Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 383–402 | Cite as

What topology tells us about diagnosability in partial order semantics

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

From a partial observation of the behaviour of a labeled Discrete Event System, fault diagnosis strives to determine whether or not a given “invisible” fault event has occurred. The diagnosability problem can be stated as follows: does the labeling allow for an outside observer to determine the occurrence of the fault, no later than a bounded number of events after that unobservable occurrence? When this problem is investigated in the context of concurrent systems, partial order semantics adds to the difficulty of the problem, but also provides a richer and more complex picture of observation and diagnosis. In particular, it is crucial to clarify the intuitive notion of “time after fault occurrence”. To this end, we will use a unifying metric framework for event structures, providing a general topological description of diagnosability in both sequential and nonsequential semantics for Petri nets.

Keywords

Discrete event systems Diagnosis Petri nets Events Observability Partial order semantics Event structures 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was partly supported by the European Community’s 7th Framework Programme under project DISC (DIstributed Supervisor Control of large plants), Grant Agreement INFSO-ICT-224498.

References

  1. Abbes S (2006) A cartesian closed category of event structures with quotients. Discret Math Theor Comput Sci 8(1):249–272MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldan P, Corradini A, Montanari U (2001) Contextual petri nets, asymmetric event structures and processes. Inf Comput 171(1):1–49MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldan P, Chatain T, Haar S, König B (2010) Unfolding-based diagnosis of systems with an evolving topology. Inf Comput 208(10):1169–1192MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer A, Pinchinat S (2008) A topological perspective on diagnosis. In: 9th international workshop on discrete event systems, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Benveniste A, Fabre É, Haar S, Jard C (2003) Diagnosis of asynchronous discrete event systems: a net unfolding approach. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 48(5):714–727MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonizzoni P, Mauri G, Pighizzini G (1990) About infinite traces. Report TUM-I9002, TU MünchenGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Kluwer Academic, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassez F, Tripakis S (2008) Fault diagnosis with static and dynamic observers. Fundam Inform 88(4):497–540MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Engelfriet J (1991) Branching processes of Petri nets. Acta Inform 28:575–591MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fabre E, Benveniste A (2007) Partial order techniques for distributed discrete event systems: why you cannot avoid using them. Discret Event Dyn Syst 17(3):355–403MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabre É, Benveniste A, Haar S, Jard C (2005) Distributed monitoring of concurrent and asynchronous systems. Discret Event Dyn Syst: Theory Appl 15(1):33–84MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Genc S, Lafortune S (2009) Predictability of event occurrences in partially-observed discrete-event systems. Automatica 45(2):301–311MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haar S (2007) Unfold and cover: qualitative diagnosability for Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC’07), New Orleans, LA, USA. IEEE Control System Society, pp 1886–1891Google Scholar
  14. Haar S (2009) Qualitative diagnosability of labeled Petri nets revisited. In: Proceedings of the joint 48th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC’09) and 28th Chinese control conference (CCC’09), Shanghai, China. IEEE Control System Society, pp 1248–1253Google Scholar
  15. Haar S (2010a) What topology tells us about diagnosability in partial order semantics. In: Proceedings of the 10th workshop on discrete event systems (WODES’10), Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Haar S (2010b) Types of asynchronous diagnosability and the reveals-relation in occurrence nets. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 55(10):2310–2320MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haar S, Benveniste A, Fabre É, Jard C (2003) Partial order diagnosability of discrete event systems using Petri net unfoldings. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC’03), vol 4, Hawaii, USA. IEEE Control System Society, pp 3748–3753Google Scholar
  18. Kummetz R, Kuske D (2003) The topology of Mazurkiewicz traces. Theor Comp Sci 305:237–258MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kwiatkowska MZ (1990) A metric for traces. Inf Process Lett 35:129–135MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lafortune S, Seatzu C, Cabasino MP, Giua A (2009) Diagnosability analysis of unbounded Petri nets. In: Proc of 48th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC)Google Scholar
  21. Madalinski A, Nouioua F, Dague P (2010) Diagnosability verification with petri net unfoldings. KES J 14(2):49–55Google Scholar
  22. Nielsen M, Plotkin G, Winskel G (1981) Petri nets, event structures, and domains (I). Theor Comp Sci 13:85–108MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Römer S, Esparza J, Vogler W (2002) An improvement of Mcmillan’s unfolding algorithm. Form Methods Syst Des 20(3):285–310MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sampath M, Sengupta R, Lafortune S, Sinnamohideen K, Teneketzis D (1995) Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 40(9):1555–1575MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seatzu C, Cabasino MP, Giua A (2009) Diagnosability of bounded Petri nets. In: Proc. of 48th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC)Google Scholar
  26. ThiagarajanLafortune S, Yoo T-S PS (2002) Regular event structures and finite Petri nets: a conjecture. In: Formal and natural computing, no. 2300. Springer, New York, pp 244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang Y, Lafortune S, Yoo T-S (2005) Decentralized diagnosis of discrete event systems using unconditional and conditional decisions. In: Proc 44th CDCGoogle Scholar
  28. Winskel G (1987) Event structures. In: Advances in Petri nets, no. 255 in LNCS. Springer, New York, pp 325–392Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA and LSV (CNRS and ENS Cachan)Cachan CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations