Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 417–445

On an Optimization Problem in Sensor Selection*

  • Rami Debouk
  • Stéphane Lafortune
  • Demosthenis Teneketzis
Article

Abstract

We address the following sensor selection problem. We assume that a dynamic system possesses a certain property, call it Property D, when a set Γ of sensors is used. There is a cost cA associated with each set A of sensors that is a subset of Γ. Given any set of sensors that is a subset of Γ, it is possible to determine, via a test, whether the resulting system-sensor combination possesses Property D. Each test required to check whether or not Property D holds incurs a fixed cost. For each set of sensors A that is a subset of Γ there is an a priori probability pA that the test will be positive, i.e., the system-sensor combination possesses Property D. The objective is to determine a test strategy, i.e., a sequence of tests, to minimize the expected cost, associated with the tests, that is incurred until a least expensive combination of sensors that results in a system-sensor combination possessing Property D is identified. We determine conditions on the sensor costs cA and the a priori probabilities pA under which the strategy that tests combinations of sensors in increasing order of cost is optimal with respect to the aforementioned objective.

failure diagnosis hypothesis testing Markovian decision problems optimization sensor selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bavishi, S., and Chong, E. 1994. Automated fault diagnosis using a discrete event systems framework. In Proc. 9th IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pp. 213–218.Google Scholar
  2. Cassandras, C. G., and Lafortune, S. 1999. Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Darabi, H., and Jafari, M. A. 1998. Supervisory control and optimal partial observation problem. Preprint, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  4. Debouk, R., Lafortune, S., and Teneketzis, D. 2000. Coordinated decentralized protocols for failure diagnosis of discrete-event systems. Journal of Discrete Event Dynamical Systems: Theory and Applications 10: 33–86.Google Scholar
  5. Haji-Valizadeh, A., and Loparo, K. 1996. Minimizing the cardinality of an events set for supervisors of discrete-event dynamical systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 41(11): 1579–1593.Google Scholar
  6. Kumar, P. V., and Varaiya, P. 1986. Stochastic Systems: Estimation, Identification, and Adpative Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Puterman, M. L. 1994. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Lafortune, S., Sinnamohideen, K., and Teneketzis, D. 1995. Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 40(9): 1555–1575.Google Scholar
  9. Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Lafortune, S., Sinnamohideen, K., and Teneketzis, D. 1996. Failure diagnosis using discrete-event models. IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Tech. 4(2): 105–124.Google Scholar
  10. Sampath, M., Lafortune, S., and Teneketzis, D. 1998. Active diagnosis of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 43(7): 908–929.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rami Debouk
    • 1
  • Stéphane Lafortune
    • 1
  • Demosthenis Teneketzis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceThe University of MichiganAnn ArborU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations