Advertisement

Fault Ascription in Concurrent Systems

  • Gregor GösslerEmail author
  • Jean-Bernard Stefani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9533)

Abstract

Fault diagnosis is becoming increasingly important and difficult with the growing pervasiveness and complexity of computer systems. We propose in this paper a general semantic framework for fault ascription, a precise form of fault diagnosis that relies on counterfactual analysis for identifying necessary and sufficient causes of faults in component-based systems. Our framework relies on configuration structures to handle concurrent systems, partial and distributed observations in a uniform way. It defines basic conditions for a counterfactual analysis of necessary and sufficient causes, and it presents a refined analysis that conforms to our basic conditions while avoiding various infelicities.

Keywords

Fault Diagnosis Component Specification Propositional Variable Configuration Structure Discrete Event System 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baldan, P., Chatain, T., Haar, S., König, B.: Unfolding-based diagnosis of systems with an evolving topology. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 203–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Chockler, H., Orni, A., Trefler, R.J.: Explaining counterexamples using causality. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 40(1), 20–40 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benveniste, A., Haar, S., Fabre, E., Jard, C.: Distributed monitoring of concurrent and asynchronous systems. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennan, A.: Necessary and sufficient conditions. In: Zalta, E.N., (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2012 (edn.) (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassandras, C.G., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gössler, G., Astefanoaei, L.: Blaming in component-based real-time systems. In: 2014 International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gössler, G., Le Métayer, D.: A general framework for blaming in component-based systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 113, 223–235 (2015). (in Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groce, A., Chaki, S., Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Error explanation with distance metrics. STTT 8(3), 229–247 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haar, S., Fabre, E.: Diagnosis with petri net unfoldings. In: Seatzu, C., Silva Suárez, M., van Schuppen, J.H. (eds.) Control of Discrete-event Systems. LNCIS, vol. 433, pp. 301–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, T.Y., Hitchcock, C.: Graded causation and defaults. CoRR (2013). abs/1309.1226
  11. 11.
    Halpern, J.Y., Pearl, J.: Causes and explanations: a structural approach. part i: causes. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 56(4), 843–887 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hwang, I., Kim, S., Kim, Y., Seah, C.E.: A survey of fault detection, isolation and reconfiguration methods. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 18(3), 636–653 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuntz, M., Leitner-Fischer, F., Leue, S.: From probabilistic counterexamples via causality to fault trees. In: Flammini, F., Bologna, S., Vittorini, V. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6894, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis, D.: Counterfactuals, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le Métayer, D., Maarek, M., et al.: Liability issues in software engineering: the use of formal methods to reduce legal uncertainties. Commun. ACM 54(4), 99–106 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stalnaker, R.: A Theory of Conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory. Blackwell, Oxford (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Plotkin, G.D.: Configuration structures, event structures and petri nets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(41), 4111–4159 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, S., Ayoub, A., Ivanov, R., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Contract-based blame assignment by trace analysis. In: 2nd ACM Interational Conference HiCoNS. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zaytoon, J., Lafortune, S.: Overview of fault diagnosis methods for discrete event systems. Ann. Rev. Control 37(2), 308–320 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA Grenoble – Rhône-AlpesUniversité Grenoble – AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations