Skip to main content
Log in

Epistemic interpretations of decentralized discrete-event system problems

  • Published:
Discrete Event Dynamic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents epistemic characterizations to co-observability conditions in decentralized supervisory control of discrete-event systems. The logical characterizations provide more intuitive interpretations of the various co-observability conditions, and make immediately apparent the relations between the conditions. Closures under set union of some of the conditions are also discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Perhaps under the influence of Prosser et al. (1997), the work of Takai and Ushio (2001), which precedes Takai et al. (2005), reverses the meaning of 0 and 1. Hence their OR (resp., AND) rule corresponds to our conjunctive (resp., disjunctive) rule. We follow the more common convention here.

  2. The term “states” should cause no confusion in this context, since the worlds in the frames we construct in this work happen to be states of some FSA.

  3. Readers familiar with modal logics should note that by stating “have S” we do not mean that S is valid, i.e., S evaluates to true at every interpretation and every world, since that concept has not been defined here.

  4. For detailed discussion on the control decisions weak off and weak on, see the works by Yoo and Lafortune (2004) and Ricker and Rudie (2007) and Ritsuka and Rudie (2022) and Ritsuka and Rudie (2021). Note that Yoo and Lafortune (2004) and Ricker and Rudie (2007) use different names for the control decisions.

  5. The notion of higher levels of inferences is discussed by Kumar and Takai (2005). A visualization and some supplements are presented by Ritsuka and Rudie (2021), where the epistemic interpretation is also informally discussed.

  6. This result gives us an inspiration: given two languages L(E1) and L(E2) synthesisable in the architecture A, we should not confine ourselves in synthesizing the union language L(E) in the architecture A, but instead be willing to look for an alternative architecture B in which we can synthesize L(E). Then let all architectures ordered by their strength, we’d then like to ask: does there exist a supremal architecture?

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was undertaken at Queen’s University, which is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee territory. The research was inspired by and supported through an NSERC CRD-DND project with General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada and Defence Research and Development Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Ritsuka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work was financially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through a Collaborative Research and Development Grant together with General Dynamics Land Systems (K.Ritsuka) and an NSERC Discovery Grant (K.Rudie).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ritsuka, K., Rudie, K. Epistemic interpretations of decentralized discrete-event system problems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 32, 359–398 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10626-022-00363-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10626-022-00363-7

Keywords

Navigation