Inference-Based Ambiguity Management in Decentralized Decision-Making: Decentralized Control of Discrete Event Systems

Decentralized decision-making requires the interaction of various local decision-makers in order to arrive at a global decision. Limited sensing capabilities at each local site can create ambiguities in a decision-making process at each local site. We argue that such ambiguities are of differing gradations. We propose a framework for decentralized decision-making (applied to decentralized control in particular) that allows computation of such ambiguity gradations and utilizes their knowledge in arriving at a global decision. Each local decision is tagged with a certain grade or level of ambiguity, with zero being the minimum ambiguity level. A global decision is taken to be the same as a ldquowinningrdquo local decision, i.e., one having the minimum level of ambiguity. The computation of an ambiguity level for a local decision requires an assessment of the self-ambiguities as well as the ambiguities of the others, and an inference based upon such knowledge. For the existence of a decentralized supervisor, so that for each controllable event the ambiguity levels of all winning disablement or enablement decisions are bounded by some number N (such a supervisor is termed N-inferring), the notion of N-inference observability is introduced. We show that the conjunctive-and-permissive (C&P) V disjunctive-and-antipermissive (D&A) co-observability is the same as the zero-inference observability, whereas the conditional C&P V D&A co-observability is the same as the unity-inference observability. We also present examples of higher order inference-observable languages. Our framework does not require the existence of any a priori partition of the controllable events into permissive/antipermissive sets, nor does it require a global control computation based on conjunction/disjunction of local decisions, exhibiting that our ambiguity-based approach is more efficient.

[1]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  Decentralized supervisory control with communicating controllers , 2000, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[2]  R. Stephenson A and V , 1962, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  C. Desclaux,et al.  Supervisory control of discrete-event processes with partial observations , 1988 .

[4]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  Deciding co-observability is PSPACE-complete , 2003, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[5]  Shigemasa Takai,et al.  A modified normality condition for decentralized supervisory control of discrete event systems , 2002, Autom..

[6]  Shigemasa Takai,et al.  Inference-based ambiguity management in decentralized decision-making: decentralized diagnosis of discrete event systems , 2006 .

[7]  Wenbin Qiu,et al.  Decentralized control of discrete event systems using prioritized composition with exclusion , 2004 .

[8]  Wenbin Qiu,et al.  Decentralized nondeterministic supervisory control of discrete event systems , 2004, 2004 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37601).

[9]  Moshe Kam,et al.  Decision fusion and supervisor synthesis in decentralized discrete-event systems , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 American Control Conference (Cat. No.97CH36041).

[10]  Walter Murray Wonham,et al.  Decentralized supervisory control of discrete-event systems , 1987, Inf. Sci..

[11]  Stavros Tripakis Undecidable problems of decentralized observation and control on regular languages , 2004, Inf. Process. Lett..

[12]  Shengbing Jiang,et al.  Decentralized control of discrete event systems with specializations to local control and concurrent systems , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[13]  Jan H. van Schuppen,et al.  Maximal Solutions in Decentralized Supervisory Control , 2000, SIAM J. Control. Optim..

[14]  Hervé Marchand,et al.  Supervisory control of concurrent discrete event systems , 2004 .

[15]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  A General Architecture for Decentralized Supervisory Control of Discrete-Event Systems , 2002, Discret. Event Dyn. Syst..

[16]  Mark A. Shayman,et al.  Formulae relating controllability, observability, and co-observability , 1998, Autom..

[17]  S. Laurie Ricker,et al.  Knowledge Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Using Inference in Discrete-Event Control Problems , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[18]  Shigemasa Takai Minimizing the set of local supervisors in fully decentralized supervision , 1999, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[19]  Jan C. WillemsInstitute The Computational Complexity of Decentralized Discrete-Event Control Problems , 1993 .

[20]  Vijay K. Garg,et al.  Modeling and Control of Logical Discrete Event Systems , 1994 .

[21]  Shigemasa Takai,et al.  Reliable decentralized supervisory control of discrete event systems , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[22]  W. M. Wonham,et al.  Decentralized control and coordination of discrete-event systems with partial observation , 1990 .

[23]  M. Shayman,et al.  Centralized and Decentralized Supervisory Control of Nondeterministic Systems Under Partial Observation , 1997 .

[24]  Walter Murray Wonham,et al.  On observability of discrete-event systems , 1988, Inf. Sci..

[25]  P. Ramadge,et al.  Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes , 1987 .

[26]  S. Laurie Ricker,et al.  Know means no: Incorporating knowledge into discrete-event control systems , 2000, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[27]  M. Naderi,et al.  Think globally... , 2004, HIV prevention plus!.

[28]  W. M. Wonham,et al.  Fully decentralized solutions of supervisory control problems , 1995 .

[29]  W. Murray Wonham,et al.  Think Globally, Act Locally: Decentralized Supervisory Control , 1991, 1991 American Control Conference.

[30]  Shigemasa Takai On the language generated under fully decentralized supervision , 1998 .

[31]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  Decentralized supervisory control with conditional decisions: supervisor existence , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[32]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  Minimal communication in a distributed discrete-event system , 2003, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..