Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 257–270 | Cite as

Computing all minimal hitting sets by subset recombination

Article

Abstract

In model-based diagnosis from first principles, the efficient computation of all minimal hitting sets (MHS) as candidates for the conflict component sets of a device is a vital task. However, deriving all MHS is NP-hard. In this paper, the principle of “Divide and Conquer” is used to decompose a large family of conflict sets into many smaller sub-families. To efficiently merge the sub-MHS to give sub-families of conflict sets, the relations between the sub-MHS and sub-families of conflict sets are exploited. Based on this, a new method called Subset-Rec-MHS is proposed. In theory, our method based on sub-MHS recombination generally has lower complexity than that based on whole MHS families, as it avoids a large number of set unions and comparisons (to minimize the family of hitting sets). Compared with the direct merge of whole MHS families, the proposed approach reduces the computation time by a factor of approximately \(\frac {7}{16}\). Experimental results on both synthetic examples and ISCAS-85 benchmark circuit conflict sets show that, in many cases, our approach offers better performance than previous algorithms.

Keywords

Model-based diagnosis Hitting set Divide and conquer Conflict set Subset 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous referees for their constructive comments, which considerably improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Abreu R, van Gemund A (2009) A low-cost approximate minimal hitting set algorithm and its application to model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 8th symposium on abstraction, reformulation, and approximation (SARA-09). AAAI Press, pp 2–9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boros E, Makino K (2009) A fast and simple parallel algorithm for the monotone duality problem. In: Proceedings of the 36th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming (ICALP-09). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 183– 194Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brglez F, Fujiwara H (1985) A neutral netlist of 10 combinational benchmark circuits and a target translator in fortran. In: Proceedings of the 1985 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (ISCAS-85). IEEE, pp 695–698Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso N, Abreu R (2013) MHS 2: a map-reduce heuristic-driven minimal hitting set search algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on multicore software engineering, performance, and tools (MUSEPAT-13), pp 25–36Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan W, Chen C (2016) Consensus control with failure – wait or abandon? IEEE Trans Cybern 46:75–84. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2015.2394471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crama Y, Hammer PL (2011) Boolean functions - theory, algorithms, and applications, encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, vol 142. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dean J, Ghemawat S (2008) MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun ACM 51 (1):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter T, Makino K, Gottlob G (2008) Computational aspects of monotone dualization: a brief survey. Discret Appl Math 156(11):2035–2049MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman A, Provan G, van Gemund A (2008) Computing minimal diagnoses by greedy stochastic search. In: Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-08). AAAI Press, pp 911–918Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fijany A, Vatan F (2004) New approaches for efficient solution of hitting set problem. In: Proceedings of the winter international symposium on information and communication technologies (WISICT-04), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freitag H, Friedrich G (1992) Focusing on independent diagnosis problems. In: Nebel B, Rich C, Swartout WR (eds). In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-92). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 521–531Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, NY, USAMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greiner R, Smith BA, Wilkerson RW (1989) A correction to the algorithm in reiter’s theory of diagnosis. Artif Intell 41(1):79–88MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jannach D, Schmitz T, Shchekotykhin K (2014) Parallelized hitting set computation for model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 25th international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX-14)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jannach D, Schmitz T, Shchekotykhin K (2015) Parallelized hitting set computation for model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-15), pp 1503–1510Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jannach D, Schmitz T, Shchekotykhin K (2016) Parallel model-based diagnosis on multi-core computers. J Artif Intell Res 55:835–887MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Junker U (2004) Quickxplain: preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: Proceedings of the 19th national conference on artifical intelligence (AAAI-04). AAAI Press, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karp R (1972) Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Miller R, Thatcher J (eds) Complexity of computer computations. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khachiyan L, Boros E, Elbassioni K, Gurvich V (2007) A global parallel algorithm for the hypergraph transversal problem. Inf Process Lett 101(4):148–155MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Kleer J (2011) Hitting set algorithms for model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX-11), pp 100–105Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Kleer J, Williams BC (1987) Diagnosing multiple faults. Artif Intell 32(1):97–130CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kwong RH, Yonge-Mallo DL (2015) Fault diagnosis in discrete-event systems with incomplete models: learnability and diagnosability. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:1236–1249. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2014.2347801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamperti G, Zanella M (2003) EDEN: an intelligent software environment for diagnosis of discrete-event systems. Appl Intell 18(1):55–77CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lamperti G, Zanella M (2004) A bridged diagnostic method for the monitoring of polymorphic discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 34(5):2222–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liffiton MH, Sakallah KA (2008) Algorithms for computing minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints. J Autom Reason 40(1):1–33MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin L, Jiang Y (2002) Computing minimal hitting sets with genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 13th international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX-02), pp 77–80Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin L, Jiang Y (2003) The computation of hitting sets: review and new algorithms. Inf Process Lett 86 (4):177–184MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luo M, Li Y, Sun F, Liu H (2012) A new algorithm for testing diagnosability of fuzzy discrete event systems. Inf Sci 185(1):100–113MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marques-Silva J, Janota M, Belov A (2013) Minimal sets over monotone predicates in boolean formulae. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8044:592–607MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nyberg M (2011) A generalized minimal hitting-set algorithm to handle diagnosis with behavioral modes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 41(1):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pill I, Quaritsch T (2012) Optimizations for the boolean approach to computing minimal hitting sets. In: Proceedings of the 20th european conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-12). IOS Press, pp 648–653Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Previti A, Ignatiev A, Morgado A, Marques-Silva J (2015) Prime compilation of non-clausal formulae. In: Proceedings of the 24th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-15), pp 1980–1987Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif Intell 32(1):57–95MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shah I (2011) A hybrid algorithm for finding minimal unsatisfiable subsets in over-constrained csps. Int J Intell Syst 26(11):1023–1048. doi: 10.1002/int.20497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shchekotykhin K, Jannach D, Schmitz T (2015) Mergexplain: fast computation of multiple conflicts for diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-15). AAAI Press, pp 3221–3228Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stern R, Kalech M, Feldman A, Provan G (2012) Exploring the duality in conflict-directed model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 26th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-12). AAAI Press, pp 828–834Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vinterbo S, Ohrn A (2000) Minimal approximate hitting sets and rule templates. Int J Approx Reason 25 (2):123–143MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weber J, Wotawa F (2012) Diagnosis and repair of dependent failures in the control system of a mobile autonomous robot. Appl Intell 36(3):511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wikipedia (2015) Set cover problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/set_cover_problem
  40. 40.
    Williams BC, Ragno RJ (2007) Conflict-directed a* and its role in model-based embedded systems. Discret Appl Math 155(12):1562–1595. doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2005.10.022 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wotawa F (2001) A variant of reiter’s hitting-set algorithm. Inf Process Lett 79(1):45–51MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang L, Zeng H, Yang F, Ouyang D (2011) Dynamic theorem proving algorithm for consistency-based diagnosis. Expert Syst Appl 38:7511–7516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2006) A method of combining SE-tree to compute all minimal hitting sets. Prog Nat Sci 16(2):169–174MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2007) Improved algorithms for deriving all minimal conflict sets in model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on intelligent computing (ICIC-07), lecture notes in computer science, vol. 4681. Springer, pp 157–166Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2008) Model-based diagnosis of discrete event systems with an incomplete system model. In: Proceedings of the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-08). IOS Press, pp 189–193Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2013) A distributed strategy for deriving minimal hitting-sets. In: Proceedings of the 24th international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX-13), pp 33–38Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2015) Deriving all minimal hitting sets based on join relation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(7):1063–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D (2016) Deriving all minimal hitting-sets by merging. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on information and automation (ICIA-2016), pp 1132–1137Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhao X, Ouyang D, Zhang L, Wang X, Mo Y (2012) Reasoning on partially-ordered observations in online diagnosis of dess. AI Commun 25(4):285–294MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Mathematics, Physics, and Information EngineeringZhejiang Normal UniversityJinhuaChina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of EducationJilin UniversityChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations