Cause-Consequence Diagram Reliability Analysis Using Formal Techniques With Application to Electrical Power Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cause-consequence Diagram (CCD) is widely used as a deductive safety analysis technique for decision-making at the critical-system design stage. This approach models the causes of subsystem failures in a highly-critical system and their potential consequences using Fault Tree (FT) and Event Tree (ET) methods, which are well-known dependability modeling techniques. Paper-and-pencil-based approaches and simulation tools, such as the Monte-Carlo approach, are commonly used to carry out CCD analysis, but lack the ability to rigorously verify essential system reliability properties. In this paper, we propose to use formal techniques based on theorem proving for the formal modeling and step-analysis of CCDs to overcome the inaccuracies of the simulation-based analysis and the error-proneness of informal reasoning by mathematical proofs. In particular, we use the HOL4 theorem prover, which is a computer-based mathematical reasoning tool. To this end, we developed a formalization of CCDs in Higher-Order Logic (HOL), based on the algebraic approach, using HOL4. We demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the proposed CCD formalization by performing the formal reliability analysis of the IEEE 39-bus electrical power network. Also, we formally determine the Forced Outage Rate (FOR) of the power generation units and the network reliability index, i.e., System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). To assess the accuracy of our proposed approach, we compare our results with those obtained with MATLAB Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS) as well as other state-of-the-art approaches for subsystem-level reliability analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".