Taylan G. Topcu

İbrahim Oğuz Çetinkaya, Sajad Khodadadian, Taylan G. Topçu

As systems engineering (SE) objectives evolve from design and operation of monolithic systems to complex System of Systems (SoS), the discipline of Mission Engineering (ME) has emerged which is increasingly being accepted as a new line of thinking for the SE community. Moreover, mission environments are uncertain, dynamic, and mission outcomes are a direct function of how the mission assets will interact with this environment. This proves static architectures brittle and calls for analytically rigorous approaches for ME. To that end, this paper proposes an intelligent mission coordination methodology that integrates digital mission models with Reinforcement Learning (RL), that specifically addresses the need for adaptive task allocation and reconfiguration. More specifically, we are leveraging a Digital Engineering (DE) based infrastructure that is composed of a high-fidelity digital mission model and agent-based simulation; and then we formulate the mission tactics management problem as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and employ an RL agent trained via Proximal Policy Optimization. By leveraging the simulation as a sandbox, we map the system states to actions, refining the policy based on realized mission outcomes. The utility of the RL-based intelligent mission coordinator is demonstrated through an aerial firefighting case study. Our findings indicate that the RL-based intelligent mission coordinator not only surpasses baseline performance but also significantly reduces the variability in mission performance. Thus, this study serves as a proof of concept demonstrating that DE-enabled mission simulations combined with advanced analytical tools offer a mission-agnostic framework for improving ME practice; which can be extended to more complicated fleet design and selection problems in the future from a mission-first perspective.

Taylan G. Topcu, Mohammed Husain, Max Ofsa et al.

Multi-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs), a subset of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), have recently made significant progress. While expectations for LLMs to assist systems engineering (SE) tasks are paramount; the interdisciplinary and complex nature of systems, along with the need to synthesize deep-domain knowledge and operational context, raise questions regarding the efficacy of LLMs to generate SE artifacts, particularly given that they are trained using data that is broadly available on the internet. To that end, we present results from an empirical exploration, where a human expert-generated SE artifact was taken as a benchmark, parsed, and fed into various LLMs through prompt engineering to generate segments of typical SE artifacts. This procedure was applied without any fine-tuning or calibration to document baseline LLM performance. We then adopted a two-fold mixed-methods approach to compare AI generated artifacts against the benchmark. First, we quantitatively compare the artifacts using natural language processing algorithms and find that when prompted carefully, the state-of-the-art algorithms cannot differentiate AI-generated artifacts from the human-expert benchmark. Second, we conduct a qualitative deep dive to investigate how they differ in terms of quality. We document that while the two-material appear very similar, AI generated artifacts exhibit serious failure modes that could be difficult to detect. We characterize these as: premature requirements definition, unsubstantiated numerical estimates, and propensity to overspecify. We contend that this study tells a cautionary tale about why the SE community must be more cautious adopting AI suggested feedback, at least when generated by multi-purpose LLMs.

Max Ofsa, Taylan G. Topcu

Systems engineering (SE) is evolving with the availability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and the demand for a systems-of-systems perspective, formalized under the purview of mission engineering (ME) in the US Department of Defense. Formulating ME problems is challenging because they are open-ended exercises that involve translation of ill-defined problems into well-defined ones that are amenable for engineering development. It remains to be seen to which extent AI could assist problem formulation objectives. To that end, this paper explores the quality and consistency of multi-purpose Large Language Models (LLM) in supporting ME problem formulation tasks, specifically focusing on stakeholder identification. We identify a relevant reference problem, a NASA space mission design challenge, and document ChatGPT-3.5's ability to perform stakeholder identification tasks. We execute multiple parallel attempts and qualitatively evaluate LLM outputs, focusing on both their quality and variability. Our findings portray a nuanced picture. We find that the LLM performs well in identifying human-focused stakeholders but poorly in recognizing external systems and environmental factors, despite explicit efforts to account for these. Additionally, LLMs struggle with preserving the desired level of abstraction and exhibit a tendency to produce solution specific outputs that are inappropriate for problem formulation. More importantly, we document great variability among parallel threads, highlighting that LLM outputs should be used with caution, ideally by adopting a stochastic view of their abilities. Overall, our findings suggest that, while ChatGPT could reduce some expert workload, its lack of consistency and domain understanding may limit its reliability for problem formulation tasks.

Niloofar Shadab, Tyler Cody, Alejandro Salado et al.

Engineering methodologies predominantly revolve around established principles of decomposition and recomposition. These principles involve partitioning inputs and outputs at the component level, ensuring that the properties of individual components are preserved upon composition. However, this view does not transfer well to intelligent systems, particularly when addressing the scaling of intelligence as a system property. Our prior research contends that the engineering of general intelligence necessitates a fresh set of overarching systems principles. As a result, we introduced the "core and periphery" principles, a novel conceptual framework rooted in abstract systems theory and the Law of Requisite Variety. In this paper, we assert that these abstract concepts hold practical significance. Through empirical evidence, we illustrate their applicability to both biological and artificial intelligence systems, bridging abstract theory with real-world implementations. Then, we expand on our previous theoretical framework by mathematically defining core-dominant vs periphery-dominant systems.