Advertisement

Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 233–263 | Cite as

Diagnosis of Discrete Event Systems Using Decentralized Architectures

  • Yin Wang
  • Tae-Sic Yoo
  • Stéphane Lafortune
Article

Abstract

Decentralized diagnosis of discrete event systems has received a lot of attention to deal with distributed systems or with systems that may be too large to be diagnosed by one centralized site. This paper casts the problem of decentralized diagnosis in a new hierarchical framework. A key feature is the exploitation of different local decisions together with appropriate rules for their fusion. This includes local diagnosis decisions that can be interpreted as “conditional decisions.” Under this new framework, a series of new decentralized architectures are defined and studied. The properties of their corresponding notions of decentralized diagnosability are characterized and their relationship with existing work described. Corresponding verification algorithms are also presented and on-line diagnosis strategies discussed.

Keywords

Discrete event systems Diagnosis Decentralized systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baroni P, Lamperti G, Pogliano P, Zanella M (1999) Diagnosis of large active systems. Artif Intel 110:135–183MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boel RK, Jiroveanu G (2004) Distributed contextual diagnosis for very large systems. In: Proc. of the 2004 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems—WODES’04, Reims, France, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  3. Boel RK, van Schuppen JH (2002) Decentralized failure diagnosis for discrete-event systems with costly communication between diagnosers. In: Proc. of the 2002 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems—WODES’02. Zaragoza, Spain, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Debouk R, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (2000) Coordinated decentralized protocols for failure diagnosis of discrete-event systems. Dis Event Dynamic Syst Theory Appl 10(1-2):33–86, JanuaryMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fabre E, Benveniste A, Haar S, Jard C (2005) Distributed monitoring of concurrent and asynchronous systems. Dis Event Dynamic Syst Theory Appl 15(1):33–84, MarchMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fabre E, Benveniste A, Jard C, Ricker L, Smith M (2000) Distributed state reconstruction for discrete event systems. In: Proc. 39th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control. pp. 2252–2257, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  8. Genc S, Lafortune S (2005) A distributed algorithm for on-line diagnosis of place-bordered petri nets. In: Proc. of 16th IFAC World CongressGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar R, Takai S (2006) Decentralized diagnosis for non-failures of discrete event systems using inference-based ambiguity management. In: 2006 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, JulyGoogle Scholar
  10. Lafortune S, Teneketzis D, Sampath M, Sengupta R, Sinnamohideen K (2001) Failure diagnosis of dynamic systems: An approach based on discrete event systems. In: Proc. 2001 American Control Conf. pp. 2058–2071, JuneGoogle Scholar
  11. Lamperti G, Zanella M (2003) Diagnosis of Active Systems: Principles and Techniques. Kluwer Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pencolé Y, Cordier M-O (2005) A formal framework for the decentralised diagnosis of large scale discrete event systems and its application to telecommunication networks. Artif Intel 164:121–170MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Qiu W, Kumar R (2004) Decentralized failure diagnosis of discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems—WODES’04, Reims, France, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  14. Rohloff K, Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2003) Deciding coobservability is PSPACE-complete. IEEE Trans Autom Control 48(11):1995–1999, NovemberMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rozé L, Cordier M-O (2002) Diagnosing discrete-event systems: Extending the “diagnoser approach” to deal with telecommunication networks. Dis Event Dynamic Syst Theory Appl 12(1):43–81MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rudie K, Wonham WM (1992) Think globally, act locally: Decentralized supervisory control. IEEE Trans Autom Control 37(11):1692–1708, NovemberMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sampath M, Sengupta R, Sinnamohideen K, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (1995) Diagnosability of discrete event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 40(9):1555–1575, SeptemberMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sampath M, Sengupta R, Sinnamohideen K, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (1996) Failure diagnosis using discrete event models. IEEE Trans Control Syst Tech 4(2):105–124, MarchCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sengupta R (1998) Diagnosis and communication in distributed systems. In: Proc. of the 1998 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems—WODES’98, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. Sengupta R, Tripakis S (2002) Decentralized diagnosability of regular languages is undecidable. In: Proc. 40th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control. pp. 423–428, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  21. Su R, Wonham WM (2004) Distributed diagnosis under global consistency. In: Proc. 42nd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  22. Su R, Wonham WM, Kurien J, Koutsoukos X (2002) Distributed diagnosis for qualitative systems. In: Proc. of the 2002 International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems—WODES’02, Zaragoza, Spain, pp 169–174, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang Y, Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2004) New results on decentralized diagnosis of discrete-event systems. In: Proc. of 2004 Annual Allerton ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang Y, Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2005) Decentralized diagnosis of discrete event systems using conditional and unconditional decisions. In: Proc. of the 44th IEEE conference on decision and controlGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2002a) A general architecture for decentralized supervisory control of discrete-event systems. Dis Event Dynamic Syst Theory Appl 12(3):335–377, JulyMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2002b) Polynomial-time verification of diagnosability of partially-observed discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 47(9):1491–1495, SeptemberMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yoo T-S, Lafortune S (2004) Decentralized supervisory control with conditional decisions: Supervisor existence. IEEE Trans Autom Control 49(11):1886–1904, NovemberMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EECSUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations