Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EDEN: An Intelligent Software Environment for Diagnosis of Discrete-Event Systems

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A software environment, called EDEN, that prototypes a recent approach to model-based diagnosis of discrete-event systems, is presented. The environment integrates a specification language, called SMILE, a model base, and a diagnostic engine. SMILE enables the user to create libraries of models and systems, which are permanently stored in the model base, wherein both final and intermediate results of the diagnostic sessions are hosted as well. Given the observation of a physical system gathered during its reaction to an external event, the diagnostic engine performs the a posteriori reconstruction of all the possible evolutions of the system over time and, then, draws candidate diagnoses out of them. The diagnostic method is described using a simplified example within the domain of power transmission networks. Strong points of the method include compositional modeling, support for model update, ability to focus on any sub-system, amenability to parallel execution, management of multiple faults, and broad notions of system and observation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Baroni, G. Lamperti, P. Pogliano, and M. Zanella, “Diagnosis of active systems,” in Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'98, Brighton, UK, 1998, pp. 274–278.

  2. P. Baroni, G. Lamperti, P. Pogliano, and M. Zanella, “Diagnosis of large active systems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 110, no.1, pp. 135–183, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Lamperti, P. Pogliano, and M. Zanella, “Diagnosis of active systems by automata-based reasoning techniques,” Applied Intelligence, The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks, and Complex Problem-Solving Technologies, vol. 12, no.3, pp. 217–237, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. V. Brusoni, L. Console, P. Terenziani, and D. Theseider Dupré, “Aspectrum of definitions for temporal model-based diagnosis,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 102, no.1, pp. 39–80, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Lunze, “Qualitative modelling of dynamical systems: Motivation, methods, and prospective applications,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 46, pp. 465–483, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Förstner and J. Lunze, “Qualitative modelling of a power stage for diagnosis,” in Thirteenth International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, QR'99, Lock Awe, UK, 1999, pp. 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Sampath, R. Sengupta, S. Lafortune, K. Sinnamohideen, and D.C. Teneketzis, “Diagnosability of discrete-event systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 40, no.9, pp. 1555–1575, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Sampath, R. Sengupta, S. Lafortune, K. Sinnamohideen, and D.C. Teneketzis, “Failure diagnosis using discrete-event models,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 4, no.2, pp. 105–124, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L. Rozé, “Supervision of telecommunication network: A diagnoser approach,” in Eighth InternationalWorkshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'97, Mont St. Michel, France, 1997.

  10. Y. Pencolé, “Decentralized diagnoser approach: Application to telecommunication networks,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis,DX'00, Morelia, Maxico, 2000, pp. 185–192.

  11. A. Aho, R. Sethi, and J.D. Ullman, Compilers—Principles, Techniques, and Tools, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Ghezzi, M. Jazayeri, and D. Mandrioli, Fundamentals of Software Engineering, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M.O. Cordier and S. Thiébaux. “Event-based diagnosis for evolutive systems,” in Fifth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'94, New Paltz, NY, 1994, pp. 64–69.

  14. G. Lamperti and P. Pogliano, “Event-based reasoning for short circuit diagnosis in power transmission networks,” in Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'97, Nagoya, Japan, 1997, pp. 446–451.

  15. R. Debouk, S. Lafortune, and D. Teneketzis, “Coordinated decentralized protocols for failure diagnosis of discrete-event systems,” Journal of Discrete Event Dynamical Systems: Theory and Application, vol. 10, pp. 33–86, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Debouk, S. Lafortune, and D. Teneketzis, “Adiagnostic protocol for discrete-event systems with decentralized information,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Maxico, 2000, pp. 41–48.

  17. R. Reiter, “A theory of diagnosis from first principles,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no.1, pp. 57–95, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. de Kleer and B.C. Williams, “Diagnosing multiple faults,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no.1, pp. 97–130, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Davis, “Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 24, no.1, pp. 347–410, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Davis, “Retrospective on ‘diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior’,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 59, no.1/2, pp. 149–157, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Bobrow, B. Falkenhainer, A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, K. Forbus, T. Gruber, Y. Iwasaki, and B. Kuipers, “A compositional modeling language,” in Tenth International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, QR'96, Fallenleaf Lake, CA, 1996.

