Advertisement

Characterizing diagnoses

  • Johan de Kleer
  • Alan K. Mackworth
  • Raymond Reiter
Model-Based Diagnosis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 462)

Abstract

Most approaches to model-based diagnosis describe a diagnosis for a system as a set of failing components that explains the symptoms. In order to characterize the typically very large number of diagnoses, usually only the minimal such sets of failing components are represented. This method of characterizing all diagnoses is inadequate in general, in part because not every superset of the faulty components of a diagnosis necessarily provides a diagnosis. In this paper we analyze the notion of diagnosis in depth exploiting the notions of implicate/implicant and prime implicate/implicant. We use these notions to propose two alternative approaches for addressing the inadequacy of the concept of minimal diagnosis. First, we propose a new concept, that of kernel diagnosis, which is free of the problems of minimal diagnosis. Second, we propose to restrict the axioms used to describe the system to ensure that the concept of minimal diagnosis is adequate.

Keywords

Fault Model NonMonotonic Reasoning Empty Clause Prime Implicants Faulty Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Brayton, R.K., Hachtel, G.D., McMullen, C.T. and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Logic minimization algorithms for VLSI Synthesis, (Kluwer, 1984).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Brown, J.S., Burton, R. R. and de Kleer, J., Pedagogical, natural language and knowledge engineering techniques in SOPHIE I, II and III, in: D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, (Academic Press, New York, 1982) 227–282.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Davis, R., Diagnostic Reasoning based on structure and behavior, Artificial Intelligence 24 (1984) 347–410.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Davis, R., and Hamscher, W., Model-based reasoning: Troubleshooting, in Exploring artificial intelligence, edited by H.E. Shrobe and the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988), 297–346.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    de Kleer, J. and Williams, B.C., Diagnosing multiple faults, Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987) 97–130. Also in Readings in NonMonotonic Reasoning, edited by Matthew L. Ginsberg, (Morgan Kaufmann, 1987), 372–388.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    de Kleer, J. and Williams, B.C, Diagnosis with behavioral modes, in: Proceedings IJCAI-89, Detroit, MI (1989) 1324–1330.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    de Kleer, J., Mackworth, A.K. and Reiter, R., Characterizing Diagnoses and Systems, SSL Paper P89-00193, Xerox PARC, 1990. Also available as University of British Columbia Department of Computer Science TR90-8.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dressler, O., and Farquhar, A., Focusing ATMS-based problem solvers, Siemens Report INF-2-ARM 13, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Genesereth, M.R., The use of design descriptions in automated diagnosis, Artificial Intelligence 24 (1984) 411–436.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hamscher, W.C., Model-based troubleshooting of digital systems, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, TR-1074, Cambridge: M.I.T., 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hill, F.J. and Peterson, G.R., Introduction to Switching Theory and Logical Design (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kohavi, Z., Switching and Finite Automata Theory (McGraw-Hill, 1978).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kean, A. and Tsiknis, G., An incremental method for generating prime implicants/implicates, University of British Columbia Technical Report TR88-16, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kohavi, Z., Switching and Finite Automata Theory (McGraw-Hill, 1978).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Poole, D., Representing knowledge for logic-based diagnosis, Proc. Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (1988) 1282–1290.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Raiman, O., Diagnosis as a trial: The alibi principle, IBM Scientific Center, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Reiter, R., A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987) 57–95. Also in Readings in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, edited by Matthew L. Ginsberg, (Morgan Kaufmann, 1987), 352–371.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Reiter, R. and de Kleer, J., Foundations of Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance Systems: Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA (July, 1987), 183–188.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Slagle, J.R., C.L. Chang, and Lee, R.C.T., A new algorithm for generating prime implicants, IEEE Transactions on Computers C-19 (1970) 304–310.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Struss, P., Extensions to ATMS-based Diagnosis, in: J.S. Gero (ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Diagnosis and Learning (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988) 3–28.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Struss, P., and Dressler, O., “Physical negation” — Integrating fault models into the general diagnostic engine, in: Proceedings IJCAI-89 Detroit, MI (1989) 1318–1323.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan de Kleer
    • 1
  • Alan K. Mackworth
    • 4
    • 2
  • Raymond Reiter
    • 4
    • 3
  1. 1.Palo Alto Research CenterPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Canadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanada

Personalised recommendations