Generating Tests Using Abduction

Suppose we are given a theory of system behavior and a set of candidate hypotheses. Our concern is with generating tests which will discriminate these hypotheses in some fashion. We logically characterize test generation as abductive reasoning. Aside from defining the theoretical principles underlying test generation, we are able to bring to bear the abundant research on abduction to show how test generation can be embodied in working systems. Furthermore, we address the issue of computational complexity. It has long been known that test generation is NP-complete. This is consistent with complexity results on the generation of abductive explanations. By syntactically restricting the description of our theory of system behavior or by limiting the completeness of our abductive reasoning, we are able to gain insight into tractable test generation problems.

[1]  Danny De Schreye,et al.  On the Duality of Abduction and Model Generation in a Framework for Model Generation with Equality , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Gordon I. McCalla,et al.  The knowledge frontier: essays in the representation of knowledge , 1987 .

[3]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  On tests for hypothetical reasoning , 1992 .

[4]  M. Genesereth,et al.  RESIDUE: a deductive approach to design synthesis , 1985 .

[5]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Consequence-Finding Based on Ordered Linear Resolution , 1991, IJCAI.

[6]  Randy Goebel,et al.  Theorist: A Logical Reasoning System for Defaults and Diagnosis , 1987 .

[7]  Philip T. Cox,et al.  General Diagnosis by Abductive Inference , 1987, SLP.

[8]  Dean Allemang,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Abduction , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Brian C. Williams,et al.  Diagnosing Multiple Faults , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Mark Harper Shirley.  Generating Tests by Exploiting Designed Behavior , 1986, AAAI.

[11]  ABDUL SATTAR,et al.  Using crucial literals to select better theories , 1991, Comput. Intell..

[12]  Pietro Torasso,et al.  On the Relationship between Abduction and Deduction , 1991, J. Log. Comput..

[13]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Characterizing Diagnoses and Systems , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Harry E. Pople,et al.  Session 6 Theorem Proving and Logic: I I ON THE MECHANIZATION OF ABDUCTIVE LOGIC , 2006 .

[15]  David Poole,et al.  A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Philip T. Cox,et al.  Causes for Events: Their Computation and Applications , 1986, CADE.

[17]  François Bry,et al.  SATCHMO: A Theorem Prover Implemented in Prolog , 1988, CADE.

[18]  Oscar H. Ibarra,et al.  Polynomially Complete Fault Detection Problems , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[19]  Johan de Kleer.  Focusing on Probable Diagnoses , 1991, AAAI.

[20]  David Poole,et al.  Explanation and prediction: an architecture for default and abductive reasoning , 1989, Comput. Intell..

[21]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  The Use of Design Descriptions in Automated Diagnosis , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Alex Kean,et al.  An Incremental Method for Generating Prime Implicants/Impicates , 1990, J. Symb. Comput..

[23]  W. Riker,et al.  Causes of Events , 1958 .

[24]  Randall Davis,et al.  Generating distinguishing tests based on hierarchical models and symptom information , 1992 .

[25]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A Knowledge-Level Account of Abduction , 1989, IJCAI.

[27]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[28]  B. Selman.  Tractable default reasoning , 1991 .

[29]  D E CAMERON.  The Theory of Diagnosis , 1951, Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Psychopathological Association.

[30]  J. Dekleer.  An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[31]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Foundations of Assumption-based Truth Maintenance Systems: Preliminary Report , 1987, AAAI.