Paper detail

Various Ways to Quantify BDMPs

A Boolean logic driven Markov process (BDMP) is a dependability analysis model that defines a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC). This formalism has high expressive power, yet it remains readable because its graphical representation stays close to standard fault trees. The size of a BDMP is roughly speaking proportional to the size of the system it models, whereas the size of the CTMC specified by this BDMP suffers from exponential growth. Thus quantifying large BDMPs can be a challenging task. The most general method to quantify them is Monte Carlo simulation, but this may be intractable for highly reliable systems. On the other hand, some subcategories of BDMPs can be processed with much more efficient methods. For example, BDMPs without repairs can be translated into dynamic fault trees, a formalism accepted as an input of the STORM model checker, that performs numerical calculations on sparse matrices, or they can be processed with the tool FIGSEQ that explores paths going to a failure state and calculates their probabilities. BDMPs with repairs can be quantified by FIGSEQ (BDMPs capturing quickly and completely repairable behaviors are solved by a different algorithm), and by the I&AB (Initiator and All Barriers) method, recently published and implemented in a prototype version of RISKSPECTRUM PSA. This tool, based exclusively on Boolean representations looks for and quantifies minimal cut sets of the system, i.e., minimal combinations of component failures that induce the loss of the system. This allows a quick quantification of large models with repairable components, standby redundancies and some other types of dependencies between omponents. All these quantification methods have been tried on a benchmark whose definition was published at the MARS 2017 workshop: the model of emergency power supplies of a nuclear power plant. In this paper, after a recall of the theoretical principles of the various quantification methods, we compare their performances on that benchmark.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.