labs Massachusetts Institute of Technology. JSC BIO-Plex. Mars Entry, descent & Landing. Objective.

zubin
Download Presentation

Model-based Programming as Estimating, Planning and Executing based on Hidden State

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Model-based Programming as Estimating, Planning and Executing based on Hidden State Brian C. Williams Artificial Intelligence and Space Systems Labs Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  2. JSC BIO-Plex Mars Entry, descent & Landing Objective Create a hybrid estimation, monitoring, diagnosis and model learning capability for physical devices that exhibit complex discrete and continuous behaviors. DEMONSTRATION:

  3. NASA BIO-Plex • Support: • NASA IS A Hybrid Discrete/Continuous System for Health Management • Failures can manifest themselves through a coupling of a system’s continuous dynamics and its evolution through different behavior modes • must track over continuous state changes and discrete mode changes • Symptoms are initially subtle; on the same scale as sensor/actuator noise • need to extract mode estimates from subtle symptoms

  4. x 0.6 Continuous Dynamics x 0 Hidden Markov Models m m m m1 r1 r2 r3 x 0.6 x 0 t11 0 x x x 0 0.6 0.6 0.9 t13 0.9 t12 t21 u 0.1 0.1 m3 c1 t22 m m u t23 t33 r4 r5 PHA m2 d1 u d2 Concurrent Probabilistic Hybrid Automaton (CPHA): internal variable PHA component y c1 w y c1 continuous input uci c2 A A A 1 2 3 output / observed variable yci (cont.) discrete input udj CPHA Hybrid Plant Model for HME

  5. Hybrid Mode / State Estimation CPHA Model ^ Hybrid Mode Estimator Xk estimated mode/state x= {xd ,xc} and its belief state h[x] yc(k) KalmanFilter Bank ^ sensor signals ycand control inputs uc , ud xci(k) Pi(k) uc(k-1) Ck Hybrid State Estimator Maintains the set of most likely hybrid state estimates as a set of trajectories. Hybrid Mode Estimator: Determines for each trajectory the possible transitions, and specifies (dynamically) the candidate trajectories to be tracked by the continuous state estimators.

  6. How to handle the exponential blowup? • Generalize beam search to track the mostpromising hybrid states. • Factor state space into lower dimensional subspaces through automated decomposition and filter synthesis. Hybrid Mode / State Estimation • HMM-style belief state update determines the likelihood for each discrete mode transition. • Kalman-filter-style updatedetermines likelihood of continuous state evolution. X+k-1={mj,xk-1} newestimate: Xk={mj,xk} old estimate: Xk-1={mi,xk-1} # transitions at each time step is very large: e.g. model with 10 components, each with 3 successor modes has 310 =59049 possible successor modes for each trajectory!

  7. PGC 560 6 540 4 520 CO2 concentration [ppm] mode number 500 2 480 460 0 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 time [minutes] time [minutes] Lighting System 6 4 mode number 2 0 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 time [minutes] Simulation Result components: 6 ( FR1, FR2, PIV1, PIV2, LS, PGC) total # of modes: 9600 fringe size: 20 (400 estimation steps): average candidates: 90.2 (< 1% !)max. candidates: 428 (< 5 %!)filter calculations: 242filter executions: 36050 average runtime: ~1 s/step (PII-400, 128mb)

  8. Future Directions • Model-Learning as Hybrid EM • Automated Decomposition of HPCA using Dissents • Model-based Hybrid Execution

  9. Automated Decomposition x v y u o1 c1 c1 c1 x v v v y c2 s1 s2 s3 v y MIMO Filter u w c1 x o2 c2 c1 c1 y c3 u A A A c2 1 2 3 d1 P u O d2 CA v u v x s1 o1 c1 c1 Filter 1 y P u c1 A y A 1 O c1 1 2 c1 u x c1 c2 v v v y s3 s2 x o1 v Filter 2 c1 c3 y o2 y c1 y P A c2 u c2 3 2 O c1 Filter Cluster

  10. To Address the Scope of Mars 98 • Polar Lander Leading Diagnosis: • Legs deployed during descent. • Noise spike on leg sensors latched by software monitors. • Laser altimeter registers 50ft. • Begins polling leg monitors to determine touch down. • Latched noise spike read as touchdown. • Engine shutdown at ~50ft. Responding to the failures of Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter is a Hybrid control problem. Idea: Support programmers with embedded languages that avoid commonsense mistakes, by reasoning from hardware models. Reactive Model-based Programming

  11. Model-basedControl Programs Mars Entry, Descent & Landing S’ Plant Model Model-based Executive Demonstration: Discrete Controller Discrete Mode Est. Cntrl Obs Continuous Controller Continuous State Est. S Plant State Reconfiguration State Estimation Hybrid Model-based Programming • Hybrid Executives: • Can hook into existing estimation and control approaches. • Should target “comfort zone” of systems engineers. RMPL Hybrid Model-based Executive Control Program Sequencer cont & discr state estimates h/w config goals att/pos goals Plant Model Estimation & Control Engines Plant Control actions Observations

  12. Recent Publications Hybrid Mode Estimation: • Hofbaur, M. W. and B.C. Williams, “Mode Estimation of Probabilistic Hybrid Systems,” International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, March, 2002. Hybrid Expectation Maximization (preliminary): • Melvin Henry, Simulators that Learn: Automated Estimation of Hybrid Automata, June 2002 Hybrid Decomposition: • Hofbaur, M. W. and B. C. Williams, “Hybrid Diagnosis with Unknown Behavioral Modes,” International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Austria, May 3-5 2002.

More Related