SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
SABATH provides benchmarking infrastructure for evaluating scientific ML/AI models. It contains support for scientific machine learning surrogates from external repositories. The software dependences are explicitly exposed in the surrogate model definition, which allows the use of advanced optimization, communication, and hardware features.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful emerging technology area which requires special attention to using it ethically. AI ethics is still an emerging field, and the partners for this workshop and report seek to move AI ethics discussion ahead by experimenting with ways to measure AI ethics criteria. The following document describes the outcomes and learnings from The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop held at the National Institute for Aerospace (NIA), Hampton, Virginia on May 12th, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was for participants to evaluate and experiment-with the methodology and process presented by AIEthics.World in cooperation with Intel Corporation. The meeting participants learned about the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™ and applied the methodology to selected notional AI systems. The workshop facilitated the evaluation of the maturity of the AI system according to ethical considerations relevant to NASA, NIA and other participants. The workshop consisted of three main phases. The first phase focused on understanding and summarizing NASA’s ethical approaches, mission and values based on published documentation, discussions and individual insights & opinions of participants. This information was prioritized, weighted, ordered, and quantified in phase two, to formulate an alignment between human values (ethics) and their applicability to AI systems during all lifecycle phases. The first two phases were summarized as a form of ethical genealogy for artificial intelligence, specific to NASA’s ethical approaches. In the third and last phase of the workshop the participants evaluated notional examples of artificial intelligence to qualify and quantify its ability to adhere to the organizational ethics approaches, using the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™. The workshop uses the concept of genealogy, in the traditional sense: the study and traceability of lines of ancestors in the process of evolutionary development from earlier forms. However, as it is applied to an Ethical AI definition, it is providing the insights to the necessary and mandatory traceability of content, data, metrics, telemetry, elements, and structures which are used in the AI’s lifecycle to foster and measure AI ethics in all steps of its lifecycle. The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop provided NASA with the opportunity to apply the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™, in combination with existing and well-known decision-making and quality control methods to identify the metrics and measurements for an Ethical AI and assess its ethical condition and quality aligned with NASA ethics approaches. The result of the workshop is the capacity for NASA to apply the maturity model assessment to its AI Systems as desired and if necessary, publish the ability of these AI Systems to adhere to the organizational ethical goals. AI ethics frameworks need to be customized for each application domain, for example, individual NASA Mission Directorates. General principles that work in one area such as AI/Machine Learning-based text analysis (the ethics of information-extraction) may need to be adapted for another such as sense-and-avoid decision-making in a flight environment. The workshop was conducted among approximately twenty NASA subject matter experts, so the elements noted above should be considered examples, not definitive NASA ethical AI principles, genealogy, etc. Generating a definitive AI ethics framework for an organization as diverse as NASA would require far more discussion, debate, review, etc. However, the workshop provided valuable insight into mechanisms and processes for quantifying AI ethical qualities.
Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have revolutionized and redefined the landscape of data analysis in business, healthcare, and technology. These methods have innovated the applied mathematics, computer science, and engineering fields and are showing considerable potential for risk science, especially in the disaster risk domain. The disaster risk field has yet to define itself as a necessary application domain for AI implementation by defining how to responsibly balance AI and disaster risk. (1) How is AI being used for disaster risk applications; and how are these applications addressing the principles and assumptions of risk science, (2) What are the benefits of AI being used for risk applications; and what are the benefits of applying risk principles and assumptions for AI-based applications, (3) What are the synergies between AI and risk science applications, and (4) What are the characteristics of effective use of fundamental risk principles and assumptions for AI-based applications? This study develops and disseminates an online survey questionnaire that leverages expertise from risk and AI professionals to identify the most important characteristics related to AI and risk, then presents a framework for gauging how AI and disaster risk can be balanced. This study is the first to develop a classification system for applying risk principles for AI-based applications. This classification contributes to understanding of AI and risk by exploring how AI can be used to manage risk, how AI methods introduce new or additional risk, and whether fundamental risk principles and assumptions are sufficient for AI-based applications.
Modern natural gas utilities face numerous challenges and competing priorities from various stakeholders. Policymakers, customers, and advocacy groups want to see gas utilities improve performance on safety, reliability, resilience, affordability, and environmental stewardship. State utility regulators — public utility commissions — are responsible for overseeing utility performance, ensuring that ratepayer funds are being spent in the public interest, and aligning utility goals with public goals. The use of new technologies is critical to enabling cost-effective performance on these attributes. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a widely used term among utilities and regulators, but the term means different things to different stakeholders, and it is often used to describe data analytics approaches that fall short of the formal definition of AI, which is: “…the ability of a machine to receive inputs and produce a behavior or reaction similar to that of an intelligent human being.” AI (and related tools, techniques, and technologies) can help utilities solve current and emerging challenges. By combining customer and system data with analytical tools and technologies, AI can augment human decision-makers by assisting in identifying problems and events before they occur, enabling resources to be more efficiently directed across utility infrastructure. The intended primary audience for this primer is state regulators, although utilities and other stakeholders might also find it useful and relevant to improve their awareness of AI. The objectives of this primer are to: (a) offer a set of broadly applicable definitions for AI and related terms, allowing regulators, utilities, and other stakeholders to speak the same language; (b) discuss how AI is currently being implemented in the gas utility sector; and (c) understand the challenges affecting AI solutions and how tools might be implemented in the future. This primer fits within NARUC’s goals of providing impartial information to improve the ability of public utility commissions to regulate in the public interest. As such, this primer does not seek to recommend AI over any other investment, nor does it endorse any particular vendor, product, or approach. It does seek to prepare state regulators to oversee AI investments by sharing information about the current landscape of commercially available tools. To these ends, the primer is organized as follows: Section I discusses the current environment in which natural gas utilities operate and how AI, when thoughtfully designed and implemented, can enable utilities to achieve performance goals; Section II offers definitions of AI and related terms within the data analytics discipline; Section III provides three current opportunities for which AI can offer solutions: replacing aging gas distribution infrastructure, preventing excavator damage to gas distribution infrastructure, and improving energy efficiency programs. This section discusses each problem statement in detail. Second, Section III includes a discussion of how costs and benefits of investments to solve each problem are measured. And third, this section offers real-world examples of utility implementation of AI solutions; Section IV discusses challenges with implementing AI, both from the perspective of utilities and regulators; Section V suggests areas in which AI could feasibly be implemented in the near future; Finally, Section VI offers concluding thoughts and areas for further research.
This report discusses the importance of the critical and underexplored topic of artificial intelligence (AI) safety, as highlighted during the “Strategy Alignment on AI Safety” workshop convened at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in April 2024. Through a summary of keynote talks, panel discussions, and breakout sessions, world-leading AI safety experts from academic, industry, national labs, and government agencies clearly agree on the need for and importance of large-scale investments for research and capabilities in AI safety. With the field innovating at unprecedented rates, there is increasing urgency to develop novel evaluation methodologies that allow full considerations of risks/threats of AI technologies in different domains. Quantitative metrics and effective methodologies that can evaluate and audit the “safeness” of how a given AI technology is trained, deployed, or regulated are, at best, nascent for certain scenarios or, more commonly, nonexistent. This maturation gap presents the possibility of serious threats to national security, and further inaction may have serious consequences. Additionally, the gap between the public’s and research community’s perceptions of AI risks/rewards is significant. While numerous voices from the AI community have expressed concern that the risks could be so high that future AI systems could inflict extinction-level damage to humanity if deployed incorrectly, the public largely is aware only of risk in low-impact scenarios. This discrepancy highlights the crucial need for researchers to articulate to governmental bodies what, why, and when various AI risks matter as part of motivating funding requests. Thus, the call to action for this community is to pursue AI safety as a “Big Science” project on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project. High risks and high payoffs are on the table, but safe AI is a fast-moving target, and large-scale investments are needed to guide development of this technology in a responsible way. We highlight the need for a multilayered solution combining the development of new methods and algorithmic approaches to mitigate threats with an active participation of the government(s) in setting high industry standards and regulations based on state-of-the-art technology. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories have served as leading institutions for scientific innovation in the U.S. for more than 70 years. Drawing on their expertise in the AI community and their history of safeguarding critical and sensitive information, and as we look to the future, national labs are the best choice for evaluating and safeguarding AI technologies.
With the advancements made to date in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), significant potential exists to utilize AI capabilities for nuclear power plant (NPP) applications. AI can replicate human decision making and it is usually faster and more accurate than humans. For implementations that impact critical NPP applications (e.g., safety-related or non-safety systems that potentially affect overall plant risk), a deeper safety analysis of the AI methods is necessary. AI applied to NPP operations could resemble the use of digital I&C (DI&C) because such applications involve digital computer hardware and custom-designed software that input plant data, execute complex software algorithms, and output the results to a system or licensed human operator to potentially provoke an action. For AI methods to be compliant with current safety requirements for DI&C, AI compatibility must be evaluated, and AI-related gaps may exist that prevent the prompt deployment of AI in NPPs. This effort aims to evaluate how example AI technologies align with the DI&C safety framework, and discusses how they could be analyzed, modeled, tested, and validated in a manner similar to typical DI&C technologies. Because AI is a broad field that encompasses areas such as machine learning (ML), natural language processing, and computer vision, this research focused on a subset of methods categorized as the computer vision ML (CVML) methods. This report explores two CVML use cases, gauge reading and fire watch, considered relevant to the DI&C standards, as they could play a safety-critical role. For the gauge reading use case, a CVML-enabled technology that can read gauges at oblique angles is utilized. For the fire watch use case, a CVML-enabled technology is utilized that migrates fire watch from a manual (human) approach to automated fire detection. These use cases are mainly intended to give context to the CVML system discussion. This effort assumes the worst-case scenario, with the CVML system being used to replace a safety-related or risk-significant system, thus requiring evaluation. Evaluating CVML against most of the relevant safety requirements for DI&C yielded several CVML-specific considerations due to the uniqueness of its characteristics in comparison with typical DI&C systems. For example, CVML models often employ commonly used (open-source) datasets, and it is not always possible to determine the level of overlap among open-source datasets. Therefore, the independence of the developed CVML models when demonstrating diversity is questionable, therefore creating vulnerability to common cause failure (CCF). The design verification process is also impacted since the data overlap could result in overestimation of the software validation and verification (V&V) performance results. Section 2 of this report evaluates a list of the identified CVML-specific characteristics and discusses the resulting considerations and potential solutions in the context of each referenced requirement. A summation is provided in Section 3. This report is not to be used as a guideline. It was developed to identify and consider issues in the implementation of ML technologies used to augment activities that may have a bearing on plant operation. The report draws parallels to the use of DI&C technologies, for which many standards are available to guide their use in nuclear plant operation. It considers the technologies and some of the potential implications of their use in safety-related applications but is not intended to address regulatory or licensing related issues.
AI models are criticized as being black boxes, potentially subjecting climate science to greater uncertainty. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has been proposed to probe AI models and increase trust. In this review and perspective paper, we suggest that, in addition to using XAI methods, AI researchers in climate science can learn from past successes in the development of physics-based dynamical climate models. Dynamical models are complex but have gained trust because their successes and failures can sometimes be attributed to specific components or sub-models, such as when model bias is explained by pointing to a particular parameterization. We propose three types of understanding as a basis to evaluate trust in dynamical and AI models alike: (1) instrumental understanding, which is obtained when a model has passed a functional test; (2) statistical understanding, obtained when researchers can make sense of the modeling results using statistical techniques to identify input–output relationships; and (3) component-level understanding, which refers to modelers' ability to point to specific model components or parts in the model architecture as the culprit for erratic model behaviors or as the crucial reason why the model functions well. We demonstrate how component-level understanding has been sought and achieved via climate model intercomparison projects over the past several decades. Such component-level understanding routinely leads to model improvements and may also serve as a template for thinking about AI-driven climate science. Currently, XAI methods can help explain the behaviors of AI models by focusing on the mapping between input and output, thereby increasing the statistical understanding of AI models. Yet, to further increase our understanding of AI models, we will have to build AI models that have interpretable components amenable to component-level understanding. We give recent examples from the AI climate science literature to highlight some recent, albeit limited, successes in achieving component-level understanding and thereby explaining model behavior. The merit of such interpretable AI models is that they serve as a stronger basis for trust in climate modeling and, by extension, downstream uses of climate model data.
Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) are changing the World. Novel approaches to training AI systems have led to dramatic reductions in the amount of time required. Training an AI system could take years and teams of people using traditional methods, but with the advancements of Deep Learning (DL) models this training can now be accomplished by an individual in a matter of minutes. The development of “fast AI” libraries has delivered AI to essentially everyone. Democratization of AI power has inspired many to revisit past problems that will benefit from DL approaches. For example, the application of AI has improved detection of breast cancer by 20% compared to traditional detection methods. Computer vision and machine learning are being used to identify soil deficiencies and provide planting recommendations to farmers. Success stories like these and many others have provided inspiration to see if AI can help improve one of our needed capabilities – that of visually identifying micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) impact damage to spacecraft from images of the spacecraft exterior. The need to visually locate and characterize spacecraft MMOD impact damage has been present since the early days of space travel. This is often done by either having a crew member take photographs of the spacecraft through a window using a hand-held camera or ground personnel directing externally-mounted cameras. The photographs are then transmitted back to Earth for visual analysis. This method of MMOD damage inspection works well and has been used on various spacecraft including the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). One of the issues with the current method that we believe AI could improve is the speed and possibly the accuracy in identifying MMOD impacts. Note that detecting MMOD impacts in images can be very difficult. The visual appearance of an MMOD impact can change dramatically with lighting conditions, size of impact, depth of penetration, material types, surface waviness, fabric coverings, camera & lens, distance to surface, spacecraft orientation, analyst experience, and many other factors. Currently, this takes a team of highly-experienced specialists in both the fields of Image Analysis and MMOD impacts. This paper documents our initial research in training an AI DL model using the fast-AI library to identify actual and simulated MMOD impacts and perforations into exposed flat surfaces. While we recognize that this initial goal seems modest, it must be noted that what we have done would have taken teams of individuals and years of training just ten years ago. Our long-term goal is to add complexity and use-cases to the DL model being trained to expand the capabilities of this model so that it can be used to identify MMOD impacts on all types of spacecraft surfaces.
Biofouling is difficult to control and hinders the performance of membranes in all applications but is of particular concern when natural waters are purified. Fouling, via multiple mechanisms (organic-only, biofouling-only, cell-deposition-only, and organic + biofouling), of a commercially available membrane (control) and a corresponding membrane coated with an anti-biofouling 2-aminoimidazole (2-AI membrane) was monitored and characterized during the purification of a natural water. Results show that the amount of bacterial cell deposition and organic fouling was not significantly different between control and 2-AI membranes; however, biofilm formation, concurrent or not with other fouling mechanisms, was significantly inhibited (95–98%, p < 0.001) by the 2-AI membrane. The limited biofilm that formed on the 2-AI membrane was weaker (as indicated by the polysaccharide to protein ratio) and thus presumably easier to remove. The conductivity rejection by the 2-AI and control membranes was not significantly different throughout the 75-h experiments, but the rejection of dissolved organic carbon by biofouled (biofouling-only, cell-deposition-only, and organic + biofouling) 2-AI membranes was statistically higher (10–12%, p = 0.003–0.07). When biofouled, the water permeance of the 2-AI membranes decreased significantly less (p < 0.05) over 75 hours than that of the control membranes, whether or not other additional types of fouling occurred concurrently. Despite the initially lower water permeances of 2-AI membranes (11% lower on average than controls), the 2-AI membranes outperformed the controls (10–11% higher average water permeance) after biofilm formation occurred. Overall, 2-AI membranes fouled less than controls without detriment to water productivity and solute rejection.
In 2017, the Chinese government announced an ambitious, broad strategy to become the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) theories, technologies, and applications by 2030 and indicated that China’s ability to indigenously produce cutting-edge AI chips would be integral to its success. China’s goal to become a dominant producer of AI hardware within a decade is a bold undertaking because China faces domestic chip production challenges and fierce competition from US chip producers. Our review of Chinese AI chip product lines shows various levels where Chinese companies compete with global firms in the production chain. China lacks a robust indigenous AI chip production infrastructure, and the United States and its allies are tightening controls on the supply of advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) and electronic design automation (EDA) software to China. In contrast to their Chinese counterparts, US companies operate in all areas of AI chip production and have consistently driven the development of new chip designs. AI chip production is a costly endeavor, and China’s chip producers currently lack the customer base to lead global AI chip development by the 2030 goal. An expanded customer base may help China attract the necessary expertise to bolster its AI chip production chain. This would also help Chinese producers make their investments in the requisite technology economically sustainable. Chinese researchers continue to pursue promising next-generation AI chip designs, such as neuromorphic computing-based architectures, which in the next five to ten years could position Chinese companies to make or contribute to key innovations in the field.
Navigating through the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in nuclear reactors and their Instrumentation and Control (I&C) systems demands a careful, deliberate journey. AI’s capability to manage massive datasets and streamline control systems has indeed carved out a significant role in various sectors, including nuclear energy. However, while AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), bring a lot to the table in terms of operational efficiency and anomaly detection, they also expose the sector to a new breed of cybersecurity threats, like Inference Attacks, Adversarial Attacks, and Trojan Attacks. This guide is designed to be a straightforward manual, diving deep into the intertwining worlds of AI and cybersecurity within nuclear reactors, and tailoring insights for three crucial audiences: I&C Vendors/Developers, Nuclear Regulators, and Nuclear Reactor Operators and Cyber Defense Teams. (1) Section 2, directed at I&C Vendors/Developers, will provide a clear and focused look at several cybersecurity attacks, offering practical recommendations and detailed scenarios related to AI cybersecurity. This section isn’t just about identifying problems but also about giving solid, usable solutions. (2) Section 3, meant for Nuclear Regulators, gets straight to the point about regulations, policy suggestions, and guidelines that are needed to lay down a robust, secure, and ethical foundation for the application of AI in nuclear operations. The focus is on making sure that everything adheres to international standards and laws while being practicable and clear-cut. (3) Section 4, aimed at Nuclear Reactor Operators and Cyber Defense Teams, offers an exhaustive exploration and technical reports, with clear recommendations and scenario analyses vital to protect operational environments and guarantee the secure application of AI in nuclear reactor operations. The goal is simple: as we step into an era where AI becomes a fundamental element of our technological and energy infrastructures, this guide is here to act as a clear, direct handbook, ensuring that AI is implemented within the nuclear sector in a manner that is secure, responsible, and practical. It’s about striking a balance – optimizing the undeniable benefits offered by AI while securing and shielding against potential cyber threats as we move through this new and complex landscape.
We propose a scheme to model the absorbing aerosol index and improve the biomass carbon inventories by optimizing the difference between TOMS aerosol index (AI) and modeled AI with an inverse model. Two absorbing aerosol types are considered, including biomass carbon and mineral dust. A priori biomass carbon source was generated by Liousse et al [1996]. Mineral dust emission is parameterized according to surface wind and soil moisture using the method developed by Ginoux [2000]. In this initial study, the coupled CCM1 and GRANTOUR model was used to determine the aerosol spatial and temporal distribution. With modeled aerosol concentrations and optical properties, we calculate the radiance at the top of the atmosphere at 340 nm and 380 nm with a radiative transfer model. The contrast of radiance at these two wavelengths will be used to calculate AI. Then we compare the modeled AI with TOMS AI. This paper reports our initial modeling for AI and its comparison with TOMS Nimbus 7 AI. For our follow-on project we will model the global AI with aerosol spatial and temporal distribution recomputed from the IMPACT model and DAO GEOS-1 meteorology fields. Then we will build an inverse model, which applies a Bayesian inverse technique to optimize the agreement of between model and observational data. The inverse model will tune the biomass burning source strength to reduce the difference between modelled AI and TOMS AI. Further simulations with a posteriori biomass carbon sources from the inverse model will be carried out. Results will be compared to available observations such as surface concentration and aerosol optical depth.
Material characterization techniques are widely used to characterize the physical and chemical properties of materials at the nanoscale and, thus, play central roles in material scientific discoveries. However, the large and complex datasets generated by these techniques often require significant human effort to interpret and extract meaningful physicochemical insights. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as machine learning (ML) have the potential to improve the efficiency and accuracy of surface analysis by automating data analysis and interpretation. In this perspective paper, we review the current role of AI in surface analysis and discuss its future potential to accelerate discoveries in surface science, materials science, and interface science. We highlight several applications where AI has already been used to analyze surface analysis data, including the identification of crystal structures from XRD data, analysis of XPS spectra for surface composition, and the interpretation of TEM and SEM images for particle morphology and size. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with the integration of AI into surface analysis workflows. These include the need for large and diverse datasets for training ML models, the importance of feature selection and representation, and the potential for ML to enable new insights and discoveries by identifying patterns and relationships in complex datasets. Most importantly, AI analyzed data must not just find the best mathematical description of the data, but it must find the most physical and chemically meaningful results. In addition, the need for reproducibility in scientific research has become increasingly important in recent years. The advancement of AI, including both conventional and the increasing popular deep learning, is showing promise in addressing those challenges by enabling the execution and verification of scientific progress. By training models on large experimental datasets and providing automated analysis and data interpretation, AI can help to ensure that scientific results are reproducible and reliable. Although integration of knowledge and AI models must be considered for the transparency and interpretability of models, the incorporation of AI into the data collection and processing workflow will significantly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of various surface analysis techniques and deepen our understanding at an accelerated pace.
Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been introduced in various disciplines but remain rather unused in head and neck (H&N) cancers. This survey aimed to infer the current applications of and attitudes toward AI in the multidisciplinary care of H&N cancers. From November 2020 to June 2022, a web-based questionnaire examining the relationship between AI usage and professionals’ demographics and attitudes was delivered to different professionals involved in H&N cancers through social media and mailing lists. A total of 139 professionals completed the questionnaire. Only 49.7% of the respondents reported having experience with AI. The most frequent AI users were radiologists (66.2%). Significant predictors of AI use were primary specialty (V = 0.455; p < 0.001), academic qualification and age. AI’s potential was seen in the improvement of diagnostic accuracy (72%), surgical planning (64.7%), treatment selection (57.6%), risk assessment (50.4%) and the prediction of complications (45.3%). Among participants, 42.7% had significant concerns over AI use, with the most frequent being the ‘loss of control’ (27.6%) and ‘diagnostic errors’ (57.0%). This survey reveals limited engagement with AI in multidisciplinary H&N cancer care, highlighting the need for broader implementation and further studies to explore its acceptance and benefits.
Most integrations of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities with non-AI (usually FORTRAN-based) application programs require the latter to execute separately to run as a subprogram or, at best, as a coroutine, of the AI system. In many cases, this organization is unacceptable; instead, the requirement is for an AI facility that runs in embedded mode; i.e., is called as subprogram by the application program. The design and implementation of a Prolog-based AI capability that can be invoked in embedded mode are described. The significance of this system is twofold: Provision of Prolog-based symbol-manipulation and deduction facilities makes a powerful symbolic reasoning mechanism available to applications programs written in non-AI languages. The power of the deductive and non-procedural descriptive capabilities of Prolog, which allow the user to describe the problem to be solved, rather than the solution, is to a large extent vitiated by the absence of the standard control structures provided by other languages. Embedding invocations of Prolog rule bases in programs written in non-AI languages makes it possible to put Prolog calls inside DO loops and similar control constructs. The resulting merger of non-AI and AI languages thus results in a symbiotic system in which the advantages of both programming systems are retained, and their deficiencies largely remedied.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a growing field of computa- tional science techniques designed to mimic functions per- formed by people. Advancements in autonomy will depend on a portfolio of AI technologies. Automated planning and scheduling is a venerable field of study in AI, and is needed for a variety of mission planning functions. Plan execution technology is less well studied, but important for auton- omy and robotics. Specialized forms of automated reason- ing and machine learning are key technologies to enable fault management. Over the past decade, the NASA Au- tonomous Systems and Operations (ASO) project has devel- oped and demonstrated numerous autonomy enabling tech- nologies employing AI techniques. Our work has employed AI in three distinct ways to enable autonomous mission op- erations capabilities. Crew Autonomy gives astronauts tools to assist in the performance of each of these mission oper-ations functions. Vehicle System Management uses AI tech- niques to turn the astronaut's spacecraft into a robot, allow- ing it to operate when astronauts are not present, or to reduce astronaut workload. AI technology also enables Autonomous Robots as crew assistants or proxies when the crew are not present. When these capabilities are used to enable astro- nauts to operate autonomously, they must be integrated with user interfaces, introducing numerous human factors con- siderations; when these capabilities are used to enable vehi- cle system management, they must be integrated with flight software, and run on embedded processors under the control of real-time operating systems.We first describe human spaceflight mission operations capabilities. The remainder of the paper will describe the ASO project, and the development and demonstration per- formed by ASO since 2011. We will describe the AI tech- niques behind each of these demonstrations, which include a variety of symbolic automated reasoning and machine learn- ing based approaches. Finally, we conclude with an assess- ment of future development needs for AI to enable NASA's future Exploration missions.
Drawing upon globally recognized efforts by a variety of institutions, the paper develops a practical and defensible framework for consideration and use by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to support the adoption of credible ethical standards for autonomous and intelligent systems (AIS). The analysis is based on a future hypothetical AIS that identifies signatures of misuse, diversion, and other research and development (R&D). The hypothetical system serves as an exemplar for subject matter expert (SME) workshop participants to begin to answer ethical AIS questions around how these systems should be governed and maintained, what the internal and external considerations associated with artificial intelligence (AI) tools are, and where the boundaries between ethical and non-ethical uses are. The ethical AIS workshop explored several important topics: (a) Recommendations that can be currently implemented by the IAEA, (b) Proposed defensible criteria and metrics aligned with an ethical AI for safeguards implementation, (c) Discussion of future needs and capabilities, and (d) Derive appropriate next steps and actions to support filling current technological, operational, and cultural gaps and realizing an effective ethical AI for safeguards framework. The Establishing Ethical Guidelines for Applying AI to IAEA Safeguards project creates awareness in the community of the ethical AIS approach.
Despite aquatic invasive species (AIS) being a widely recognized threat to native biodiversity in streams on subtropical and tropical oceanic islands across the Pacific, AIS management has been constrained by concerns that methods of removal could result in more harm than good. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and outcomes of combining hand-netting and streamside sequestration of native species with AIS removal via three-pass electrofishing tailored for Hawaiian Island watersheds. Removals were conducted in 13 watersheds on the island of O‘ahu following a before-after, control-impact design to assess how AIS removal and post-removal community reassembly varied by surface flow and target species of interest. We found that removals resulted in a sharp reduction in AIS densities without altering native species densities. Removal efficacy was greatest in streams with intermediate mean discharge irrespective of target group or pre-removal AIS densities. Long-term monitoring demonstrated that removals led to persistent shifts in community composition reflecting sustained reductions in AIS densities. These findings indicate that electrofishing can be a valuable tool for AIS management in Hawaiian and other subtropical Pacific island streams, so long as steps are taken to minimize potential harm to at-risk and culturally important native species.