  22. Y. Iwasaki, A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, and J. Rice, “A web-based compositional modeling system for sharing of physical knowledge,” in Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'97, Nagoya, Japan, 1997, pp. 494–500.

  23. T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield, “KQML as an agent communication language,” in Software Agents, edited by J.M. Bradshaw, AAAI Press/MIT Press, pp. 291–317, 1997.

  24. F. Heck, T. Laengle, and H. Woern, “A multi-agent based monitoring and diagnosis system for industrial components,” in Ninth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'98, Cape Cod, 1998, pp. 63–69.

  25. T. Havelka, M. Stumptner, and F. Wotawa, “AD2L—Aprogramming language for model-based systems (preliminary report),” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 65–73.

  26. L. Console, C. Picardi, and M. Ribaudo, “Diagnosis and diagnosability analysis using process algebras,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 25–32.

  27. L. Console, C. Picardi, and M. Ribaudo, “Diagnosis and diagnosability using PEPA,” in Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'2000, Berlin, 2000, pp. 131–135.

  28. J. Hillston, A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

  29. Y. Pencolé, “Dyp: A model-based tool for diagnosing discrete-event systems, INRIA, 1999.

  30. C. Mateis, M. Stumptner, D. Wieland, and F. Wotawa, “JADE–A step towards an intelligent debugger,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 117–124.

  31. C. Mateis, M. Stumptner, and F. Wotawa, “A value-based diagnosis model for Java programs,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 125–131.

  32. E. Girardelli and F. Didó, “Diagnostic from system models: The adam expert system approach,” in Twentyfirst International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS'98, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

  33. P. Struss, M. Sachenbacher, and C. Carlén, “Insights from building a prototype for model-based on-board diagnosis of automotive systems,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 201–212.

  34. P. Struss, “Fundamentals of model-based diagnosis of dynamic systems,” in Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'97, Nagoya, Japan, 1997, pp. 480–485.

  35. D. Förstner and J. Lunze, “Qualitative model-based fault detection of a fuel injection system,” in Fourth IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, SAFEPROCESS'2000, Budapest, 2000, pp. 88–93.

  36. J. Lunze, “Diagnosis of quantized systems based on timed discrete-event model,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 30, no.3, pp. 322–335, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  37. B.C. Williams and P.P. Nayak, “A model-based approach to reactive self-configuring systems,” in Seventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'96, Montreal, Canada, 1996.

  38. N. Muscettola, P.P. Nayak, B. Pell, and B.C. Williams, “Remote Agent: To boldly go where no AI system has gone before,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 103, no.1/2, pp. 5–47, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  39. K. Rajan, D. Bernard, G. Dorais, E. Gamble, B. Kanefsky, J. Kurien, W. Millar, N. Muscettola, P.P. Nayak, N. Rouquette, B. Smith, W. Taylor, and Y. Tung, “Remote agent: An autonomous control system for the new millenium,” in Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'2000, Berlin, 2000, pp. 726–730.

  40. J. Kurien and P.P. Nayak, “Back to the future for consistencybased trajectory tracking,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 92–100.

  41. G. Lamperti and M. Zanella, “Diagnosis of discrete-event systems integrating synchronous and asynchronous behavior,” in Tenth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'99, Loch Awe, UK, 1999, pp. 129–139.

  42. G. Lamperti and M. Zanella, “Uncertain discrete-event observations,” in Eleventh International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, DX'00, Morelia, Mexico, 2000, pp. 101–108.

  43. G. Lamperti and M. Zanella, “Diagnosis of discrete-event systems with uncertain observations,” in Fourth IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, SAFEPROCESS'2000, Budapest, 2000, pp. 1109–1114.

  44. G. Lamperti and M. Zanella, “Uncertain temporal observations in diagnosis,” in Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'2000, Berlin, 2000, pp. 151–155.

  45. G. Lamperti and M. Zanella, “Generation of diagnostic knowledge by discrete-event model compilation,” in Seventh International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'2000, Breckenridge, Colorado, 2000, pp. 333–344.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica per l'Automazione, Università di Brescia, via Branze 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy

    Gianfranco Lamperti & Marina Zanella

Authors
  1. Gianfranco Lamperti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina Zanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamperti, G., Zanella, M. EDEN: An Intelligent Software Environment for Diagnosis of Discrete-Event Systems. Applied Intelligence 18, 55–77 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020974704946

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020974704946

Search

Navigation