1 / 32

Microprocessors and Microsystems 2003 G.Latif-Shabgahi,S.Bennett,J.M.Bass Presented by Kübra Ekin

Smooting voter : a novel voting algorithm for handling multiple errors in fault-tolerant control systems. Microprocessors and Microsystems 2003 G.Latif-Shabgahi,S.Bennett,J.M.Bass Presented by Kübra Ekin CmpE516 26 .0 5 .200 5. Outline. Introduction Related Work Voting Algorithms

jeff
Download Presentation

Microprocessors and Microsystems 2003 G.Latif-Shabgahi,S.Bennett,J.M.Bass Presented by Kübra Ekin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Smooting voter : a novel voting algorithm for handling multiple errors in fault-tolerant control systems Microprocessors and Microsystems 2003 G.Latif-Shabgahi,S.Bennett,J.M.Bass Presented by Kübra Ekin CmpE516 26.05.2005

  2. Outline • Introduction • Related Work • Voting Algorithms • Proposed Voter : Smoothing Voter • Experimental Method • Error Model • Scenario • Performance criteria • Experimental Results • Conclusion CmpE 516

  3. Introduction • Goal : increasing system dependability • Fault Tolerant Computing • Not to allow a fault to result of a failure of the entire system • Fault Masking • N modular redundancy • N-version programming CmpE 516

  4. Introduction CmpE 516

  5. Related Work • Voting Algorithms • N input Majority voter • Returns a correct result if • (N+1)/2 voter inputs match • Otherwise returns an exception flag • Formalised plurality voter • Returns a correct result if m out of n match • E.g. 2-out of-5 voting • Median Voter • Mid-value selection algrorithm CmpE 516

  6. Related Work • Weighted Average voter • Voter output = • ∑wixi/ ∑xi • Calculating weights • Distance metric between voter inputs : • x1 : 1,1 • x2 : 1,3 • x3 : 1,5 • w1 = d(1,1-1,3)+d(1,1-1,5) = 0,6 • w2 = d(1,3-1,1)+d(1,3-1,5) = 0,4 • w3 = d(1,5-1,1)+d(1,5-1,3)= 0,6 CmpE 516

  7. Smoothing Voter • Extended version of majority voter • Previos cycle’s result is used in case of disagreement • Smoothing threshold is introduced (β) • Inexact voting : voter threshold (ε) • Selection of smooting threshold is critical CmpE 516

  8. Smoothing Voter • Algorithm • A= {d1d2d3...dn} set of n voter inputs • AS={x1x2x3...xn} sorted A(ascending) • Partitions : Vj ={xjxj+1xj+m-1}, j=1:m ,m=(n+1)/2 • If at least one of Vj’s satisfies the property d(xj,xj+m-1)<=ε then the majority is satisfied and the output is produced • If none of the partitions satisfy the above constraint, then determine the output xk such that : d(xk,X) = min{d(x1,X),d(x2,X)...d(xn,X)} • X: previous successful voter result • If d(xk,X)<=β then xk is selected as voter’s output otherwise no result is selected CmpE 516

  9. Smoothing Voter • Basic Smoothing Voter(Fixed β) • Example : CmpE 516

  10. Smoothing Voter • Modified Smoothing Voter(Dynamically adjusted β) • More rapid recovery from an error • Cumulative smooting threshold • Adjusted when no result is found • Β is added to the smooting threshold when each successive result is more positive • B is subtracted from the smooting threshold when each successive result is more negative CmpE 516

  11. Smoothing Voter CmpE 516

  12. Experimental Method • Error Model • Each voter input is defined as a tuple : (c,ε+-,AT +-) CmpE 516

  13. Experimental Method • Assumptions • The voter used in a cyclic system : a relationship between correct results of cycles • The perturbations below some predifined accuracy threshold in voter inputs are considered as acceptable inaccuracies, otherwise errors • There exist a notional correct result which can be calculated from the current inputs and the system states CmpE 516

  14. Experimental Method • Assumptions (cont’d) • The notional correct result is the desired voter result • A comparator used to check the agreement between the notional correct result and the voter output • An accuracy threshold is used to determine if the distance between notional correct result and the voter output is within acceptable limits • MAJ : Majority Voter • SM : Smoothing Voter • MED : Median Voter • WA : Weighted Average Voter CmpE 516

  15. Experimental Method • Parameters : • Input to variants : u(t) = 100sin(t)+100 sampled at 0.1sec • Voter-threshold value,ε = 0.5 • Accuracy threshold value, AT=0,5 • Two/three variants were perturbed using uniform error distribution with amplitude varies from 0.5 to 10 • Smooting threshold is set to a fixed value CmpE 516

  16. Experimental Method • Performance criteria • Described as a tuple : (nc/n,nic/n,nd/n) where • n : total number of runs • nc : normalised correct results • nic : normalised incorrect results • nd : normalised disagreed results(no result) • nc/n : measure of availability • nic/n : measure of catastrophic outputs(safety) • nd/n : benign results, initiate a safe shutdown CmpE 516

  17. Experimental Results • 1-Results using triple error injection • ε between 1 and 10 case (large errors) CmpE 516

  18. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  19. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  20. Experimental Results • ε <=1.2 case (small errors) CmpE 516

  21. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  22. Experimental Results • Comparison of Smooting Voter and Majority Voter • q = nd(MAJ)-nd(SM) CmpE 516

  23. Experimental Results • 2-Results using double error injection • ε between 1 and 10 case (large errors) CmpE 516

  24. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  25. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  26. Experimental Results • Comparison of Smooting Voter and Majority Voter • q = nd(MAJ)-nd(SM) CmpE 516

  27. Experimental Results • 3-Results using double transient errors • More realistic • Transient errors are smiluated by : • Two arbitrary values from [-emax....+emax] • Randomly selected saboteurs every Te voting cycle CmpE 516

  28. Experimental Results • Te : [10,15] • emax : [-10,+10] CmpE 516

  29. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  30. Experimental Results CmpE 516

  31. Experimental Results • Comparison of Smooting Voter and Majority Voter • q = nd(MAJ)-nd(SM) • Parameters emax = 2 • q 100 • qic(SM) 26 • gc(SM) 74 • 75% are converted to correct outputs CmpE 516

  32. Conclusion • Nature and requirements of the application decides the voter type • Median voter is best when availability is the main concern, majority is best when safety is the main concern • Trade off between the above cases can be achieved by means of smoothing voter • Smoothing voter extends the majority voter by introducing a smoothing threshold to be used for disagreement cases and median voter by decreasing the catastrophic results with no result outputs • In double transient error case smoothing voter outperforms the other voting techniques CmpE 516

More Related