non-minimal diagnoses
DESCRIPTION
Non-minimal Diagnoses. Philippe Dague and Yuhong Yan NRC-IIT [email protected] [email protected]. {A, B, C}. {A, B}. {A, C}. {B, C}. {A}. {B}. {C}. {}. Diagnosis. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2
Diagnosis Consider only assignment AB(c) and ¬AB(c) for
diagnoses, the size of diagnostic space is 2n, n= number of components
Diagnostic space is structure by set inclusion as a lattice
{A, B, C}
{A, B} {A, C} {B, C}
{A} {B} {C}
{}
3
A principle of parsimony has been adopted by Reiter: considering only minimal (for set inclusion) diagnoses
Question: Do these minimal diagnoses characterize all diagnoses?
Expected answer: yes, any superset of a diagnosis is a diagnosis as well (Minimal Diagnosis Hypothesis)
This is verified for the polybox with correct mode, and the 3-inverter with correct and faulty modes (but with the unknown mode).
4
Counter Example(1):exhaustive fault modes
Assume the only fault modes are stuck at 0 and shorted (no unknown mode):
Inverter(x)AB(x) S0(x) Short(x)S0(x) out(x)=0Short(x) out(x) = in(x)
Diagnoses = minimal diagnoses = {I1} (stuck at 0 or shorted) {I2} (shorted)But the superset {I1,I2} is not a diagnosisReason: I2 can’t be stuck at 0, so it should be shorted, but
in this case out(I1)=1 and I1 can’t be stuck at 0 nor shorted
0I1 I2
1Example 1.a)
5
Counter Example(1):exhaustive fault modes
Suppose that in addition to correct modes, we have AB(adder) adder acts as multiplier
Same observation as before {F=10, G=12}
{M1} is still a minimal diagnosis but the superset {M1, A2} is not any more
Example 1,b) Polybox
6
Counter example (2): Exoneration
Exoneration: correct mode expressed as necessary and sufficient condition of correctness
2-inverter:Inverter(x) (¬AB(x) [In(x) = 0 Out(x)=1][In(x) = 1
Out(x)=0])
Minimal diagnosis = {} But the supersets {I1} and {I2} are not
diagnoses. Each inverter exonerates the other (is an alibi for the other)
0 0Example 2.a)
7
Counter example (2): Exoneration 3 light bulbs
Bulb(x) voltage(x, on) [¬AB(x) lit(x)]
Observation: only B3 is lit
{B1, B2} is a minimal diagnosis. The superset {B1, B2, B3} is not
Reason: B3 can’t be faulty, as it is lit.
B-1S
B-2 B-3
W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
Example 2.b)
8
Conclusion: The minimal diagnosis hypothesis is not satisfied
in general, as soon as exhaustive fault modes or sufficient condition of correctness exists
So in the diagnostic space lattice, diagnoses are not characterized by minimal diagnoses
Questions: does a logical characterization of the diagnoses in the general case exist?
Answer: yes. For this, the notion of conflict has to be
generalized
9
Recall: Notation: for Components,
D() = [AB(c)|c ] [AB(c)|c Components\] Definition: a diagnosis is a D() such that SD OBS {D()} is
satisfiable Definition: minimal diagnosis is a diagnosis D() such that for no
proper subset ’ of is D(’) a diagnosis Definition: a conflict as defined by Reiter (named from now a R-
conflict) is a subset C of Components such that SD OBS {AB(c)|c C} |=
Logically it is equivalent to SD OBS |= {AB(c)|c C}( a disjunct of AB(c) is entailed by SD OBS)
10
What appears in the counter example?1.a (2-inverter) SD OBS |= AB(I1)AB(I2) But also SD OBS |= ¬AB(I1)AB(I2)1.b (polybox) SD OBS |= AB(M1)AB(M2) and SD OBS |= AB(M1)AB(M3) But also SD OBS |= AB(M2)AB(M3)¬AB(A2)2.a SD OBS doesn't entail disjunct of AB but SD OBS |= AB(I1)AB(I2) SD OBS |= AB(I1)AB(I2)2.b SD OBS |= AB(B1) and SD OBS |= AB(B2) but also SD OBS |= AB(B3)
11
Extension: conflict So the idea is to extend a conflict to any conjunct of AB(c)
and ¬AB(c) entailed by SD OBS . Definition: An AB-literal is AB(c) or ¬AB(c) for some c
Components. An AB-clause is a disjunction of AB-literals containing no
complementary pair of AB-literals. A positive AB-clause is an AB-clause all of its literals are
positive Definition: A conflict of (SD, Components, OBS) is an AB-
clause entailed by SD OBS. A positive conflict is a conflict which is a positive AB-clause Remark: one can identify a positive conflict with an R-
conflict
12
Extension: conflict (2) Definition: a minimal conflict is a conflict
no proper sub-clause of which is a conflict Example: see 1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b) (the right
side formulas in slide 10 are the minimal conflicts)
Remark: one can identify a minimal positive conflict with a minimal R-conflict
13
Extension: conflict (3) Suppose is a set of first order sentences,
a ground clause is an implicate of iff entails c. c is a prime implicate of iff no proper sub-clause of c in entailed by
Minimal conflicts are AB-clauses which are prime implicates of SD OBS.
Minimal conflicts can be computed by theorem prover or ATMS
14
Extension: conflict (4) Reiter’s property relating minimal diagnosis to
minimal R-conflict can be reformulated. Property: let + be the set of positive minimal
conflicts of (SD, Components, OBS) and Components, then D() is a minimal diagnosis iff is a minimal subset such that +{D()} is satisfiable
This property generalizes as Property: let be the set of minimal conflict of (SD,
Components, OBS) and Components, then D() is a diagnosis iff {D()} is satisfiable
15
Characterizing minimal diagnoses from positive minimal conflicts Def: Suppose is a set of propositional
formulas, a conjunction of literals (containing no pair of complementary literals) is an implicant of iff entails each formula of . is a prime implicant of iff no proper sub conjunction of is an implicant of .
16
Characterizing minimal diagnoses from positive minimal conflicts (2) The Reiter’s characteristics of minimal
diagnoses as minimal hitting sets of the collection of minimal R-conflicts can be reformulated as:
Theorem: D() is a minimal diagnosis of (SD, Components, OBS) iff [AB(c)|c ] is a prime implicant of the set of the positive minimal conflicts of (SD, Components, OBS).
17
When minimal diagnoses are enough to characterizing all diagnoses? Theorem: Minimal diagnosis hypothesis
holds (i.e. D(’) is a diagnosis iff ’ with D() a minimal diagnosis) iff all minimal conflicts are positive
Unfortunately there is no equivalent condition on the syntactic form of SD and OBS. But it exists sufficient conditions. We consider 2 of them
18
the Ignorance of Abnormal Behaviour (IAB) Def: the Ignorance of Abnormal Behaviour
(IAB) condition holds iff in the clause form of SDOBS every occurrence of an AB-predicate is positive
Theorem: If (SD, Components, OBS) satisfies the IAB condition, then MDH holds
19
IAB(2) IAB is ensured, for example, if all sentence of SD
where AB appears follow the schema: AB(x)P1(x)P2(x)… Pn(x)G1(x)… Gm(x)Where literals Pi(x) and Gj(x) do not mention AB
i.e. when only necessary condition of correct behaviour are expressed
Example: AB(x)transistor(x)On(x)off(x)saturated(x)
AB(x)resistor(x)ports(x,[a b])resistance(x)=r v(x, a, b) = r * i(x,a)
20
Limited Knowledge of Abnormal Behaviour (LKAB) Def: the Limited Knowledge of Abnormal
Behaviour (LKAB) condition holds iff (Cp, Cn, c), CpComponents, Cn Components, CpCn =, cComponents, cCp,cCn,
SDOBS{[AB(x)|xCp] [AB(x)|xCn]} satisfiable,
SDOBS{AB(c)} satisfiable SDOBS{[AB(x)|
xCp{c}] [AB(x)|xCn]}
Remark: IAB LKAB
21
LKAB(2) LKAB is ensured, for example, if all sentences of
SD where AB appears have one of the following two forms:
AB(x)P1(x)P2(x)… Pn(x)G1(x)… Gm(x)
AB(x)P1(x)P2(x)… Pn(x)F1(x)… Fm(x)U(x)Where Gi(x) describes a possible correct behaviour for x, Fi(x) describes
a possible faulty behaviour for x, U(x) an unknown behaviour
(Gi(x), Fi(x), U(x) only occur negatively in other clauses and U(x) only occurs in clauses expressing it is distinct of any Gi(x) and any Fi(x).)
i.e. when only necessary conditions of correct behaviours and necessary condition of non-exhaustive faulty behaviours (with unknown mode) are expressed.
22
LKAB(3) (see example in lecture “diagnoses with
fault modes”). Theorem: if (SD, Components, OBS)
satisfies the LKAB condition and D() is a diagnosis, then D(’) is a diagnosis for every ’ , such that for each c, SDOBS {AB(c)} is satisfiable
23
Charactering Diagnoses from Minimal Conflicts Compact representation of diagnoses Example: 1.b)
AB(M1) AB(A2) K1(M2) K2(M3) K3(A1), where Ki={AB or AB}
they can be coded as AB(M1) AB(A2)
24
Compact representation of diagnoses Definition: A partial diagnosis for (SD,
Components, OBS) is a satisfiable conjunction P of AB-literals such that for every satisfiable conjunction P’ of AB-literals containing P as sub-conjunction, SDOBS {P’} is satisfiable
Remark: if C, of size k, is the set of all
components mentioned in P, the P [K(c)|cComponents\C] is a diagnosis, where each K(c) is AB(c) or AB(c). So P codes 2n-k diagnoses
25
Kernel diagnosis It is natural to consider the minimal such
partial diagnoses: Definition: A kernel diagnosis is a partial
diagnosis whose no proper sub-conjunction is a diagnosis
Property (Characterization of Diagnoses) D() is a diagnosis iff there is a kernel
diagnosis which is a sub-conjunction of it
26
Kernel Diagnoses (2): Examples1.a) 2 kernel diagnoses AB(I1)AB(I2) and AB(I1)AB(I2)1.b) 4 kernel diagnoses: AB(M1)AB(A2) AB(M1)AB(M2) AB(M1)AB(M3) AB(M2)AB(M3)2.a) 2 kernel diagnoses AB(I1)AB(I2) AB(I1)AB(I2)2.b) 1 kernel diagnosis AB(B1)AB(B2)AB(B3)
27
Theorem Theorem (Characterization of partial and kernel
diagnoses from minimal conflicts) The partial diagnoses of (SD, Components, OBS) are the
implicants of the minimal conflicts of (SD, Components, OBS)
The kernel diagnoses of (SD, Components, OBS) are the prime implicants of the minimal conflicts of (SD, Components, OBS)
The minimal diagnoses are the prime impliants of positive minimal conflicts
Remark: if all minimal conflicts are positive, there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between kernel diagnoses and minimal diagnoses
[AB(c)|cK] [AB(c)|cK] [AB(c)| cComponents\K]
28
Exercise Full adder in Reiter’s paper (figure 1). Use kernel diagnosis to find diagnosis Use two-direction imply () in the model
to find kernel diagnosis Add the axiom that all variables are
Boolean (x=0x=1), find kernel diagnosis