On the Computational Feasibility of Abductive Diagnosis for Practical Applications

Abstract Increasing complexity of physical systems demands an accurate fault localization in order to reduce maintenance costs. Model-based diagnosis has been proposed as an AI-based method to derive root causes from a system model and observable anomalies. Though relying on a strong theoretical background, practical applications of model-based diagnosis are often prevented by the initial modeling effort and complexity of diagnosis algorithms. In this paper, we focus on both aspects and present an approach that converts the fault information available in practice into propositional Horn logic sentences to be used in abductive diagnosis. It is well known that abductive diagnosis based on propositional Horn theories has exponential complexity in general. However, in our case the obtained logical sentences belong to a subset of propositional Horn logic that is tractable, namely definite Horn theories. In particular, we show that the abduction problem in case of the obtained models can be solved in polynomial time. We present empirical results obtained using real world examples and a parametrizable artificial example class. The data indicate that the proposed approach is feasible for practical applications.

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

[2]  Pietro Torasso,et al.  Integrating Models of the Correct Behavior into Abductive Diagnosis , 1990, ECAI.

[3]  Pietro Torasso,et al.  A Theory of Diagnosis for Incomplete Causal Models , 1989, IJCAI.

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

[5]  Chris J. Price,et al.  Automated multiple failure FMEA , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[6]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  An Efficient First-Order Horn-Clause Abduction System Based on the ATMS , 1991, AAAI.

[7]  Franz Wotawa On the Use of Abduction as an Alternative to Decision Trees in Environmental Decision Support Systems , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems.

[8]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Semantics and Complexity of Abduction from Default Theories , 1995, IJCAI.

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

[10]  Peter Struss,et al.  A Prototype for Model-based On-board Diagnosis of Automotive Systems , 2000, AI Commun..

[11]  Franz Wotawa,et al.  Abductive Reasoning in Environmental Decision Support Systems , 2009, AIAI Workshops.

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

[13]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  Remote Agent: An Autonomous Control System for the New Millennium , 2000, ECAI.

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

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

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

[17]  Gregory M. Provan Efficiency Analysis of Multiple-Context TMSs in Scene Representation , 1987, AAAI.

[18]  USA,et al.  The Anti-Coincidence Detector for the GLAST Large Area Telescope , 2007 .

[19]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Abductive and Default Reasoning: A Computational Core , 1990, AAAI.

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

[21]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  A Reactive Planner for a Model-based Executive , 1997, IJCAI.

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

[23]  Marcel Staroswiecki,et al.  Conflicts versus analytical redundancy relations: a comparative analysis of the model based diagnosis approach from the artificial intelligence and automatic control perspectives , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).