An Algebraic Approach to Model-Based Diagnosis

  • Shangmin Luan
  • Lorenzo Magnani
  • Guozhong Dai
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 64)

Summary. Traditional approaches to computing minimal conflicts and diagnoses use search technique. It is well known that search technique may cause combination explosion. Algebraic approach may be a way to solve the problem. In this paper we present an algebraic approach to model-based diagnosis. A system with an observation can be represented by a special Petri net PN, checking whether there is a conflict between the correct system behavior and the observation corresponds to checking whether there exists a marking M ∈ R(M0) such that M(p1) and M(p2) are not zero, where p1 and p2 are labeled with the output of the system and its negation respectively. Furthermore, we show that M = M0 +CX is such a marking, where M0 is the initial marking, C is the incidence matrix of PN, and X is the maximal vector in {V |V is a {0, 1}-vector and for each transition t, if V (t) = 1, then there is a firing sequence t1, t2,..., tm, t}. Then, we present an algorithm to compute the maximal vector X in V SE(PN) in polynomial time. Once the maximal vector in V SE(PN) is generated, we can check whether there is conflicts between the correct system behavior and the observation. We also present algorithms for computing minimal conflicts and diagnoses by using the above algorithm. Compared with related works, our algorithm terminates in polynomial time if the inputs of the each component in the system are not more than a given constant.


Polynomial Time Incidence Matrix Algebraic Approach Conjunction Normal Form Resolution Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Reiter, A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, pp. 57-95, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. d. Kleer, A. K. Mackworth, and R. Reiter, Charactering diagnoses and sys-tems, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 56, pp. 197-222, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Darwiche, Model-based Diagnosis using causal networks, Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 211-217, Montreal, Canada, August 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Darwiche, Model-based diagnosis using structured system descriptions, Jour-nal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.8, pp. 165-222, 1998.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Darwiche, and G. Provan, The Effect of observation on the complexity of model-based diagnosis, Proc. American National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 94-99, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, July 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Haenni, Generating diagnoses from conflict sets, Proc. Florida Artificial Intel-ligence Research Symposium, pp. 120-124, Florida, USA, May 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Marquis, Consequence finding algorithms, in: (eds. S. Kholas, J. Moral) Handbook on Deafeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, pp. 41-145. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Haenni, A query-driven anytime algorithm For argumentative and abductive reasoning, Proc. First Int. Conf. on SoftWare, pp. 114-127, Belfast, Northern Ireland, April 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. del Val, The complexity of restricted consequence finding and abduction, Proc. 17th American National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 337-342, Texas, USA, July 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Simon and A. del Val, Efficient consequence finding, Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 359-365, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. del Val, A new method for consequence finding and compilation in restricted languages, Proc. Sixteenth American National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 259-264, Florida, USA, July 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. E. Fattah, and R. Dechter, Diagnosing tree-decomposable circuits, Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 572-578, Montreal, Canada, August 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Stumptner, and F. Wotawa, Diagnosing tree-structured systems, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 127, pp. 1-29, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartlomiej Gorny, Antoni Ligeza, Model-based diagnosis of dynamic Systems: systematic conflict generation, in: L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian and C. Pizzi (eds.) Logical and Computational Aspects of Model-based Reasoning, pp. 273-291, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Mozetic, A Polynomial-time algorithm for model-based diagnosis, Proc. 10th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 729-733, Vienna, Austria, August 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. L. Childress, and M. Valtorta, Polynomial-time model-based diagnosis with the critical set algorithm, Proc. Fourth Int. Fourth Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 166-177, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Luan, L. Magnani, G. Dai, Algorithms for Computing Minimal Conflicts, Logic Journal of IGPL, Vol.14 No.2, 391-406, June 2006.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Magnani, Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Expla-nation, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. J. Nilsson, Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Meseguer. A new method to checking rule bases for inconsistency: a Petri net approach. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelli-gence (ECAI-90), Stockholm, August 1990, pp. 437-442.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tadao Murata, Petri Nets: Properties, analysis and applications, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77, No 4, April, 1989, 541-580.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shangmin Luan
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Magnani
    • 2
  • Guozhong Dai
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences and School of SoftwareBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingP.R.China
  2. 2.Computational Philosophy Laboratory. Department of PhilosophyUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  3. 3.Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingP.R.China

Personalised recommendations