1 Consistent-based Diagnosis Yuhong YAN NRC-IIT. 2 Main concepts in this paper  (Minimal) Diagnosis  Conflict Set  Proposition 3.3  Corollary 4.5.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recognising Languages We will tackle the problem of defining languages by considering how we could recognise them. Problem: Is there a method of recognising.
Advertisements

Completeness and Expressiveness
CS848: Topics in Databases: Foundations of Query Optimization Topics covered  Introduction to description logic: Single column QL  The ALC family of.
Consistency-Based Diagnosis
Vered Gafni – Formal Development of Real Time Systems 1 Statecharts Semantics.
MBD and CSP Meir Kalech Partially based on slides of Jia You and Brian Williams.
UIUC CS 497: Section EA Lecture #2 Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence Professor: Eyal Amir Spring Semester 2004.
1 1 CDT314 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 School of Innovation, Design and Engineering Mälardalen University 2012.
Recursive Definitions and Structural Induction
Explanation and Diagnoses Thomas Thomas & Jansen Orfan.
Determinization of Büchi Automata
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 9 Heuristic Search Biointelligence Lab School of Computer Sci. & Eng. Seoul National University.
1 NP-Complete Problems. 2 We discuss some hard problems:  how hard? (computational complexity)  what makes them hard?  any solutions? Definitions 
Global Flow Optimization (GFO) in Automatic Logic Design “ TCAD91 ” by C. Leonard Berman & Louise H. Trevillyan CAD Group Meeting Prepared by Ray Cheung.
CPSC 668Set 10: Consensus with Byzantine Failures1 CPSC 668 Distributed Algorithms and Systems Fall 2009 Prof. Jennifer Welch.
Complexity 15-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Hierarchy Theorem.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Computer Science and Engineering CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.5 [P]: Propositions and Inference Sections.
Penn ESE 535 Spring DeHon 1 ESE535: Electronic Design Automation Day 13: March 4, 2009 FSM Equivalence Checking.
Models -1 Scientists often describe what they do as constructing models. Understanding scientific reasoning requires understanding something about models.
. Perfect Phylogeny Tutorial #11 © Ilan Gronau Original slides by Shlomo Moran.
NP-Complete Problems Reading Material: Chapter 10 Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 only.
Greedy Algorithms Reading Material: Chapter 8 (Except Section 8.5)
1 CSE 417: Algorithms and Computational Complexity Winter 2001 Lecture 23 Instructor: Paul Beame.
Scientific Thinking - 1 A. It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. B. A hypothesis is scientific.
Computability and Complexity 10-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
Greedy Algorithms Like dynamic programming algorithms, greedy algorithms are usually designed to solve optimization problems Unlike dynamic programming.
Introduction to Model- Based Diagnosis Meir Kalech Partially based on the slides of Peter Struss.
Flavio Lerda 1 LTL Model Checking Flavio Lerda. 2 LTL Model Checking LTL –Subset of CTL* of the form: A f where f is a path formula LTL model checking.
Software Testing and QA Theory and Practice (Chapter 4: Control Flow Testing) © Naik & Tripathy 1 Software Testing and Quality Assurance Theory and Practice.
Minimum Spanning Trees. Subgraph A graph G is a subgraph of graph H if –The vertices of G are a subset of the vertices of H, and –The edges of G are a.
Applications of Propositional Logic
1 TMS and ATMS Philippe Dague and Yuhong YAN NRC-IIT
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures in First Order Logic Decision Procedures for Equality Logic Range Allocation.
INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION INTRODUCTION MICHAEL SIPSER, SECOND EDITION 1.
Section 5.3. Section Summary Recursively Defined Functions Recursively Defined Sets and Structures Structural Induction.
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
1 Model Based Reasoning and Qualitative Reasoning Yuhong Yan NRC-IIT
CS344: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture: Herbrand’s Theorem Proving satisfiability of logic formulae using semantic trees (from Symbolic.
CS621: Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 28– Interpretation; Herbrand Interpertation 30 th Sept, 2010.
Sound Global Caching for Abstract Modal Tableaux Rajeev Goré The Australian National University  Linh Anh Nguyen University of Warsaw CS&P’2008.
Induction Proof. Well-ordering A set S is well ordered if every subset has a least element. [0, 1] is not well ordered since (0,1] has no least element.
NP-Complete Problems. Running Time v.s. Input Size Concern with problems whose complexity may be described by exponential functions. Tractable problems.
NP-COMPLETE PROBLEMS. Admin  Two more assignments…  No office hours on tomorrow.
Mathematical Preliminaries
NP-Complete problems.
Chapter 3 Regular Expressions, Nondeterminism, and Kleene’s Theorem Copyright © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction.
Arc Consistency CPSC 322 – CSP 3 Textbook § 4.5 February 2, 2011.
Strings Basic data type in computational biology A string is an ordered succession of characters or symbols from a finite set called an alphabet Sequence.
CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science March 13, 2012 Prof. Rodger Slides modified from Rosen.
Overview of Previous Lesson(s) Over View  A token is a pair consisting of a token name and an optional attribute value.  A pattern is a description.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing December 2, 2004.
Chapter 5 With Question/Answer Animations 1. Chapter Summary Mathematical Induction - Sec 5.1 Strong Induction and Well-Ordering - Sec 5.2 Lecture 18.
1 SAT SAT: Given a Boolean function in CNF representation, is there a way to assign truth values to the variables so that the function evaluates to true?
CSCE 668 DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS AND SYSTEMS
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 4/13/2018 5:22 AM x x x x x
Control Flow Testing Handouts
Formal Modeling Concepts
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 13
Outline of the Chapter Basic Idea Outline of Control Flow Testing
COMP 6/4030 ALGORITHMS Prim’s Theorem 10/26/2000.
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 13
Decidability of logical theories
Alternating tree Automata and Parity games
The computation of hitting sets: Review and new algorithms
Decidability of logical theories
CSE 589 Applied Algorithms Spring 1999
Chapter 14 Graphs © 2011 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/9/2019 6:12 AM x x x x x
Terminology and Symbols
Presentation transcript:

1 Consistent-based Diagnosis Yuhong YAN NRC-IIT

2 Main concepts in this paper  (Minimal) Diagnosis  Conflict Set  Proposition 3.3  Corollary 4.5  How to calculate minimal hitting set (algorithm revised!)  Not required: default logic (section 6) and section 7

3 Scope of this paper  Only uses nominal/right/OK model OK/right modes / right behaviour Faulty modes / faulty behaviour  Only consider minimal diagnosis (the minimal set of abnormal components)  Is logic foundation for using first order logic for diagnosis  Its revise  Its extension

4 Model Behavioral model of each type of component: Adder(X)  not AB(X)  out(X) = inp1(X) + inp2(X) Multiplier(X)  not AB(X)  out(X) = inp1(X) * inp2(X)... Structural model: Multiplier(Mult1), Multiplier(Mult2), Multiplier(Mult3), Adder(Add1), Adder(Add2) out(Mult1) = inp1(Add1) out(Mult2) = inp2(Add1) = inp1(Add2) out(Mult3) = inp2(Add2) Mult1 Mult2 Mult3 Add Add1 A B

5 Diagnosis on models of structure and function actual device observed behaviour model of the device predicted behaviour diagnosis designtextbookfirst principles.... model of the structure of the device and of the (nominal) behaviour of each type of component diagnosis = removing discrepancies between the nominal predicted behaviour and the observed one From Luca Console

6 Symbols used for system  SD: System description, a set of first- order sentences  COMPONENTS: a finite set of constants  System: a pair (SD, COMPONENTS)  AB(.): unary predicate, “abnormal”  : “imply”, other forms:  or , other direction: , :-

7 Symbol used for observation  OBS: observations, a finite set of first- order sentence, value assignments to some variables.  Observables: the variables can be observed/measured

8 Consistent  There is an interpretation that makes a set of formulas true.  Example: Consistent: {AB, AB} Inconsistent: {AB,AB, AB, AB}  Connect formula sets with union operator Example: {AB, AB}  {AB}

9 Some explanations  Consistency means “AND” of the formulas in the sets  Consistency of SDOBSAB(.)¬AB(.)

10 Definition: diagnosis A diagnosis for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) is a minimal set   COMPONENTS such that SDOBS{AB(c)|c}{¬AB(c)|cCOMPONENTS- } is consistent  is the smallest set of components SD is the right modes

11 Diagnosis  {} is a diagnosis if all components are in right modes, i.e. SDOBS{¬AB(c)|cCOMPONENTS} is consistent  Before computing diagnosis Should have enough observables Is a NP-hard problem

12 Proposition 3.3 If  is a diagnosis for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS), then for each c i . SDOBS{¬AB(c)|cCOMPONENTS- }|=AB(c i )  faulty components are logically determined by the normal components

13 Compute diagnoses  Direct compute  Compute conflict set (by using ATMS) then compute diagnoses from conflict set

14 Definition: Conflict set A conflict set for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) is a set { c 1, …, c k }COMPONENTS such that SDOBS{¬AB(c 1 ), …, ¬AB(c k )} is inconsistent A conflict set for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) is minimal iff no proper subset of it a conflict set for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS)

15 How to compute diagnosis  Theorem4.4: COMPONENTS is a diagnosis for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) iff  is a minimal hitting set for the collection of conflict sets for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) (A diagnosis is the minimal hitting set of conflict sets)  Corollary4.5: COMPONENTS is a diagnosis for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) iff  is a minimal hitting set for the collection of minimal conflict sets for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS)

16 Minimal hitting set A hitting set for a collection of sets C is a set H   SC S such that HS{ } for each SC. A hitting set is minimal iff no proper subset of it is a hitting set for C.

17 Compute Minimal Hitting Set  Hitting set tree (HS-tree): a smallest edge- labeled and node-labeled tree for C a collection of sets The root is labeled by  if C is empty, otherwise the root is labeled by an arbitrary set of C For each node n of T, let H(n) be the set of edge labels on the path in T from the root node to n. The label for n is any set  C such that  H(n) = {}, if such a set  exists. Otherwise, the label for n is , If n is labeled by the set , then for each  , n has a successor, n , joined to n by an edge labeled by 

18 Mult1 Mult2 Mult3 Add Add1 A B Prediction: A=12, B=12 12 Observation A=10, B= A=10 generates two conflicts: {A1, M1, M2} {A1, M1, M3, A2} Example

19 HS Tree {M1,M2,A1} {M3,A2,M1,A1}   M1 M2 A1  M3 A2M1 A1

20 Constructing HS-Tree  Keep the HS-tree as small as possible  Calculate only minimal hitting set  Minimize the number of calls to the underlying theorem prover

21 Algorithm: outline  Generate a HS-tree  Return {H(n)|n is a node labeled }

22 Algorithm: more detail  Select a set from C as root node, label the root node with this set  For each , generate an arc labeled by   For a new node n Select the first member xC, such that H(n)x={}, label n by x. If such x doesn’t exist, label n by “ “. If n is labeled by x, x , for each  x, generate an arc labeled by . If m, H(m)=H(n){}, the arc points to m (a graph)

23 Optimization Strategies  Reusing Nodes: If m, H(m)=H(n){}, the arc points to m (a graph)  Closing If n’, n’ labeled by “ “ and H(n’)H(n), then close n.  Pruning (Subset problem) A old node n’, labeled S’; A new node n, labeled  If S’, relabel n’ with . Remove arcs S’-  Interchange S’ and  in collection

24 New Measurements  A diagnosis can predict some behavior  Example SD OBS {¬AB(c)|cCOMPONENTS-}|=   Confirming measurements preserve diagnoses (which predict )  Disconfirming measurements reject diagnoses (which predict ¬)

25 Observation vs. Prediction Mult1 Mult2 Mult3 Add Add1 A B (12) SD OBS {M1}|={out(Mult1)=4, out(Mult2)=6}

26 Summary of Reiter’s Paper  The diagnosis is the minimal hitting set of conflict sets  An algorithm for computing minimal hitting set

27 Assignment 1 Use the revised algorithm to compute minimal hitting set Language: Java Inputs: F is conflict sets (vector of vectors) in a file Outputs: minimal hitting sets (vector of vectors) Option functions:  Display the tree on the screen (good for debug)  The number of times visiting conflict sets (efficiency)  Single fault diagnoses (only first level)  Write result to a file NO more than required

28 Please notice  The input vectors in different sequences  Reduce the access times to conflict sets F  Option functions can add points  Functions beyond basic functions and option functions can NOT add points

29 My test cases  3-multi-2-adder {{Add1, Mult1, Mult2},{Add1, Mult1, Mult3, Add2}}  Full adder {{X1,X2},{X1,A2,O1}}  Case A {{a,b},{b,c},{a,c},{b,d},{b}}  Case B {{2,4,5},{1,2,3},{1,3,5},{2,4,6},{2,4},{1,6} }

30 Oral Test  Read paper Randall Davis, “Diagnostic Reasoning Based on Structure and Behavior”, Artificial Intelligence 24 (1984),  Half hour presentation, half hour q&a  Audit students are invited to present