Fault Diagnosis in Discrete-Event Systems with Incomplete Models: Learnability and Diagnosability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most model-based approaches to fault diagnosis of discrete-event systems require a complete and accurate model of the system to be diagnosed. However, the discrete-event model may have arisen from abstraction and simplification of a continuous time system, or through model building from input-output data. As such, it may not capture the dynamic behavior of the system completely. In a previous paper, we addressed the problem of diagnosing faults given an incomplete model of the discrete-event system. We presented the learning diagnoser which not only diagnoses faults, but also attempts to learn missing model information through parsimonious hypothesis generation. In this paper, we study the properties of learnability and diagnosability. Learnability deals with the issue of whether the missing model information can be learned, while diagnosability corresponds to the ability to detect and isolate a fault after it has occurred. We provide conditions under which the learning diagnoser can learn missing model information. We define the notions of weak and strong diagnosability and also give conditions under which they hold.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".