Fault diagnosis of web services composition at run time is appealing in creating a consolidated distributed application. For this purpose, we propose a hybrid model-based diagnosis method which exploits service process description or historical execution information to enhance service composition model, and localize faults by comparing the exceptional execution and the correct execution with the maximum likelihood. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of our method in web service composition fault diagnosis.

Intermittent fault localization approaches account for the fact that faulty components may fail intermittently by considering a parameter (known as goodness) that quantifies the probability that faulty components may still exhibit correct behavior. Current, state-of-the-art approaches (1) assume that this goodness probability is context independent and (2) do not provide means for integrating past diagnosis experience in the diagnostic mechanism. In this paper, we present a novel approach, coined Non-linear Feedback-based Goodness Estimate (NFGE), that uses kernel density estimations (KDE) to address such limitations. We evaluated the approach with both synthetic and real data, yielding lower estimation errors, thus increasing the diagnosis performance.

This paper presents a structured power and energy-flow-based qualitative modelling approach that is applicable to a variety of system types including electrical and fluid flow. The modelling is split into two parts. Power flow is a global phenomenon and is therefore naturally represented and analysed by a network comprised of the relevant structural elements from the components of a system. The power flow analysis is a platform for higher-level behaviour prediction of energy related aspects using local component behaviour models to capture a state-based representation with a global time. The primary application is Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and a form of exaggeration reasoning is used, combined with an order of magnitude representation to derive the worst case failure modes. The novel aspects of the work are an order of magnitude(OM) qualitative network analyser to represent any power domain and topology, including multiple power sources, a feature that was not required for earlier specialised electrical versions of the approach. Secondly, the representation of generalised energy related behaviour as state-based local models is presented as a modelling strategy that can be more vivid and intuitive for a range of topologically complex applications than qualitative equation-based representations. The two-level modelling strategy allows the broad system behaviour coverage of qualitative simulation to be exploited for the FMEA task, while limiting the difficulties of qualitative ambiguity explanation that can arise from abstracted numerical models. We have used the method to support an automated FMEA system with examples of an aircraft fuel system and domestic a heating system discussed in this paper.

This paper derives a formula for computing the conditional probability of a set of candidates, where a candidate is a set of disorders that explain a given set of positive findings. Such candidate sets are produced by a recent method for multidisorder diagnosis called symptom clustering. A symptom clustering represents a set of candidates compactly as a cartesian product of differential diagnoses. By evaluating the probability of a candidate set, then, a large set of candidates can be validated or pruned simultaneously. The probability of a candidate set is then specialized to obtain the probability of a single candidate. Unlike earlier results, the equation derived here allows the specification of positive, negative, and unknown symptoms and does not make assumptions about disorders not in the candidate.

Scientists often use directed acyclic graphs (days) to model the qualitative structure of causal theories, allowing the parameters to be estimated from observational data. Two causal models are equivalent if there is no experiment which could distinguish one from the other. A canonical representation for causal models is presented which yields an efficient graphical criterion for deciding equivalence, and provides a theoretical basis for extracting causal structures from empirical data. This representation is then extended to the more general case of an embedded causal model, that is, a dag in which only a subset of the variables are observable. The canonical representation presented here yields an efficient algorithm for determining when two embedded causal models reflect the same dependency information. This algorithm leads to a model theoretic definition of causation in terms of statistical dependencies.

Within diagnostic reasoning there have been a number of proposed definitions of a diagnosis, and thus of the most likely diagnosis, including most probable posterior hypothesis, most probable interpretation, most probable covering hypothesis, etc. Most of these approaches assume that the most likely diagnosis must be computed, and that a definition of what should be computed can be made a priori, independent of what the diagnosis is used for. We argue that the diagnostic problem, as currently posed, is incomplete: it does not consider how the diagnosis is to be used, or the utility associated with the treatment of the abnormalities. In this paper we analyze several well-known definitions of diagnosis, showing that the different definitions of the most likely diagnosis have different qualitative meanings, even given the same input data. We argue that the most appropriate definition of (optimal) diagnosis needs to take into account the utility of outcomes and what the diagnosis is used for.

We propose an abductive diagnosis theory that integrates probabilistic, causal and taxonomic knowledge. Probabilistic knowledge allows us to select the most likely explanation; causal knowledge allows us to make reasonable independence assumptions; taxonomic knowledge allows causation to be modeled at different levels of detail, and allows observations be described in different levels of precision. Unlike most other approaches where a causal explanation is a hypothesis that one or more causative events occurred, we define an explanation of a set of observations to be an occurrence of a chain of causation events. These causation events constitute a scenario where all the observations are true. We show that the probabilities of the scenarios can be computed from the conditional probabilities of the causation events. Abductive reasoning is inherently complex even if only modest expressive power is allowed. However, our abduction algorithm is exponential only in the number of observations to be explained, and is polynomial in the size of the knowledge base. This contrasts with many other abduction procedures that are exponential in the size of the knowledge base.

The multiple extension problem arises frequently in diagnostic and default inference. That is, we can often use any of a number of sets of defaults or possible hypotheses to explain observations or make Predictions. In default inference, some extensions seem to be simply wrong and we use qualitative techniques to weed out the unwanted ones. In the area of diagnosis, however, the multiple explanations may all seem reasonable, however improbable. Choosing among them is a matter of quantitative preference. Quantitative preference works well in diagnosis when knowledge is modelled causally. Here we suggest a framework that combines probabilities and defaults in a single unified framework that retains the semantics of diagnosis as construction of explanations from a fixed set of possible hypotheses. We can then compute probabilities incrementally as we construct explanations. Here we describe a branch and bound algorithm that maintains a set of all partial explanations while exploring a most promising one first. A most probable explanation is found first if explanations are partially ordered.

A new probabilistic network construction system, DYNASTY, is proposed for diagnostic reasoning given variables whose probabilities change over time. Diagnostic reasoning is formulated as a sequential stochastic process, and is modeled using influence diagrams. Given a set O of observations, DYNASTY creates an influence diagram in order to devise the best action given O. Sensitivity analyses are conducted to determine if the best network has been created, given the uncertainty in network parameters and topology. DYNASTY uses an equivalence class approach to provide decision thresholds for the sensitivity analysis. This equivalence-class approach to diagnostic reasoning differentiates diagnoses only if the required actions are different. A set of network-topology updating algorithms are proposed for dynamically updating the network when necessary.

We present a general architecture for the monitoring and diagnosis of large scale sensor-based systems with real time diagnostic constraints. This architecture is multileveled, combining a single monitoring level based on statistical methods with two model based diagnostic levels. At each level, sources of uncertainty are identified, and integrated methodologies for uncertainty management are developed. The general architecture was applied to the monitoring and diagnosis of a specific nuclear physics detector at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that contained approximately 5000 components and produced over 500 channels of output data. The general architecture is scalable, and work is ongoing to apply it to detector systems one and two orders of magnitude more complex.