Reasoning from First Principles for Self-adaptive and Autonomous Systems

  • Franz WotawaEmail author


Model-based reasoning or reasoning from first principles is a well-known method for performing various tasks including diagnosis from systems’ models directly. In this chapter, we will first discuss the basic principles and algorithms of model-based reasoning relying on the system models of the correct behavior as well as fault models. Afterwards, we discuss how to provide models including a discussion of the use abstraction. We further extend the basic foundations allowing model-based diagnosis to be applied to self-adaptive systems including fail-operational system. Beside the system architecture comprising monitoring capabilities, we show how to integrate a model-based diagnosis engine enabling the system for reasoning about its internal fault state and for taking appropriate repair or compensating actions after fault localization. We illustrate the underlying concepts using an autonomous mobile robot as example where we focus on the robot’s drive.



The research was supported by ECSEL JU under the project H2020 737469 AutoDrive—Advancing fail-aware, fail-safe, and fail-operational electronic components, systems, and architectures for fully automated driving to make future mobility safer, affordable, and end-user acceptable. AutoDrive is funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) under the program “ICT of the Future” between May 2017 and April 2020. More information on Open image in new window . The author wants to thank Dr. Iulia Nica for providing an initial survey on self-healing systems and application inspiring parts of the related research section.


  1. 1.
    Barbosa, D.M., Lima, R.G.D.M., Maia, P.H.M., Costa, E.: Lotus@runtime: a tool for runtime monitoring and verification of self-adaptive systems. In: IEEE/ACM 12th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 24–30. IEEE, Buenos Aires (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boesen, M., Madsen, J.: eDNA: a bio-inspired reconfigurable hardware cell architecture supporting self-organisation and self-healing. In: Proceedings of the 2009 NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware Systems, pp. 147–154. IEEE Computer Society Press, Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco (2009).
  3. 3.
    Brandstötter, M., Hofbaur, M., Steinbauer, G., Wotawa, F.: Model-based fault diagnosis and reconfiguration of robot drives. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and System, pp. 1203–1209. IEEE, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bredeweg, B., Bouwer, A., Jellema, J., Bertels, D., Linnebank, F., Liem, J.: Garp3—a new workbench for qualitative reasoning and modelling. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR-06), pp. 21–28. Dartmouth College, Hanover (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunus, P., Isaksson, O., Frey, B., Münker, B.: RODON—a model-based diagnosis approach for the DX diagnostic competition. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catelani, M., Ciani, L., Luongo, V.: The FMEDA approach to improve the safety assessment according to the IEC61508. Microelectron. Reliab. 50, 1230–1235 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Console, L., Torasso, P.: Integrating models of correct behavior into abductive diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 160–166. Pitman Publishing, Stockholm (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Console, L., Dupré, D.T., Torasso, P.: On the relationship between abduction and deduction. J. Log. Comput. 1(5), 661–690 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coyle, E., Maguire, L., McGinnity, T.: Self-repair of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 17, pp. 1–9 (2004). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dague, P.: Qualitative reasoning: a survey of techniques and applications. AI Commun. 8(3/4), 119–192 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, R.: Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior. Artif. Intell. 24, 347–410 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Kleer, J., Brown, J.S.: A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artif. Intell. 24, 169–203 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosing multiple faults. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 97–130 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Kleer, J., Mackworth, A.K., Reiter, R.: Characterizing diagnoses and systems. Artif. Intell. 56(2–3), 197–222 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Kleer, J., Janssen, B., Bobrow, D.G., Kurtoglu, T., Saha, B., Moore, N.R., Sutharshana, S.: Fault augmented Modelica models. In: 24th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX), pp. 71–78 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dudek, G., Jenkin, M.: Computational Principles of Mobile Robotics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Felfernig, A., Schubert, M., Zehentner, C.: An efficient diagnosis algorithm for inconsistent constraint sets. AI EDAM 26(1), 53–62 (2012). Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleischanderl, G., Schreiner, H., Havelka, T., Stumptner, M., Wotawa, F.: DiKe—a model-based diagnosis kernel and its application. In: Proceedings of the Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI), Vienna (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forbus, K.D.: Qualitative process theory. Artif. Intell. 24, 85–168 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Nejdl, W.: Hypothesis classification, abductive diagnosis and therapy. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Expert Systems in Engineering. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 462. Springer, Vienna (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Nejdl, W.: Physical impossibility instead of fault models. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Boston, pp. 331–336 (1990). Also appears in Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis (Morgan Kaufmann, 1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Nejdl, W.: Formalizing the repair process. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 709–713. Wiley, Chichester (1992). Also appeared in the Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Milano (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fritzson, P.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 3.3—A Cyber-Physical Approach, 2nd edn. Wiley-IEEE Press, Piscataway (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greiner, R., Smith, B.A., Wilkerson, R.W.: A correction to the algorithm in Reiter’s theory of diagnosis. Artif. Intell. 41(1), 79–88 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hawkins, P.G., Woollons, D.J.: Failure modes and effects analysis of complex engineering systems using functional models. Artif. Intell. Eng. 12, 375–397 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hofbaur, M.W., Köb, J., Steinbauer, G., Wotawa, F.: Improving robustness of mobile robots using model-based reasoning. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 48(1), 37–54 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    IBM: An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE: Systems and software engineering—vocabulary. 24765:2010(E), pp. 1–418 (2010).
  30. 30.
    Kephart, J., Chess, D.: The vision of autonomic computing. Comput. Mag. 36(1), 41–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koitz, R., Wotawa, F.: On the feasibility of abductive diagnosis for practical applications. In: 9th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krenn, W., Wotawa, F.: Intelligent, fault adaptive control of autonomous systems. In: Madrid, N.M., Seepold, R.E.D. (eds.) Intelligent Technical Systems. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 38, pp. 175–188. Springer, Berlin (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuipers, B.: Qualitative simulation. Artif. Intell. 29, 289–388 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahadevan, N., Dubey, A., Karsai, G., Srivastava, A., Liu, C.C.: Temporal causal diagrams for diagnosing failures in cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society (PHM). PHM Society (2014).
  35. 35.
    McCune, W.: Prover9 and mace4 (2005–2010).
  36. 36.
    Minhas, R., de Kleer, J., Matei, I., Saha, B.: Using fault augmented modelica models for diagnostics. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Modelica, Lund, pp. 437–445 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moreno, J., Madrenas, J., Faura, J., Canto, E., Cabestany, J., Insenser, J.: Feasible evolutionary and self-repairing hardware by means of the dynamic reconfiguration capabilities of the FIPSOC devices. In: Proceedings of the Evolvable Systems: From Biology to Hardware (ICES 1998), pp. 345–355. Springer, Berlin (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Musliner, D., Goldman, R., Pelican, M., Krebsbach, K.: Self-adaptive software for hard real-time environments. Intell. Syst. 14(4), 23–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ng, H.T., Mooney, R.J.: An efficient first-order horn-clause abduction system based on the ATMS. In: Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), pp. 494–499. MIT Press, Anaheim (1991)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nica, I., Wotawa, F.: The SiMoL modeling language for simulation and (re-)configuration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science, vol. 7147, pp. 661–672. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nica, I., Pill, I., Quaritsch, T., Wotawa, F.: The route to success—a performance comparison of diagnosis algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Beijing (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Niggemann, O., Lohweg, V.: On the diagnosis of cyber-physical production systems: state-of-the-art and research agenda. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 4119–4126. Association of the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peischl, B., Pill, I., Wotawa, F.: Abductive diagnosis based on modelica models. In: 27th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX) (2016).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pilgerstorfer, P., Pournaras, E.: Self-adaptive learning in decentralized combinatorial optimization—a design paradigm for sharing economies. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 12th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 54–64. IEEE, Buenos Aires (2017)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rajan, K., Bernard, D., Dorais, G., Gamble, E., Kanefsky, B., Kurien, J., Millar, W., Muscettola, N., Nayak, P., Rouquette, N., Smith, B., Taylor, W., Tung, Y.: Remote agent: an autonomous control system for the new millennium. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rincon, F., Teres, L.: Reconfigurable hardware systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Semiconductor, New York, vol. 1, pp. 45–54 (1998)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sachenbacher, M., Struss, P.: Task-dependent qualitative domain abstraction. Artif. Intell. 162(1–2), 121–143 (2005). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schölzel, M., Koal, T., Müller, S., Scharoba, S., Röder, S., Vierhaus, H.T.: A comprehensive software-based self-test and self-repair method for statically scheduled superscalar processors. In: 17th Latin-American Test Symposium (LATS), Foz do Iguacu, pp. 33–38 (2016).
  50. 50.
    Seebach, H., Nafz, F., Holtmann, J., Meyer, J., Tichy, M., Reif, W., Schäfer, W.: Designing self-healing in automotive systems. In: Xie, B., Branke, J., Sadjadi, S.M., Zhang, D., Zhou, X. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted Computing (ATC’10), pp. 47–61. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seltzer, M., Small, C.: Self-monitoring and self-adapting operating systems. In: The Sixth Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, California, pp. 124–129 (1997)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shevtsov, S., Weyns, D., Maggio, M.: Handling new and changing requirements with guarantees in self-adaptive systems using SimCA. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 12th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 12–23. Buenos Aires (2017)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Steinbauer, G., Wotawa, F.: Model-based reasoning for self-adaptive systems—theory and practice. In: Assurances for Self-Adaptive Systems: Principles, Models, and Techniques, pp. 187–213. Springer, Berlin (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Steinbauer, G., Mörth, M., Wotawa, F.: Real-time diagnosis and repair of faults of robot control software. In: RoboCup. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4020, pp. 13–23. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sterling, R., Struss, P., Febres, J., Sabir, U., Keane, M.M.: From modelica models to fault diagnosis in air handling units. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Modelica. Linköping University Press, Lund (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Struss, P.: Deviation models revisited. In: Working Papers of the 15th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX-04) (2004)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Struss, P., Dressler, O.: Physical negation—Integrating fault models into the general diagnostic engine. In: Proceedings 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, pp. 1318–1323 (1989)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Travé-Massuyès, L., Ironi, L., Dague, P.: Mathematical foundations of qualitative reasoning. AI Mag. 24(4), 91–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Travé-Massuyès, L., Prats, F., Sánchez, M., Agell, N.: Relative and absolute order-of-magnitude models unified. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 45(3–4), 323–341 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Umeda, Y., Tetsuo, T., Hiroyuki, Y.: A design methodology for self-maintenance machines. J. Mech. Des. 117, 41–53 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Villasenor, J., Hutchings, B.: The flexibility of configurable computing. Signal Process. Mag. 15(5), 67–84 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weld, D., de Kleer, J. (eds.): Readings in Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1989)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weyns, D., Holvoet, T.: An architectural strategy for self-adapting systems. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS ’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007). Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wotawa, F.: Failure mode and effect analysis for abductive diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Defeasible and Ampliative Reasoning (DARe) (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität GrazInstitute for Software TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations