Verification and validation of autonomous systems

NASA is working on complex future missions that require cooperation between multiple satellites or rovers. To implement these systems, developers are proposing and using intelligent and autonomous systems. These autonomous missions are new to NASA, and the software development community is just learning to develop such systems. With these new systems, new verification and validation techniques must be used. Current techniques have been developed based on large monolithic systems. These techniques have worked well and reliably, but do not translate to the new autonomous systems that are highly parallel and nondeterministic.

Hippocampal models for simultaneous localisation and mapping on an autonomous robot

To navigate successfully in a novel environment a robot needs to be able to Simultaneously Localize And Map (SLAM) its surroundings. The most successful solutions to this problem so far have involved probabilistic algorithms, but there has been much promising work involving systems based on the workings of part of the rodent brain known as the hippocampus. In this paper we present a biologically plausible system called RatSLAM that uses competitive attractor networks to carry out SLAM in a probabilistic manner. The system can effectively perform parameter self-calibration and SLAM in onedimension. Tests in two dimensional environments revealed the inability of the RatSLAM system to maintain multiple pose hypotheses in the face of ambiguous visual input. These results support recent rat experimentation that suggest current competitive attractor models are not a complete solution to the hippocampal modelling problem.

A helicopter named Dolly: Behavioural cloning for autonomous helicopter control

This paper considers the pros and cons of using behavioural cloning for the development of low-level helicopter automation modules. Over the course of this project several Behavioural cloning approaches have been investigated. The results of the most effective Behavioural cloning approach are then compared to PID modules designed for the same aircraft. The comparison takes into consideration development time, reliability, and control performance. It has been found that Behavioural cloning techniques employing local approximators and a wide state-space coverage during training can produce stabilising control modules in less time than tuning PID controllers. However, performance and reliabity deficits have been found to exist with the Behavioural Cloning, attributable largely to the time variant nature of the dynamics due to the operating environment, and the pilot actions being poor for teaching. The final conclusion drawn here is that tuning PID modules remains superior to behavioural cloning for low-level helicopter automation.