Skip to main content
Log in

A Formal Analysis of Fault Diagnosis with D-matrices

  • Published:
Journal of Electronic Testing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As new approaches and algorithms are developed for system diagnosis, it is important to reflect on existing approaches to determine their strengths and weaknesses. Of concern is identifying potential reasons for false pulls during maintenance. Within the aerospace community, one approach to system diagnosis—based on the D-matrix derived from test dependency modeling—is used widely, yet little has been done to perform any theoretical assessment of the merits of the approach. Past assessments have been limited, largely, to empirical analysis and case studies. In this paper, we provide a theoretical assessment of the representation power of the D-matrix and suggest algorithms and model types for which the D-matrix is appropriate. We also prove a surprising result relative to the difficulty of generating optimal diagnostic strategies from D-matrices. Finally, we relate the processing of the D-matrix with several diagnostic approaches and suggest how to extend the power of the D-matrix to take advantage of the power of those approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Aamodt and E. Plaza, “Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches,” AI Commun., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 39–59, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Automatic Test Markup Language Consortium website, http://www.atml.org.

  3. M. Azam, F. Tu, K. Pattipati, and R. Karanam, “A Dependency Model-Based Approach for Identifying and Evaluating Power Quality Problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1154–1166, July 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. Butcher, J. Sheppard, M. Kaufman, H. Ha, and C. MacDougall, “Experiments in Bayesian Diagnostics with IUID-Enabled Data”, IEEE AUTOTESTCON Conference Record, New York: IEEE Press, September 2006, pp. 605–614.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, R. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, second edn., Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Deb, K. Pattitpati, V. Raghavan, M. Shakeri, and R. Shrestha, “Multi-Signal Flow Graphs: A Novel Approach for System Testability Analysis and Fault Diagnosis,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 14–25, May 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Dechter, Constraint Processing, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DoD Automatic Test System Framework Roadmap, May 2005.

  9. R. Duda, P. Hart, and D. Stork, Pattern Classification, New York: Wiley 2001.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. W.C. Fischer and A. Sivahop, Tested, Dissimilar Stability Augmentation System, United States Patent #4,313,201, January 26, 1982.

  11. N. Friedman, D. Geiger, and M. Goldszmidt, “Bayesian Network Classifiers,” Mach. Learn., vol. 29, pp. 131–163, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. M. Garey and D. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, New York: Freeman, 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Heath, A Geometric Framework for Machine Learning, PhD dissertation, Department of Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, 1992.

  14. L. Hyafil and R. Rivest, “Constructing Optimal Binary Decision Trees in NP-Complete,” Inf. Process. Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 15–17, May 1976.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. IEEE Std 1232-2002. Standard for Artificial Intelligence Exchange and Service Tie to All Test Environments (AI-ESTATE), Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Standards Association Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Ling and H. Zhang, “The Representational Power of Discrete Bayesian Networks,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 3, pp. 709–721, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J. Luo, H. Tu, K. Pattipati, L. Qiao, and S. Chigusa, “Diagnosis Knowledge Representation and Inference,” IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 45–52, August 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Minsky and S. Papert, Perceptrons, Expanded edn., Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1988.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Murthy, On Growing Better Decision Trees from Data, PhD Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, 1996.

  20. J. Quinlan, “Induction of Decision Trees,” Mach. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–106, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. I. Roychoudhury, G. Biswas, X. Koutsoukos, and S. Abdelwahed, “Designing Distributed Diagnosers for Complex Systems,” Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Monterey, CA, June 2005, pp. 31–36.

  22. D. Rumelhart, G. Hinton, and R. Williams, “Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation,” in D. Rumelhart and J. McClelland (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1986, pp. 318–362.

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Sheppard and W. Simpson, “Multiple Fault Diagnosis”, IEEE AUTOTESTCON Conference Record, New York: IEEE Press, September 1994, pp. 381–389.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Sheppard and W. Simpson, “Improving the Accuracy of Diagnostics Provided by Fault Dictionaries,” Proceedings of the 14th IEEE VLSI Test Symposium, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996, pp. 180–185.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Sheppard and M. Kaufman, “A Bayesian Approach to Diagnosis and Prognosis Using Built in Test,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., Special Section on Built-In Test, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1003–1018, June 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J. Sheppard and S. Butcher, “On the Linear Separability of Diagnostic Models”, IEEE AUTOTESTCON Conference Record, New York: IEEE Press, September 2006, pp. 626–635.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Sheppard, S. Butcher, M. Kaufman, and C. MacDougall, “Not-So-Naïve Bayesian Networks and Unique Identification in Developing Advanced Diagnostics,” Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, New York: IEEE Press, March 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Shwe and G. Cooper, “An Empirical Analysis of a Likelihood-weighting Simulation on a Large, Multiply-connected Medical Belief Network,” Comput. Biomed. Res., vol. 24, pp. 453–475, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. W. Simpson and J. Sheppard, “System Complexity and Integrated Diagnostics,” IEEE Design and Test of Computers Magazine, September 1991, pp. 16–30.

  31. W. Simpson and J. Sheppard, System Test and Diagnosis, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. Stanfill and D. Waltz, “Toward Memory-based Reasoning,” Commun. ACM, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1213–1228, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. W.C. Thibault and B.F. Naylor, “Set Operations on Polyhedra Using Binary Space Partitioning Trees,” Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, New York: ACM, pp. 153–167, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. W. Sheppard.

Additional information

Editor: M. Abadir

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sheppard, J.W., Butcher, S.G.W. A Formal Analysis of Fault Diagnosis with D-matrices. J Electron Test 23, 309–322 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-006-0628-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-006-0628-7

Keywords

Navigation