Document Open Access Logo

Inferring Sensor Placement Using Critical Pairs and Satisfiability Modulo Theory

Authors Alexander Diedrich , René Heesch , Marco Bozzano , Björn Ludwig , Alessandro Cimatti , Oliver Niggemann

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.DX.2024.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.98 MB
  • 19 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Alexander Diedrich
  • Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
René Heesch
  • Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
Marco Bozzano
  • Fundazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy
Björn Ludwig
  • Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
Alessandro Cimatti
  • Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy
Oliver Niggemann
  • Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany

Funding

This research as part of the project EKI is funded by dtec.bw - Digitalization and Technology Research Center of the Bundeswehr which we gratefully acknowledge. dtec.bw is funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU.

Acknowledgements

This work has also benefitted from Dagstuhl Seminar 24031 "Fusing Causality, Reasoning, and Learning for Fault Management and Diagnosis."

Cite As Get BibTex

Alexander Diedrich, René Heesch, Marco Bozzano, Björn Ludwig, Alessandro Cimatti, and Oliver Niggemann. Inferring Sensor Placement Using Critical Pairs and Satisfiability Modulo Theory. In 35th International Conference on Principles of Diagnosis and Resilient Systems (DX 2024). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 125, pp. 9:1-9:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.DX.2024.9

Abstract

Industrial fault diagnosis exhibits the perennial problem of reasoning with partial and real-valued information. This is mainly due to the fact that in real-world applications, industrial systems are only instrumented insofar, as sensor information is required for their functioning. However, such instrumentation leaves out much information that would be useful for fault diagnosis. This is problematic since consistency-based fault diagnosis uses available information and computes intermediate values within a system description. These values are then used to compare expected normal behaviour to actual observed values. In the past, this was done only for Boolean circuits. Recently, satisfiability modulo non-linear arithmetic (SMT) formulations have been developed that allow the calculation of real values, instead of only Boolean ones. Leveraging those formulations, we in this article present a novel method to infer missing sensor values using an SMT system description and the notion of critical pairs. We show on a running example and also empirically that we can infer novel measurements for five process industrial systems. We conclude that, although SMT calculations accumulate some error, we can infer novel optimal measurements for all systems.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Causal reasoning and diagnostics
  • Computing methodologies → Artificial intelligence
Keywords
  • Sensor Placement
  • Satisfiability Modulo Theory
  • Critical Pairs
  • Diagnosability

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Mehdi Bayoudh and Louise Travé-Massuyès. Diagnosability analysis of hybrid systems cast in a discrete-event framework. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, 24(3):309-338, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10626-012-0153-Z.
  2. Benjamin Bittner, Marco Bozzano, Alessandro Cimatti, Marco Gario, Stefano Tonetta, and Viktoria Vozarova. Diagnosability of fair transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 309:103725, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTINT.2022.103725.
  3. Benjamin Bittner, Marco Bozzano, Alessandro Cimatti, and Xavier Olive. Symbolic synthesis of observability requirements for diagnosability. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 26, pages 712-718, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/AAAI.V26I1.8225.
  4. Alexander Bochman. A logical theory of causality. MIT Press, 2021. Google Scholar
  5. Abderraouf Boussif and Mohamed Ghazel. Diagnosability analysis of intermittent faults in discrete event systems using a twin-plant structure. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, 18(3):682-695, 2020. Google Scholar
  6. Marco Bozzano, Alessandro Cimatti, and Stefano Tonetta. Testing diagnosability of fair discrete-event systems. In Proc. International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX-19), 2019. Google Scholar
  7. Maria Paola Cabasino, Alessandro Giua, Stéphane Lafortune, and Carla Seatzu. A new approach for diagnosability analysis of petri nets using verifier nets. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(12):3104-3117, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2012.2200372.
  8. Matteo Camilli, Raffaela Mirandola, and Patrizia Scandurra. Enforcing resilience in cyber-physical systems via equilibrium verification at runtime. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 2023. Google Scholar
  9. Cody James Christopher and Alban Grastien. Critical observations in model-based diagnosis. Artificial Intelligence, page 104116, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTINT.2024.104116.
  10. Edmund M Clarke, Thomas A Henzinger, Helmut Veith, Roderick Bloem, et al. Handbook of model checking, volume 10. Springer, 2018. Google Scholar
  11. Marie-Odile Cordier, Louise Travé-Massuyes, Xavier Pucel, et al. Comparing diagnosability in continuous and discrete-event systems. In Proceedings of the 17th international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX-06), pages 55-60, 2006. Google Scholar
  12. Johan De Kleer and Brian C Williams. Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial intelligence, 32(1):97-130, 1987. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(87)90063-4.
  13. Maria D Di Benedetto, Stefano Di Gennaro, and Alessandro D'Innocenzo. Verification of hybrid automata diagnosability by abstraction. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 56(9):2050-2061, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2011.2105738.
  14. Alexander Diedrich, Patrick Deutschmann, and Caroline Junker. Servicenavigator - a bayesian assistance system for diagnosing industrial production systems. In 2022 5th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS). IEEE, 2022. Google Scholar
  15. Alexander Diedrich, Alexander Maier, and Oliver Niggemann. Model-based diagnosis of hybrid systems using satisfiability modulo theory. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19). Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19), 2019. Google Scholar
  16. Alexander Diedrich, Lukas Moddemann, and Oliver Niggemann. Learning system descriptions for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of 12th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, 2024. Google Scholar
  17. Alexander Diedrich and Oliver Niggemann. Diagnosing systems through approximated information. 13th Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, 2021. Google Scholar
  18. Alexander Diedrich and Oliver Niggemann. On residual-based diagnosis of physical systems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 109:104636, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104636.
  19. Oumar Diene, Marcos V Moreira, Eduardo A Silva, Victor R Alvarez, and Claudionor F Nascimento. Diagnosability of hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 27(1):386-393, 2017. Google Scholar
  20. Barry Dowdeswell, Roopak Sinha, and Stephen G MacDonell. Diagnosable-by-design model-driven development for iec 61499 industrial cyber-physical systems. In IECON 2020 the 46th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society, pages 2183-2188. IEEE, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON43393.2020.9254620.
  21. Jonas Ehrhardt, Malte Ramonat, Rene Heesch, Kaja Balzereit, Alexander Diedrich, and Oliver Niggemann. An ai benchmark for diagnosis, reconfiguration & planning. In 2022 IEEE 27th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA). IEEE, 2012. Google Scholar
  22. Teresa Escobet, Anibal Bregon, Belarmino Pulido, and Vicenç Puig. Fault Diagnosis of Dynamic Systems. Springer, 2019. Google Scholar
  23. Alexander Feldman, Gregory Provan, and Arjan Van Gemund. Approximate model-based diagnosis using greedy stochastic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 38:371-413, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/JAIR.3025.
  24. GK Fourlas, Kostas J Kyriakopoulos, and NJ Krikelis. Diagnosability of hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE mediterranean conference on control and automation, 2002. Google Scholar
  25. Zhiwei Gao, Carlo Cecati, and Steven X Ding. A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part i: Fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 62(6):3757-3767, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2417501.
  26. Alban Grastien and Marina Zanella. Diagnosability of discrete faults with uncertain observations. Diagnosability, Security and Safety of Hybrid Dynamic and Cyber-Physical Systems, pages 253-278, 2018. Google Scholar
  27. Daniel Jung. Structural methods for distributed fault diagnosis of large-scale systems. In 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2690-2695. IEEE, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC42340.2020.9303744.
  28. Samuel Kolb, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini, and Luc De Raedt. Learning smt (lra) constraints using smt solvers. In IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2018, pages 2333-2340. ijcai. org, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/IJCAI.2018/323.
  29. Mattias Krysander and Mattias Nyberg. Fault diagnosis utilizing structural analysis. CCSSE, Norrköping, Sweden, 2002. Google Scholar
  30. Stephane Lafortune and Feng Lin. From diagnosability to opacity: A brief history of diagnosability or lack thereof. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1):3022-3027, 2017. Google Scholar
  31. Gianfranco Lamperti, Stefano Trerotola, Marina Zanella, and Xiangfu Zhao. Sequence-oriented diagnosis of discrete-event systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 78:69-141, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/JAIR.1.14630.
  32. Ruben Leal, Jose Aguilar, Louise Travé-Massuyès, Edgar Camargo, and Addison Ríos. A genetic algorithm approach for diagnosability analysis. International Journal of Engineering Development and Research, 2(4):3786-3799, 2014. Google Scholar
  33. Alexander Maier. Online passive learning of timed automata for cyber-physical production systems. In Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2014 12th IEEE International Conference on, pages 60-66. IEEE, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2014.6945484.
  34. Mohammadreza Mehrabian, Mohammad Khayatian, Aviral Shrivastava, Patricia Derler, and Hugo Andrade. A run-time verification method with consideration of uncertainties for cyber-physical systems. Microprocessors and Microsystems, page 104890, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICPRO.2023.104890.
  35. Amit Metodi, Roni Stern, Meir Kalech, and Michael Codish. A novel sat-based approach to model based diagnosis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 51:377-411, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/JAIR.4503.
  36. Lukas Moddemann, Henrik Sebastian Steude, Alexander Diedrich, and Oliver Niggemann. Discret2di - deep learning based discretization for model-based diagnosis. In Proceedings of 12th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, 2024. Google Scholar
  37. Fatiha Nejjari, Ramon Pérez, Teresa Escobet, and Louise Travé-Massuyès. Fault diagnosability utilizing quasi-static and structural modelling. Mathematical and computer modelling, 45(5-6):606-616, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MCM.2006.06.008.
  38. Ingo Pill and Franz Wotawa. Fault detection and localization using modelica and abductive reasoning. Diagnosability, Security and Safety of Hybrid Dynamic and Cyber-Physical Systems, pages 45-72, 2018. Google Scholar
  39. Raymond Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial intelligence, 32(1):57-95, 1987. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(87)90062-2.
  40. Meera Sampath, Stéphane Lafortune, and Demosthenis Teneketzis. Active diagnosis of discrete-event systems. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 43(7):908-929, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/9.701089.
  41. Meera Sampath, Raja Sengupta, Stéphane Lafortune, Kasim Sinnamohideen, and Demosthenis Teneketzis. Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 40(9):1555-1575, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/9.412626.
  42. Claude Elwood Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379-423, 1948. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/J.1538-7305.1948.TB01338.X.
  43. Roni Stern, Meir Kalech, and Orel Elimelech. Hierarchical diagnosis in strong fault models. In Twenty Fifth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, 2014. Google Scholar
  44. Jinya Su and Wen-Hua Chen. Model-based fault diagnosis system verification using reachability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 49(4):742-751, 2017. Google Scholar
  45. L Travé-Massuyes, T Escobet, and R Milne. Model-based diagnosability and sensor placement. 12th Intl. Work. on Principles of Diagnosis, 2001. Google Scholar
  46. Louise Travé-Massuyès and Teresa Escobet. Bridge: Matching model-based diagnosis from fdi and dx perspectives. In Fault Diagnosis of Dynamic Systems, pages 153-175. Springer, 2019. Google Scholar
  47. Louise Travé-Massuyes, Teresa Escobet, and Xavier Olive. Diagnosability analysis based on component-supported analytical redundancy relations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 36(6):1146-1160, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2006.878984.
  48. Ángel Jesús Varela-Vaca, David G Rosado, Luis E Sánchez, María Teresa Gómez-López, Rafael M Gasca, and Eduardo Fernández-Medina. Carmen: A framework for the verification and diagnosis of the specification of security requirements in cyber-physical systems. Computers in Industry, 132:103524, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPIND.2021.103524.
  49. Nathalie Verdière, Carine Jauberthie, and Louise Travé-Massuyès. Functional diagnosability and detectability of nonlinear models based on analytical redundancy relations. Journal of Process Control, 35:1-10, 2015. Google Scholar
  50. Amaury Vignolles, Elodie Chanthery, and Pauline Ribot. An overview on diagnosability and prognosability for system monitoring. In European conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society (PHM Europe), 2020. Google Scholar
  51. Su Xingyu, Marina Zanella, Alban Grastien, et al. Diagnosability of discrete-event systems with uncertain observations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, pages 1265-1271. AAAI Press/International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2016. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact