Exploiting T-invariant analysis in diagnostic reasoning on a Petri net model

  • Luigi Portinale
Full Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 691)


This paper copes with the application of T-invariant analysis to diagnostic reasoning based on a Petri net model. In particular, it is formally shown how the notion of diagnostic solution can be related to that of Petri net T-invariant, partially transforming a problem traditionally solved by means of symbolic techniques into a linear algebraic one. The approach has been inspired by some previous works concerning the use of T-invariant analysis on Petri net models of logic programs and it takes its place among recent approaches aiming at integrating artificial intelligence and Petri netbased techniques. A diagnostic algorithm exploiting the idea is proposed and the role of the Petri net model in the resulting diagnostic architecture is discussed.


Logic Program Minimal Support Diagnostic Problem Causal Network Diagnostic Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Bernardinello and F. De Cindio, A survey of basic net models and modular net classes. In G. Rozemberg, editor, Advanced in Petri Nets 1992, LNCS 609, pages 304–351. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Chiola. GreatSPN 1,5 software architecture. In G. Balbo and G. Serazzi, editors, Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Modeling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, Torino, 1991. North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Clark. Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Console and L. Portinale. Model based diagnosis of system malfunction with Petri nets. In S.G. Tzafestas and J.C. Gentina, editors, Robotics and Flexible Manufacturing Systems, pages 417–426. Elsevier Science, 1992. A preliminary version appeared in Proc. 13th IMACS World Congress on Computation and Applied Mathematics, Dublin, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Console, L. Portinale, and D. Theseider Dupré. Focusing abductive diagnosis. In Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Expert Systems and Their Applications (Conf. on 2nd Generation Expert Systems), pages 231–242, Avignon, 1991. Also in AI Communications 4(2/3):88–97, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Console, L. Portinale, D. Theseider Dupré, and P. Torasso. Combining heuristic and causal reasoning in diagnostic problem solving. In J.M. David, J.P. Krivine, and R. Simmons, editors, Second Generation Expert Systems. Springer Verlag. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Console, D. Theseider Dupré, and P. Torasso. A theory of diagnosis for incomplete causal models. In Proc. 11th IJCAI, pages 1311–1317, Detroit, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Console and P. Torasso. A spectrum of logical definitions of model-based diagnosis. Computational Intelligence, 7(3):133–141, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. de Kleer. Focusing on probable diagnoses. In Proc. AAAI 91, pages 842–848, Anaheim, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. de Kleer, A. Mackworth, and R. Reiter. Characterizing diagnoses and systems. Artificial Intelligence, 56(2–3):197–222, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Deng and S.K. Chang. A G-net model for knowledge representation and reasoning. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, KDE 2(3):295–310, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Milne (ed.). Special issue on causal and diagnostic reasoning. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17(3), 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H.J. Genrich and K. Lautenbach. System modeling with high level petri nets. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:109–136, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Giordana and L. Saitta. Modeling production rules by means of Predicate Transition Networks. Information Sciences, 35:1–41, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Hamscher, L. Console, and J. de Kleer. Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Jensen. Coloured Petri Nets and the invariant method. Theoretical Computer Science, 14:317–336, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Lautenbach. Linear algebraic techniques for Place/Transition nets. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, pages 142–167. Springer Verlag, 1987. LNCS 254.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Martinez, P.R. Muro, M. Silva, S.F. Smith, and J.L. Villaroel. Merging artificial intelligence techniques and Petri nets for real-time scheduling and control of production systems. In Proc. 12th IMACS World Congress on Scientific Computation, pages 528–531, Paris, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Martinez and M. Silva. A simple and fast algorithm to obtain all invariants of a generalized Petri net. In W. Reisig C. Girault, editor, Informatik-Fachberichte, Applications and Theory of Petri Nets, pages 301–310. Springer Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Memmi and G. Roucairol. Linear algebra in net theory. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 84, pages 213–223. Springer Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Murata, V.S. Subrahmanian, and T. Wakayama. A Petri net model for reasoning in the presence of inconsistency. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, KDE 3(3):281–292, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Murata and J. Yim. Petri-net deduction methods for propositional-logic rule-based systems. Technical Report UIC-EECS-89-15, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Murata and D. Zhang. A Predicate-Transition Net model for parallel interpretation of logic programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE 14(4):481–497, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Peterka and T. Murata. Proof procedure and answer extraction in Petri net model of logic programs. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., SE 15(2):209–217, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Portinale. Behavioral Petri Net: a model for diagnostic knowledge representation and reasoning. Technical report, Dip. Informatica, Universita' di Torino, 1992. (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Portinale. Verification of causal models using Petri nets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 7(8):715–742, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):57–96, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Torasso and L. Console. Diagnostic Problem Solving: Combining Heuristic, Approximate and Causal Reasoning. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Valette and M. Courvoisier. Petri nets and artificial intelligence. In Proc. Int. Workshop on Emerging Technologies for Factory Automation, North Queensland, Australia, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Zhang. Planning with Pr/T nets. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 769–775, Sacramento, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Zhang and T. Murata. Fixpoint semantics for Petri net model of definite clause logic programs. Technical Report UIC-EECS-87-2, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1987. also to appear in Advances in the Theory of Computation and Computational Mathematics, Ablex Publ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Portinale
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversita' di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations