Reasoning about unpredicted change and explicit time

  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
  • Jérôme Lang
Accepted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1244)


Reasoning about unpredicted change consists in explaining observations by events; we propose here an approach for explaining time-stamped observations by surprises, which are simple events consisting in the change of the truth value of a fluent. A framework for dealing with surprises is defined. Minimal sets of surprises are provided together with time intervals where each surprise has occurred, and they are characterized from a model-based diagnosis point of view. Then, a probabilistic approach of surprise minimisation is proposed.


Prior Probability Propositional Variable Situation Calculus Unpredicted Change 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Boutilier. Generalised update: belief change in dynamic settings. In Proc. of the 14 th IJCAI, volume 2, pages 1550–1556, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Console, L. Portinale, D. Theseider Dupré, and P. Torasso. Diagnostic reasoning across different time points. In Proc. of ECAI'92, pages 369–373, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.O. Cordier and S. Thiébaux. Event-based diagnosis for evolutive systems. In Proc. of DX'94, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. de Kleer. An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28:127–162, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. de Kleer and B. Williams. Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):97–130, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Dean and K. Kanazawa. Persistence and probabilistic projection. In Proc. of IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, volume 19(3), pages 574–585, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, J. Lang, and T. Schiex. Penalty logic and its link with Dempster-Shafer theory. In Proc. of the 10 th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 204–211. Morgan Kaufmann, July 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. The complexity of logic-based abduction. In Proc. STACS'93, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Friedrich and F. Lackinger. Diagnosing temporal misbehaviour. In Proc. IJCAI'91, pages 1116–1122, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Hanks and D. McDermott. Modelling and uncertain world i: symbolic and probabilistic reasoning about change. Artificial Intelligence, 66:1–55, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Lifschitz and A. Rabinov. Things that change by themselves. In Proc. of the 11th IJCAI, pages 864–867, Detroit, Michigan, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Poole. Representing diagnostic knowledge for probabilistic Horn abduction. In Proc. of the 12 th IJCAI, pages 1129–1135, 91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Portinale. Modeling uncertain temporal evolutions in model-based diagnosis. In Proc. Uncertainty in AI'92, pages 244–251, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Sandewall. Features and fluents: a systematic approach to the representa-tion of knowledge about dynamical systems. Technical Report LITHIDA-R-92-30, Linköping University, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    • 1
  • Jérôme Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations