Improving Abductive Diagnosis Through Structural Features: A Meta-Approach

While abductive reasoning provides an intuitive approach to diagnosis, its computational complexity remains an obstacle. Even though certain model representations are tractable, computing solutions for instances of reasonable size and complexity persists to pose a challenge. Hence, the discovery of efficient methods to derive abductive explanations presents itself as appealing research area. In this paper, we investigate the structural properties inherent to formalizations suitable for abductive failure localization. Based on the features extracted we construct a meta-approach exploiting a machine learning classifier to predict the abductive reasoning technique yielding the “best” performance on a specific diagnosis scenario. To assess whether the proposed attributes are in fact sufficient for forecasting the appropriate abduction procedure and to evaluate the efficiency of our algorithm selection in comparison to traditional abductive reasoning approaches, we conducted an empirical experiment. The results obtained indicate that the trained model is capable of predicting the most efficient algorithm and further, we can show that the meta-approach is capable of outperforming each single abductive reasoning method investigated.

[1]  Russell Greiner,et al.  A Correction to the Algorithm in Reiter's Theory of Diagnosis , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Keiji Kanazawa,et al.  A Decision-Theoretic Abductive Basis for Planning* , 1994 .

[3]  D. J. Woollons,et al.  Failure modes and effects analysis of complex engineering systems using functional models , 1998, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[4]  Gustav Nordh,et al.  What makes propositional abduction tractable , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Stefan Rümmele,et al.  Evaluating Tree-Decomposition Based Algorithms for Answer Set Programming , 2012, LION.

[6]  Franz Wotawa,et al.  A variant of Reiter's hitting-set algorithm , 2001, Inf. Process. Lett..

[7]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[8]  Li Lin,et al.  The computation of hitting sets: Review and new algorithms , 2003, Inf. Process. Lett..

[9]  J. Reggia,et al.  Abductive Inference Models for Diagnostic Problem-Solving , 1990, Symbolic Computation.

[10]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The complexity of logic-based abduction , 1993, JACM.

[11]  Franz Wotawa,et al.  Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Abductive Diagnosis , 2014, DARe@ECAI.

[12]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Computational aspects of monotone dualization: A brief survey , 2008, Discret. Appl. Math..

[13]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[14]  John R. Rice,et al.  The Algorithm Selection Problem , 1976, Adv. Comput..

[15]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[16]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Performance Prediction and Automated Tuning of Randomized and Parametric Algorithms , 2006, CP.

[17]  Sheila A. McIlraith Logic-Based Abductive Inference , 1998 .

[18]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Algorithm runtime prediction: Methods & evaluation , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová,et al.  A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection , 2003, IJCAI.

[20]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Abductive Logic Programming , 1992, LPNMR.

[21]  Ingo Pill,et al.  PyMBD: A Library of MBD Algorithms and a Light-weight Evaluation Platform, by Thomas Quaritsch and Ingo Pill , 2014 .

[22]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Problem Solving with the ATMS , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Mattias Nyberg A Generalized Minimal Hitting-Set Algorithm to Handle Diagnosis With Behavioral Modes , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[24]  Joachim Baumeister,et al.  Diagnostic Reasoning with Multilevel Set-Covering Models , 2002 .

[25]  R. Geoff Dromey,et al.  An algorithm for the selection problem , 1986, Softw. Pract. Exp..

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

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

[28]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  Abductive Reasoning with a Large Knowledge Base for Discourse Processing , 2011, IWCS.

[29]  Nysret Musliu,et al.  Algorithm Selection for the Graph Coloring Problem , 2013, LION.

[30]  Jürg Kohlas,et al.  Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems , 2000 .

[31]  Matthias Dehmer,et al.  Entropy and the Complexity of Graphs Revisited , 2012, Entropy.

[32]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Hypothesis Classification, Abductive Diagnosis and Therapy , 1990, Expert Systems in Engineering.

[33]  Lars Kotthoff,et al.  Algorithm Selection for Combinatorial Search Problems: A Survey , 2012, AI Mag..

[34]  Yun Peng,et al.  Plausibility of Diagnostic Hypotheses: The Nature of Simplicity , 1986, AAAI.

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

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

[37]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[38]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Abduction in Logic Programming , 2002, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond.

[39]  Isabelle Bloch,et al.  Abductive Reasoning Using Tableau Methods for High-Level Image Interpretation , 2015, KI.