The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.06 - June (2008 vol.7)
pp: 673-681
In the near future, several radio access technologies will coexist in Beyond 3G mobile networks (B3G) and they will be eventually transformed into one seamless global communication infrastructure. Self-managing systems (i.e. those that self-configure, self-protect, self-heal and self-optimize) are the solution to tackle the high complexity inherent to these networks. In this context, this paper proposes a system for auto-diagnosis in the Radio Access Network (RAN) of wireless systems. The malfunction of the RAN may be due not only to a hardware fault, but also (and more difficult to identify) to a bad configuration. The proposed system is based on the analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in order to isolate the cause of the network malfunction. In this paper, two alternative probabilistic systems are compared, which differ on how KPIs are modelled (continuous or discrete variables). Experimental results are examined in order to support the theoretical concepts, based on data from a live network. The drawbacks and benefits of both systems are studied and some conclusions on the scenarios under which each model should be used are presented.
Wireless communication, Network Operations, Network management, Network monitoring, Probabilistic algorithms, Knowledge management applications, Decision support, Decision support, Knowledge modeling, Inference engines, Parameter learning, Engineering, Automation, Diagnostics
Raquel Barco, Pedro Lázaro, Luis Díez, Volker Wille, "Continuous versus Discrete Model in Autodiagnosis Systems for Wireless Networks", IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol.7, no. 6, pp. 673-681, June 2008, doi:10.1109/TMC.2008.23
[1] A. Jamalipour, T. Wada, and T. Yamazato, “A Tutorial on Multiple Access Technologies for Beyond 3G Mobile Networks,” IEEE Comm. Magazine, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 110-117, 2005.
[2] Z. Altman, R. Skehill, R. Barco, L. Moltsen, R. Brennan, A. Samhat, R. Khanafer, H. Dubreil, M. Barry, and B. Solana, “The Celtic Gandalf Framework,” Proc. IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conf. (MELECON '06), pp. 595-598, May 2006.
[3] R. Barco, V. Wille, and L. Díez, “System for Automated Diagnosis in Cellular Networks Based on Performance Indicators,” European Trans. Telecomm., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 399-409, Oct. 2005.
[4] P. Lehtimäki and K. Raivio, “A Knowledge-Based Model for Analyzing GSM Network Performance,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Industrial and Eng. Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, June 2005.
[5] J. Laiho, K. Raivio, P. Lehtimäki, K. Hätönen, and O. Simula, “Advanced Analysis Methods for 3G Cellular Networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 930-942, May 2005.
[6] P. Lehtimäki and K. Raivio, “A SOM Based Approach for Visualization of GSM Network Performance Data,” Proc. Int'l Symp. Intelligent Data Analysis, Sept. 2005.
[7] G.A. Barreto, J.C.M. Mota, L.G.M. Souza, R.A. Frota, L. Aguayo, J.S. Yamamoto, and P. Oliveira, “Competitive Neural Networks for Fault Detection and Diagnosis in 3G Cellular Systems,” LNCS3124, pp. 207-213, Aug. 2004.
[8] G. Ng and K. Ong, “Using a Qualitative Probabilistic Network to Explain Diagnostic Reasoning in an Expert System for Chest Pain Diagnosis,” Computers in Cardiology, pp. 569-572, Sept. 2000.
[9] D. Heckerman, J. Breese, and K. Rommelse, “Decision-Theoretic Troubleshooting,” Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 49-57, Mar. 1995.
[10] M. Steinder and A.S. Sethi, “Probabilistic Fault Localization in Communication Systems Using Belief Networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 809-822, Oct. 2004.
[11] H. Wietgrefe, “Investigation and Practical Assessment of Alarm Correlation Methods for the Use in GSM Access Networks,” Proc. IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symp., pp. 391-403, Apr. 2002.
[12] J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
[13] B. Cestnik, “Estimating Probabilities: A Crucial Task in Machine Learning,” Proc. European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI '90), pp.147-149, Aug. 1990.
[14] R. Khanafer, L. Moltsen, H. Dubreil, Z. Altman, and R. Barco, “A Bayesian Approach for Automated Troubleshooting for UMTS Networks,” Proc. 17th IEEE Int'l Symp. Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Comm. (PIMRC '06), Aug. 2006.
[15] A. Samhat, R. Skehill, and Z. Altman, “Automated Troubleshooting in WLAN Networks,” Proc. 16th IST Mobile and Wireless Comm. Summit, July 2007.
[16] I. Rish, “An Empirical Study of the Naive Bayes Classifier,” Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 41-46, Aug. 2001.
[17] U.M. Fayyad and K.B. Irani, “Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous Valued Attributes for Classification Learning,” Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1022-1027, Aug. 1993.
[18] C.L. Blake and C.J. Merz, UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases, Dept. Information and Computer Science, mlearnMLRepository.html , 1998.
[19] J.L. Johnson, Probability and Statistics for Computer Science. JohnWiley & Sons, 2003.
[20] P. Domingos and P. Pazzani, “On the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier under Zero-One Loss,” Machine Learning, vol. 29, pp. 103-130, Nov. 1997.
[21] N. Friedman, D. Geiger, and M. Goldszmidt, “Bayesian Network Classifiers,” Machine Learning, vol. 29, pp. 131-163, Nov. 1997.
[22] M. Henrion, M. Pradhan, B. Del Favero, K. Huang, G. Provan, and P. O'Rorke, “Why is Diagnosis Using Belief Networks Insensitive to Imprecision in Probabilities?” Proc. Ann. Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 307-314, 1996.
[23] O. Kipersztok and H. Wang, “Another Look at Sensitivity of Bayesian Networks to Imprecise Probabilities,” Proc. Int'l Workshop Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 307-314, 2001.
[24] M. Pradhan, M. Henrion, G. Provan, B. del Favero, and K. Huang, “The Sensitivity of Belief Networks to Imprecise Probabilities: An Experimental Investigation,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 85, nos. 1-2, pp. 363-397, 1996.
16 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool