Intelligent Monitoring of Complex Discrete-Event Systems

  • Gianfranco LampertiEmail author
  • Giulio Quarenghi
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 56)


A complex active system is a discrete-event system exhibiting both horizontal and vertical interaction between components. By inspiration of biological systems in nature, which are organized in a hierarchy of subsystems, the horizontal interaction between components at a given hierarchical level gives rise to an emergent behavior at a superior level, which is unpredictable from a knowledge of the behavior of the interacting components only. Since real critical-systems, such as power networks and nuclear plants, can be conveniently modeled as complex active systems, monitoring and diagnosis of complex active systems is of paramount importance to the safety of society. This is why an intelligent diagnosis framework for complex active systems is presented in this paper. Intelligence means that diagnosis does not require the naive reconstruction of the system behavior as a whole, which would be exponential with the number of components. Experiments show the effectiveness of the diagnosis technique.


Regular Expression Component Transition Pattern Event Diagnosis Problem Faulty Transition 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bossomaier, T., Green, D.: Complex Systems. Cambridge University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. J. ACM 30(2), 323–342 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cassandras, C., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems, The Kluwer International Series in Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, vol. 11. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu, D.: Complexity: against systems. Theor. Biosci. 130(3), 229–245 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goles, E., Martinez, S.: Complex Systems. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Prog. 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamad, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.: STATEMATE: a working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(4), 403–414 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Idghamishi, A., Zad, S.: Fault diagnosis in hierarchical discrete-event systems. In: 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 63–68. Paradise Island, Bahamas (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jéron, T., Marchand, H., Pinchinat, S., Cordier, M.: Supervision patterns in discrete event systems diagnosis. In: Seventeenth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis DX’06, pp. 117–124. Peñaranda de Duero, Spain (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaneko, K., Tsuda, I.: Complex Systems: Chaos and Beyond: a Constructive Approach with Applications in Life. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamperti, G., Zhao, X.: Diagnosis of higher-order discrete-event systems. In: Cuzzocrea, A., Kittl, C., Simos, D., Weippl, E., Xu, L. (eds.) Availability, Reliability, and Security in Information Systems and HCI, LNCS, vol. 8127, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamperti, G., Zhao, X.: Specification and model-based diagnosis of higher-order discrete-event systems. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern.—SMC 2013, pp. 2342–2347. Manchester, United Kingdom (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamperti, G., Zanella, M.: Diagnosis of Active Systems—Principles and Techniques, The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 741. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamperti, G., Zanella, M.: Context-sensitive diagnosis of discrete-event systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI’11, vol. 2, pp. 969–975. AAAI Press, Barcelona, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamperti, G., Zhao, X.: Diagnosis of active systems by semantic patterns. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 44(8), 1028–1043 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Licata, I., Sakaji, A.: Physics of emergence and organization. World Scientific (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paoli, A., Lafortune, S.: Diagnosability analysis of a class of hierarchical state machines. J. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst.: Theor. Appl. 18(3), 385–413 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Report of the Enquiry Committee on Grif Disturbance in Northern Region on 30th July 2012 and in Northern, Eastern and North-Eastern Region on 31st July 2012 (2012).
  19. 19.
    Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Lafortune, S., Sinnamohideen, K., Teneketzis, D.: Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 40(9), 1555–1575 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampath, M., Lafortune, S., Teneketzis, D.: Active diagnosis of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 43(7), 908–929 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sibani, P., Jensen, H.: Stochastic Dynamics of Complex Systems, Complexity Science, vol. 2. World Scientific (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di BresciaBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations