Advertisement

How to be sure a faulty system does not always appear healthy?

Fault manifestability analysis for discrete event and timed systems
  • Philippe Dague
  • Lulu He
  • Lina YeEmail author
S.I. : VeCoS 2018
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Fault diagnosability (allowing one to determine with certainty whether a given fault has effectively occurred based on the available observations) is a crucial and challenging property in complex system automatic control, which generally requires a high number of sensors, increasing the system cost, since it is quite a strong property. In this paper, we analyze a new system property called manifestability, that is a weaker requirement on system observations for having a chance to identify on-line faults: that a faulty system cannot always appear healthy. We propose an algorithm with PSPACE complexity to automatically verify it for finite automata, and prove that the problem of manifestability verification itself is PSPACE-complete. The experimental results show the feasibility of our algorithm from a practical point of view. Then, we extend our approach to verify manifestability of real-time systems modeled by timed automata, proving that it is undecidable in general but under some restricted conditions it becomes PSPACE-complete. Finally, we encode this property into an SMT formula, whose satisfiability witnesses manifestability, before presenting experimental results showing the scalability of our approach.

Keywords

Model-based diagnosis Diagnosability and manifestability Bounded model checking SMT Timed automata Real-time systems 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal A, Madalinski A, Haar S (2012) Effective verification of weak diagnosability. In: Proceedings of the 8th IFAC symposium on fault detection, supervision and safety for technical processes (SAFEPROCESS’12). IFAC, pp 636–641Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur R, Dill DL (1994) A theory of timed automata. Theor Comput Sci 126(2):183–235MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur R, Madhusudan P (2004) Decision problems for timed automata: a survey. In: Formal methods for the design of real-time systems, international school on formal methods for the design of computer, communication and software systems, SFM-RT 2004, Bertinoro, Italy, September 13-18, 2004, Revised Lectures, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badban B, Lange M (2011) Exact incremental analysis of timed automata with an smt-solver. In: Proceedings of international conference on formal modeling and analysis of timed systems (FORMATS’11), Lecture Notes in Computer Science,vol 6919. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Badouel E, Bednarczyk M, Borzyszkowski A, Caillaud B, Darondeau P (2007) Concurrent secrets. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 17(4):425–446MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baier C, Bertrand N, Bouyer P, Brihaye T (2009) When are timed automata determinizable? In: Proceedings of automata, languages and programming, 36th international colloquium, (ICALP 2009), Part II, Rhodes, Greece, July 5–12, 2009, pp 43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basarkar M, Pang X, Wang L, Haves P, Hong T (2011) Modeling and simulation of HVAC faults in EnergyPlus. In: Proceedings of building simulation 2011: 12th conference of international building performance simulation association, pp 2897–2903Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bérard B, Gastin P, Petit A (1996) On the power of non-observable actions in timed automata. In: Proceedings of 13th annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS 96), Grenoble, France, February 22–24, 1996, pp 257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertrand N, Fabre E, Haar S, Haddad S, Hélouët L (2014) Active diagnosis for probabilistic systems. In: 17th international conference on foundations of Software science and computation structures—FOSSACS 2014, pp 29–42Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertrand N, Haddad S, Lefaucheux E (2014) Foundation of diagnosis and predictability in probabilistic systems. In: 34th international conference on foundation of software technology and theoretical computer science, FSTTCS 2014, December 15–17, 2014, New Delhi, India, pp 417–429Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertrand N, Haddad S, Lefaucheux E (2016) Diagnosis in infinite-state probabilistic systems. In: 27th international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR 2016, August 23–26, 2016, Québec City, Canada, pp 37:1–37:15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bittner B, Bozzano M, Cimatti A (2016) Automated synthesis of timed failure propagation graphs. In: Proceedings of the 25th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’16), pp 972–978Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bittner B, Bozzano M, Cimatti A, Zampedri G (2016) Automated verification and tightening of failure propagation models. In: Proceedings of the 30th conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’16), pp 907–913Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonchi F, Pous D (2013) Checking NFA Equivalence with Bisimulations Up to Congruence. In: Proceedings of 40th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages (POPL-2013). ACM, pp 457–468Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouyer P (2003) Untameable timed automata. In: Proceedings of the annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS’03), Lecture Notes in Computer Science,vol 2607. Springer, pp 620–631Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouyer P, Chevalier F, D’Souza D (2005) Fault diagnosis using timed automata. In: Proceedings of international conference on foundations of software science and computation structures (FoSSaCS’05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bozzano M, Cimatti A, Gario M, Micheli A (2015) Smt-based validation of timed failure propagation graphs. In: Proceedings of the 29th conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’15), pp 3724–3730Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Büchi JR (1960) On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. Z Math Logik Grundlag Math 6:66–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (2008) Introduction to discrete event systems, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cassez F (2009) The dark side of timed opacity. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on information security and assurance (ISA’09), Seoul, South Korea, June, 2009, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cassez F, Dubreil J, Marchand H (2009) Dynamic observers for the synthesis of opaque systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA09), Macao, China, October, 2009, pp 352–367Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diekert V, Gastin P, Petit A (1997) Removing \(\epsilon \)-transitions in timed automata. In: Proceedings of 14th annual symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS 97), Lübeck, Germany, February 1997, pp 583–594Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Falcone Y, Marchand H (2014) Enforcement and validation (at runtime) of various notions of opacity. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 25(4):531–570MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finkel O (2006) Undecidable problems about timed automata. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on formal modeling and analysis of timed systems (FORMATS 2006), Paris, France, September 25–27, 2006, pp 187–199Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gardey G, Mullins J, Roux O (2007) Non-interference control synthesis for security timed automata. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 180(1):35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Germanos V, Haar S, Khomenko V, Schwoon S (2015) Diagnosability under weak fairness. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 14(4):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haar S, Haddad S, Melliti T, Schwoon S (2017) Optimal constructions for active diagnosis. J Comput Syst Sci 83(1):101–120MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    He L, Ye L, Dague P (2018) Smt-based diagnosability analysis of real-time systems. In: Proceedings of 10th IFAC symposium on fault detection, supervision and safety for technical processes (SAFEPROCESS 2018), pp 1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herbreteau F, Srivathsan B, Walukiewicz I (2013) Lazy abstractions for timed automata. In: Proceedings of 25th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV 2013), Saint Petersburg, Russia, July 13–19, 2013, pp 990–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacob R, Lesage J-J, Faure J-M (2015) Opacity of discrete event systems: models, validation and quantification. In: Proceedings of 5th IFAC workshop on dependable control of discrete systems (DCDS’15), Cancun, Mexico, May, 2015, pp 174–181Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jiang S, Huang Z, Chandra V, Kumar R (2001) A polynomial time algorithm for testing diagnosability of discrete event systems. Trans Autom Control 46(8):1318–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johan B, Wang Y (2003) On clock difference constraints and termination in reachability analysis of timed automata. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM’2003), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2885. Springer, pp 491–503Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kindermann R, Junttila T, Niemela I (2012) Beyond lassos: complete smt-based bounded model checking for timed automata. In: Proceedings of joint FMOODS 2012 and FORTE 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7273. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li Y, O’Neill Z (2018) A critical review of fault modeling of HVAC systems in buildings. Build Simul 11(5):953–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin F (2011) Opacity of discrete event systems and its applications. Automatica 47(3):496–503MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Papineau D (1993) Philosophical naturalism. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pencolé Y (2004) Diagnosability analysis of distributed discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on articifial intelligent (ECAI’04). IOS Press, Nieuwe Hemweg, pp 43–47Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Saboori A (2011) Verification and enforcement of state-based notions of opacity in discrete event systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2012) Verification of infinite-step opacity and complexity considerations. IEEE Trans Autom Control 57(5):1265–1269MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2007) Notions of security and opacity in discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of 46th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC07), New Orleans, LA, USA, December, 2007, pp 5056–5061Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2009) Verification of infinite-step opacity and analysis of its complexity. In: Proceedings of 2nd IFAC workshop on dependable control of discrete systems (DCDS’09), Bari, Italy, June, 2009, pp 46–51Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2013) Verification of initial-state opacity in security applications of discrete event systems. Inf Sci 246:115–132MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sampath M, Sengupta R, Lafortune S, Sinnamohideen K, Teneketzis D (1995) Diagnosability of discrete event system. Trans Autom Control 40(9):1555–1575MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schumann A, Huang J (2008) A scalable jointree algorithm for diagnosability. In: Proceedings of the 23rd American national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’08). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 535–540Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schumann A, Pencolé Y (2007) Scalable diagnosability checking of event-driven system. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’07). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc., Menlo Park, Calif., pp 575–580Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shu S, Lin F (2010) Detectability of discrete event systems with dynamic event observation. Syst Control Lett 59(1):9–17MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shu S, Lin F (2013) I-Detectability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 10(1):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sistla AP, Vardi MY, Wolper P (1987) The complementation problem for Büchi automata with applications to temporal logic. Theor Comput Sci 49(2–3):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thorsley D, Teneketzis D (2005) Diagnosability of stochastic discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(4):476–492MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tripakis S (2002) Fault diagnosis for timed automata. In: Proceedings of international symposium on formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems (FTRTFT’02), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang L, Zhan N, An J (2018) The opacity of real-time automata. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 37(11):2845–2856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wu YC, Lafortune S (2013) Comparative analysis of related notions of opacity in centralized and coordinated architectures. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 23(3):307–339MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ye L, Dague P (2010) Diagnosability analysis of discrete event systems with autonomous components. In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’10). IOS Press, Nieuwe Hemweg, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ye L, Dague P, Longuet D, Brandán Briones L, Madalinski A (2016) Fault manifestability verification for discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’16). IOS Press, pp 1718–1719Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ye L, Dague P, Longuet D, Brandán Briones L, Madalinski A (2018) How to be sure a faulty system does not always appear healthy? In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on verification and evaluation of computer and communication systems (VECoS 2018), Grenoble, France, September 26-28, 2018, pp 114–129Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yin X, Lafortune S (2017) A new approach for the verification of infinite-step and k-step opacity using two-way observers. Automatica 80:162–171MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang B, Shu S, Lin F (2012) Polynomial algorithms to check opacity in discrete event system. In: Proceedings of the 24th Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC12), pp 763–769Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inria, LSV, CNRS, ENS Paris-Saclay, Univ. Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  2. 2.LRI, CNRS, Univ. Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  3. 3.CentraleSupélecUniv. Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations