1: \documentclass{article} 

2: 

3: \usepackage{aaai}

4: \nocopyright

5: 

6: \renewcommand{\land}{\wedge}

7: \renewcommand{\lor}{\vee}

8: \newcommand{\imply}{\rightarrow}

9: \newcommand{\implyb}{\leftarrow}

10: \newcommand{\biimp}{\leftrightarrow}

11: \newcommand{\ent}{\models}

12: \newcommand{\uni}{\cup}

13: \newcommand{\nf}{\vdash_{NF}}

14: \newcommand{\der}{\vdash}

15: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

16: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{enumerate}}

18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{enumerate}}

19: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{description}}

22: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{description}}

23: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

24: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

25: \newcommand{\eh}{explanatory hierarchy}

26: \newcommand{\isa}{\Rightarrow}

27: \newcommand{\pair}[2]{\langle #1 , #2 \rangle }

28: 

29: \newtheorem {definition}{Definition}

30: \newtheorem {theorem}{Theorem}

31: \newtheorem {property}[theorem]{Property}

32: \newtheorem {corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

33: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

34: \newtheorem {example}{Example}

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: \bibliographystyle{aaai}

38: 

39: \title{Abductive and Consistency-Based Diagnosis Revisited: \newline

40: a Modeling Perspective}

41: 

42: \author{Daniele Theseider Dupr\'{e}\\

43: Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Avanzate\\

44: Universit\`{a} del Piemonte Orientale\\

45: Corso Borsalino 54 -- I-15100 Alessandria, Italy \\

46: E-mail: dtd@mfn.unipmn.it \\

47: }

48: \date{}

49: 

50: \maketitle

51: 

52: \begin{abstract}

53: 

54: Diagnostic reasoning has been characterized logically as consistency-based

55: reasoning or abductive reasoning. Previous analyses in the literature

56: have shown, on the one hand, that choosing the (in general more restrictive)

57: abductive definition may be appropriate or not, depending on the content of the

58: knowledge base

59: \cite{Console:ci:91}, and, on the other hand,

60: that, depending on the choice of the definition

61: the same knowledge should be expressed in different form \cite{Poole:94}.

62: 

63: Since in Model-Based Diagnosis a major

64: problem is finding the right way

65: of abstracting the behavior of the system to be modeled,

66: this paper discusses the relation between modeling, and in particular

67: abstraction in the model, and the notion of diagnosis.

68: 

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \section{Introduction}

72: 

73: Several characterizations have been given for Model-Based Diagnosis

74: \cite{Console:Readings:92}.

75: All approaches assume that a model of the system

76: to be diagnosed is available: 

77: either a model of the correct behavior of the system,

78: or a model of its abnormal behavior, or both.

79: 

80: Diagnostic reasoning has been characterized 

81: as a form of nonmonotonic reasoning: either as consistency-based

82: reasoning, or abductive reasoning.

83: In the first case a set of assumptions of correct behavior must

84: be rejected in order to restore consistency with (abnormal) observations;

85: in the second case, a set of assumptions of abnormal behavior

86: must be introduced to entail the abnormal observations.

87: 

88: In \cite{Console:ci:91} the two definitions are shown to be two

89: extremes of a spectrum whose intermediate points may also be

90: relevant, depending on the assumptions about the completeness of the model.

91: Poole also pointed out \cite{Poole:94}

92: the importance of the {\em representation problem\/}

93: for logic-based diagnosis, i.e.\ what has to be represented about

94: the modeled system in order to use the different conceptualizations.

95: 

96: In spite of such previous work, several confusions remain in the field,

97: for example, the confusion of declarative issues with computational

98: issues, such as backward vs forward chaining along the model,

99: and the lack of acknowledgement that in some significant cases the

100: approaches are equivalent.

101: 

102: Moreover,

103: in Model-Based Diagnosis a common view is that {\em modeling} is

104: the problem; in particular, any model is an abstraction and

105: the problem is in finding the right way

106: of abstracting the behavior of the system to be modeled.

107: This is a particularly significant issue since

108: one of the claimed advantages of model-based systems is that they

109: can rely on the same model of the system for different reasoning tasks,

110: e.g.\ planning, diagnosis, configuration, reconfiguration after failure;

111: but, unfortunately, which is the right abstraction, and then

112: the right model, may depend on the task.

113: 

114: This paper, based on a general notion of prediction,

115: illustrates, summarizing and complementing several views in

116: the literature,

117: how the appropriate notion of diagnosis and

118: explanation depends on 

119: the predictiveness of the model.

120: In particular, for deterministic models abduction and consistency-based

121: explanation are equivalent, while

122: for nondeterministic models, even if at first sight consistency

123: seems to be the one

124: providing the correct diagnoses, abduction can usually be adapted to

125: provide the same correct diagnoses with a better (at least for someone)

126: notion of explanation.

127: 

128: \section{Basic definitions}

129: \label{basicdef}

130: 

131: In this paper we assume to rely on a {\em component-based} model

132: of the system to be diagnosed; such a model describes the normal

133: and/or abnormal behavior of the system in terms of the normal and/or

134: abnormal behavior of its components.

135: In the classical Reiter's approach \cite{Reiter:87} there was no

136: distinction between different abnormal behaviors, and no model or constraints

137: for the abnormal behavior of a component; in later papers

138: \cite{deKleer:89,Struss:89} the concept of {\em behavioral mode}

139: was introduced, and we similarly assume that:

140: \bi

141: \item

142: the system is composed of a set $COMPS$ of components;

143: \item

144: each component has different, mutually exclusive, behavioral modes, typically

145: one normal mode and several abnormal modes.

146: \ei

147: In the classical example of combinatorial circuits, a component could be

148: an AND gate and one of its (abnormal) behavioral modes could be

149: ``stuck-at-0''.

150: 

151: In a logical representation of the model,

152: the fact that AND gate $a$ is in mode 

153: $stuck-at-0$ would be represented with the atomic formula 

154: $stuck-at-0(a)$, which would occur

155: in the formulae defining or constraining such behavioral mode,

156: in this case

157: $andgate(a) \wedge stuck-at-0(a) \imply output(a,0)$

158: 

159: Here we do not assume that the model is represented in logic,

160: it could also be, e.g., a set of qualitative equations.

161: In this case the equation for the ok mode of the AND gate

162: would be $out(a) = and(inp1(a),inp2(a)) $, with an appropriate definition

163: of the function $and$, while the equation corresponding to

164: the $stuck-at-0$ mode would be $out(a) = 0$.

165: 

166: In any case we are interested in the notion of {\bf parameter} in the model.

167: In a model including AND gates, a parameter could be, e.g., the

168: output of AND gate $a_1$, which in logic would be the lambda 

169: expression\footnote{This is the expression that, for example,

170: applied to 0 gives the formula $output(a_1,0)$}

171: $\lambda x . output(a_1,x)$ 

172: while in an equational model would be the variable $out(a_1)$.

173: A subset of the parameters is the set of {\bf observable} parameters.

174: Each parameter has a {\em domain} of possible values;

175: the parameter in the gate example has domain $\{ 0, 1 \}$ and

176: in general, in the qualitative models commonly used in Model-Based

177: Diagnosis, the domain would be finite.

178: The granularity of such a domain is a major modeling choice,

179: as, in general, is the choice of the appropriate qualitative abstraction;

180: a first step in providing support for this is given in \cite{Struss:qr:99}.

181: 

182: As mentioned above, we do not make unnecessary restrictions on

183: the way the model is described and, therefore, on which is the basic

184: inference mechanism.

185: E.g. the model could be a set of logical formulae, with entailment

186: as the inference mechanism, or a set of equations or (more generally)

187: constraints on finite domains, in which case constraint propagation

188: would be the inference mechanism.

189: What the model is required to provide is a notion of {\em prediction}

190: relating component behavior to observations as described in the following.

191: 

192: A diagnostic problem is characterized by a set of {\bf observations},

193: i.e. an assignment of values to some or all the observable parameters.

194: As in \cite{Console:ci:91} we distinguish between a set

195: $CXT$ of ``contextual'' observations (i.e.\ ``inputs'' to the system,

196: e.g.\ to a circuit) and a set $OBS$ of observations to be explained

197: by a diagnosis.

198: 

199: A {\bf mode assignment} is an assignment of one behavior mode to

200: each component in $COMPS$. 

201: 

202: We assume that the way the system is modeled

203: provides a notion of {\em prediction}, i.e.\ states whether

204: a mode assignment $F$ {\bf predicts} the set $S$ of values for parameter

205: $p$ in context $CXT$. This means that, in context $CXT$ and given

206: the assumptions $F$ on the behavior of components, the model of the

207: system implies that $p$ takes one of the values in $S$. 

208: 

209: For example,

210: in a logical framework, where the system is modeled in a set $MODEL$

211: of logical formulae,

212: for a finite set $S = \{ v_1 , \ldots , v_n \}$

213: of values, $F$ predicts values $S$ for $p$ in context $CXT$,

214: iff

215: $MODEL \uni F \uni CXT \ent p(v_1) \lor \ldots \lor p(v_n)$

216: and the same condition does not hold for any $S' \subset S$,

217: since we are interested in the most specific prediction.

218: 

219: In an equational model, given the equations $MODEL$ representing the system,

220: and the equations $F$ and $CXT$

221: corresponding to the mode assignment and the context,

222: the prediction for $p$ will be the set $S$ of values parameter $p$ takes

223: in the solutions of the system of equations $MODEL \uni F \uni CXT$.

224: 

225: A particularly significant case is of course

226: the one where $S$ is a {\em singleton}, i.e.\ the model is able to predict

227: an exact value for the parameter.

228: We will refer to this case as a {\bf deterministic prediction}.

229: For example, any mode assignment that gives the ``stuck-at-0''

230: mode to the andgate $A_1$ predicts the value $0$ for the output of $A_1$,

231: while of course for the ``ok'' mode the prediction will

232: depend on the context and on the mode of other components.

233: 

234: At the other extreme is the case of a fault making no prediction on

235: a parameter $p$, which we intend to coincide with the case where the prediction

236: is the whole domain of the parameter.

237: 

238: An {\bf observation} on a parameter $p$ will, in general, be a set of values

239: $O$; in a precise observation (at least as precise as the domain

240: granularity of $p$) such a set will be a singleton.

241: 

242: \begin{definition}

243: Given the prediction $S$ on parameter $p$ of a mode assignment $F$ in context $CXT$

244: and the observation $O$ for $p$, we say that:

245: \bi

246: \item

247: the prediction is {\bf consistent} with the observation if 

248: $S \cap O \neq \emptyset$

249: \item

250: the prediction {\bf implies} the observation if 

251: $S \subseteq O$

252: \ei

253: \end{definition}

254: 

255: Obviously, if prediction $S$ implies $O$ then it is consistent

256: with it\footnote{Since, as noticed above, we consider no prediction as

257: predicting the whole domain of $p$, $S$ cannot be empty.}.

258: 

259: Moreover, in the particular case of

260: a precise observation $O = \{ v \}$, a consistent prediction must include $O$,

261: while to imply $O$ a prediction must coincide with $O$, i.e.\ predicting value $v$

262: fr $p$.

263: 

264: In \cite{Console:ci:91} a spectrum of definitions of diagnoses

265: is introduced, i.e.\ a definition with a parameter $OBS^+ \subseteq OBS$ representing

266: the subset of the observations to be explained abductively, while for all (other)

267: observation consistency is required.

268: In the terminology introduced above, such a definition can be

269: reformulated as follows.

270: 

271: \begin{definition}

272: \label{defdiag}

273: Given diagnostic problem characterized by observations $CXT$ and $OBS$,

274: and a subset $OBS^+$ of $OBS$,

275: a {\bf diagnosis} is a mode assignment $F$ such that

276: \begin{enumerate}

277: \item

278: the predictions of $F$ are consistent with $OBS$

279: \item

280: the predictions of $F$ imply observations $OBS^+$

281: \end{enumerate}

282: \end{definition}

283: 

284: If $OBS^+ = \emptyset$ this definition is consistency-based diagnosis,

285: if $OBS^+ = OBS$ it is abductive diagnosis (thus imposing, in general, a stronger requirement

286: than consistency-based diagnosis,

287: reducing therefore the set of diagnoses), and all intermediate choices are possible;

288: in \cite{Console:ci:91} some guidelines are given for this choice, based on the

289: completeness of the model, i.e.\ on the fact that all the possible explanations for the

290: observations have been provided on the model; this corresponds to the idea of

291: ``anticipating explanations'' in \cite{Poole:90a}, and will be referred here as

292: {\em backward} completeness for the reasons that will be clear in the following.

293: 

294: \section{Fully predictive models}

295: 

296: In the literature there are results on conditions that make

297: abductive and consistency based diagnoses coincide

298: \cite{Konolige:92,Poole:94}, but such results are only formulated

299: for logical representations where predictions are truth values

300: (i.e.\ a prediction on $p$ is either entailing $p$ or entailing $\neg p$).

301: 

302: In the context of the previous section, we introduce the notion of a model whose

303: prediction is deterministic on all observable parameters.

304: 

305: \begin{definition}

306: A model is {\bf fully predictive} if for any context $CXT$, for any

307: mode assignment $F$, for any observable parameter, $F$ makes a

308: deterministic prediction on $p$ in context $CXT$.

309: \end{definition}

310: 

311: Of course this condition can hardly be met if the domain of a parameter is

312: the set of real numbers, but it is more sensible for e.g.\ the binary domain

313: of combinatorial circuits and for qualitative abstractions of domains

314: (moreover, in some cases a model can be sensibly expressed in a form

315: that makes it fully predictive, as we will discuss in the next sections).

316: 

317: This condition corresponds to another notion of completeness of the model:

318: a model where the consequences of assumptions can be given non-ambiguously,

319: and, moreover, all the consequences of assumptions have been written down:

320: therefore we can refer to it as {\em forward} completeness, as opposed

321: to backward completeness mentioned above.

322: 

323: A trivial result is the following.

324: 

325: \begin{property}

326: For a fully predictive model, the choice of $OBS^+$ in definition

327: \ref{defdiag} is irrelevant, i.e.\ abductive and consistency-based diagnosis

328: coincide.

329: 

330: {\bf Proof.} For a fully predictive model, a prediction on $p$ is a singleton

331: $\{ v \}$. If it is consistent with the observation, such observation on $p$

332: must be a set $S$ including $v$ (or the set $\{ v \}$ itself). Therefore the

333: prediction implies the observation in $p$.

334: \end{property}

335: 

336: \section{Nondeterministic models}

337: 

338: Even with the underlying assumption that the system to be diagnosed

339: behaves, at a macroscopic level\footnote{I.e.\ the one of classical

340: physics, rather than quantum physics.},

341: deterministically\footnote{A faulty system can be intermittently faulty,

342: or, more generally, its behavior could be time-varying. Here we do not consider

343: the temporal dimension --- see \cite{Brusoni:aij:98} for the different ways

344: of taking it into account --- and we mean that the

345: system behaves deterministically in a time interval during which it is in the

346: same behavioral mode.},

347: a model cannot be assumed to be able to predict observations

348: with infinite precision.

349: This is the reason why we mentioned above that fully predictiveness can be

350: too restrictive if the domain of observations are the real numbers.

351: 

352: Models are, usually, a convenient abstraction of a system, and {\em qualitative} 

353: abstractions of real values have emerged in AI as a meaningful and (sometimes) 

354: useful abstraction. Such an abstraction may have pragmatical value, allowing

355: to represent a whole class of possible worlds at a time, and also some

356: cognitive value, since humans (including, sometimes, scientists and engineers) 

357: are able to perform qualitative inferences or even {\em tend}

358: to reason qualitatively,

359: at least in some stage in the analysis of a system.

360: 

361: Our view is therefore that {\em the system behaves deterministically;

362: it is abstraction which makes the model nondeterministic}.

363: Sometimes this abstraction is due to lack of knowledge, sometimes

364: it is just a modeling convenience.

365: For example, we introduce the ``flat'' fault mode for a battery

366: to include a whole range of values for its voltage, which would avoid

367: predicting exactly the voltage of a flat battery (we will return to

368: this example below).

369: 

370: The problem of 

371: abductive hypotheses being insufficiently predictive to entail

372: observations has been discussed

373: early in \cite{Kautz:91:named}\footnote{Dating back to 1987 

374: as a Technical Report.}

375: in the framework of plan recognition, proposing as a simple example

376: the fact that the plan of getting food does not explain why the agent,

377: whose plan we are trying to recognize, is going to a specific supermarket:

378: the plan will presumably only entail going to {\em some} supermarket.

379: For this reason Kautz rejects the explicit use of abduction

380: and relies on a form of closure  to achieve

381: the intended explanations.

382: Such a closure is similar to the ones in

383: \cite{Console:jlc:91,Konolige:92,Poole:94} (and also explanatory closure

384: in \cite{Reiter:91}) which in fact provide results showing the equivalence

385: of abduction to deduction (and consistency-based reasoning is a form

386: of deduction) under an appropriate closure.

387: 

388: A different solution can be given based on the following idea 

389: in \cite{Hobbs:93}.

390: Given an entity, e.g.\ $lube$ $oil$, more specific than another,

391: e.g.\ $fluid$, (so that $lube\_oil(x) \imply fluid(x)$),

392: if we want to explain $lube\_oil(a)$, but

393: our assumption only entails $fluid(a)$, 

394: we rely on transforming the implication

395: $lube\_oil(x) \imply fluid(x)$ into the equivalence

396: $fluid(x) \land etc(x) \biimp lube\_oil(x)$, where $etc$ is

397: assumable --- corresponding to the assumption that the fluid happens

398: to be lube oil. Assuming $etc(a)$ allows entailing $fluid(a)$.

399: 

400: Similar ideas are part of the representation methodology

401: in \cite{Poole:90a}, in particular the idea of

402: ``anticipating explanations'' which is also

403: combined with the idea of `` parametrizing assumptions''.

404: The latter is used for example to represent the model of a flat battery

405: with

406: \[ battery(B) \land flat(B,V) \imply voltage(B,T) \]

407: \[ flat(B,V) \imply 0 \leq V \leq 1.2 \]

408: where $flat$ is assumable, so that e.g.\ $voltage(b1,0.8)$, given $battery(b1)$,

409: is explained by $flat(b1,0.8)$ {\em which is also consistent} with the

410: constraint.

411: This achieves the result of being able to describe concisely a class

412: of faults as well as reasoning, when necessary, on a specific instance

413: of the class.

414: 

415: The parametrized assumption

416: methodology has been adopted e.g.\ in \cite{Ng:92} for the same

417: reason, and in \cite{Brusoni:aij:98} for {\em temporal} constraints

418: between the temporal extent of ``causes'' and ``effects'',

419: or, in general, explanans and explanandum. In that case, in fact,

420: the same problem arises unless the temporal extent of the cause

421: uniquely determines the one of the effect.

422: 

423: In general, this problem arises with any case where 

424: there are non-functional constraints

425: between parameters of the explanans and those of the explanandum,

426: i.e.\ the constraints do not allow to entail exact values for

427: the latter even given exact values for the former.

428: 

429: In \cite{Cordier:98}, however, the parametrizing assumptions methodology

430: is rejected due to the potential proliferation of hypotheses,

431: and a notion of explanation is introduced where ``explaining'' is

432: not entailing, in particular, having a prediction which is

433: an abstraction of the observation is sufficient.

434: Further, a notion of {\em conditional explanation} is introduced where

435: prediction and observation must have something that is more specific

436: than both (e.g.\ $A$ for $A \lor B$ and $A \lor C$).

437: In terms of predicting and observing values for parameters (as in the

438: definitions above) this coincides with prediction and observation

439: having an intersection, i.e.\ with consistency-based explanation.

440: 

441: \section{Qualitative deviations}

442: 

443: In this section we discuss abductive and consistency-based explanations

444: in the context of a representational abstraction 

445: we have used in recent years for modeling systems in the 

446: Vehicle Model-Based Diagnosis (VMBD) project:

447: qualitative deviations \cite{Struss:dx96,Cascio:aicomm:99,Theseider:DX98}.

448: 

449: The system is modeled in terms of differential equations 

450: that include appropriate

451: parameters for components, 

452: whose values correspond to different (correct or faulty)

453: behavior modes of the component. 

454: From these equations\footnote{Due to the qualitative abstraction,

455: the exact form of the quantitative equation is not necessary

456: to build  the qualitative model; it could however be necessary

457: for fault detection.}, corresponding equations for

458: qualitative deviations are derived:

459: 

460: \begin{itemize}

461: \item

462: for each variable x, 

463: its deviation $\Delta x(t)$ is defined as $\Delta x(t) = x(t) - x_{ref}(t)$,

464: where $x_{ref}(t)$ is a reference behavior (one choice is to consider

465: the correct behavior of all the system as the reference behavior);

466: \item

467: from any equation $A=B$, 

468: the corresponding equation $\Delta A$ $=$ $\Delta B$ is derived;

469: \item

470: finally, the corresponding {\em sign} equation

471: [$\Delta A$] = [$\Delta B$]

472: is derived; it equates the {\em signs} of the two deviations.

473: There are rules for expressing this equation in terms of

474: signs of deviations of individual variables rather than expressions.

475: \end{itemize}

476:    

477: These models are useful to express concisely a number of dependencies.

478: For example, for a tank containing a liquid, with an input flow

479: $in$ and an output flow $out$, the equation

480: \[ \partial \Delta level = [ \Delta in ] \ominus [ \Delta out ] \]

481: where $\partial \Delta level$ is the sign of

482: the derivative of the deviation of $level$

483: and $\ominus$ is subtraction in the sign algebra,

484: expresses how the level of liquid deviates from the expected value

485: in a wide (and exhaustive) range of cases.

486: In particular, the reference behavior of the system need not be a stable

487: state: even in such a behavior, flows and level may be continuously varying.

488: What the model states is, for example, that: 

489: \bi

490: \item

491: starting from the reference behavior,

492: the level does not

493: deviate from it, if the flows do not;

494: \item

495: if the outflow has no deviation and the inflow has a negative deviation,

496: the level will start deviating negatively ---

497: this includes the cases where it decreases instead of being constant,

498: decreases more than expected, increases less than expected,

499: becomes constant instead of increasing, and decreases instead of increasing.

500: \ei

501: But what if the outflow also has a negative deviation? Subtracting

502: a negative number from another can give a positive, negative or zero result.

503: Again, the qualitative abstraction makes the model nondeterministic,

504: at least in some case.

505: 

506: We do not discuss here an appropriate notion of diagnosis for dynamic

507: systems (see \cite{Theseider:DX98}), nor a complete model for

508: a system including the tank, but suppose that the inflow is due to

509: a pump (so that a pump fault makes the inflow negatively deviated)

510: and the outflow is regulated by a control system.

511: 

512: If the pump fault occurs,

513: there is a negative deviation of the inflow, so a negative deviation

514: of the level's derivative, and then of the level; 

515: then (we omit the model) the control system reacts

516: with a negative deviation of the outflow, and, given the qualitative

517: model, any result is possible for the level deviation's derivative.

518: Therefore the fault will not entail any observation on the further

519: trend of the level; this means that it would not be an abductive

520: diagnosis for any observation, while it 

521: would be a consistency-based

522: diagnosis for any observation. 

523: But would it be considered a good explanation? 

524: 

525: We can do something better without abandoning the convenience of

526: qualitative abstractions and using abduction.

527: Suppose e.g.\ we observe that the level deviation's derivative changes

528: sign: the pump fault is consistent, but does not predict this;

529: what is the least presumptive assumption that predicts this?

530: The assumption that $\Delta out < \Delta in $ (which for absolute

531: values means $|\Delta out| > |\Delta in| $), so that 

532: $[ \Delta in ] \ominus [ \Delta out ]$ gives '+'.

533: A natural language expression of this explanation is that the

534: control system is compensating for the fault.

535: Notice that the assumption

536: $\Delta out < \Delta in $ is still a qualitative assumption

537: and could correspond to a natural way of interpreting what is going on

538: in the system.

539: 

540: Thus, in general,

541: for all cases where the result of sign operators

542: is ambiguous, we can introduce assumptions

543: that make the result unambiguous, e.g.\ for the sum $[a] \oplus [b]$

544: where $a$ and $b$ have opposite signs, we can use the assumptions

545: $|a|<|b|$, $|a|=|b|$, $|a|>|b|$ to predict values '-',0,'+'

546: respectively.

547: 

548: \section{Conclusions}

549: 

550: In this paper we have reviewed several points of view in the literature

551: on the relation of the notion of diagnosis with properties of

552: the model of the system to be diagnosed, in particular, properties

553: related to the abstractions in the model with respect to the real

554: system.

555: 

556: We have pointed out that ideas that have appeared in the literature

557: on this subject can be successfully integrated with modeling

558: abstractions that have become widely used more recently.

559: 

560: The problem of identifying the right modeling abstraction for a task

561: is far from being solved, but some work on this is being done

562: in the model-based reasoning community (see e.g. \cite{Brusoni:aij:98}

563: for the temporal dimension in diagnosis) and we expect in the near future

564: more work in this direction, starting e.g.\ from the results

565: in \cite{Struss:qr:99}.

566: 

567:  

568: \begin{thebibliography}{}

569: 

570: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brusoni \bgroup \em et al.\egroup

571:   }{1998}]{Brusoni:aij:98}

572: Brusoni, V.; Console, L.; Terenziani, P.; and {Theseider Dupr\'{e}}, D.

573: \newblock 1998.

574: \newblock A spectrum of definitions for temporal model-based diagnosis.

575: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence} 102(1):39--79.

576: 

577: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cascio \bgroup \em et al.\egroup

578:   }{1999}]{Cascio:aicomm:99}

579: Cascio, F.; Console, L.; Guagliumi, M.; Osella, M.; Panati, A.; Sottano, S.;

580:   and {Theseider Dupr\'{e}}, D.

581: \newblock 1999.

582: \newblock Generating on-board diagnostics of dynamic automotive systems based

583:   on qualitative deviations.

584: \newblock {\em AI Communications} 12(1):33--44.

585: 

586: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Console \& Torasso}{1991}]{Console:ci:91}

587: Console, L., and Torasso, P.

588: \newblock 1991.

589: \newblock A spectrum of logical definitions of model-based diagnosis.

590: \newblock {\em Computational Intelligence} 7(3):133--141.

591: 

592: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Console, {Theseider Dupr\'{e}}, \&

593:   Torasso}{1991}]{Console:jlc:91}

594: Console, L.; {Theseider Dupr\'{e}}, D.; and Torasso, P.

595: \newblock 1991.

596: \newblock On the relationship between abduction and deduction.

597: \newblock {\em Journal of Logic and Computation} 1(5):661--690.

598: 

599: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cordier}{1998}]{Cordier:98}

600: Cordier, M.

601: \newblock 1998.

602: \newblock When abductive diagnosis fails to explain too precise observations:

603:   an extended spectrum of definitions of {MBD} based on abstracting

604:   observations.

605: \newblock In {\em Proc. 9th Int. Work. on Principles of Diagnosis},  24--31.

606: 

607: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Kleer} \& Williams}{1989}]{deKleer:89}

608: {de Kleer}, J., and Williams, B.

609: \newblock 1989.

610: \newblock Diagnosis with behavioral modes.

611: \newblock In {\em Proc. 11th IJCAI},  1324--1330.

612: 

613: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hamscher, Console, \& {J. de

614:   Kleer}}{1992}]{Console:Readings:92}

615: Hamscher, W.; Console, L.; and {J. de Kleer}., eds.

616: \newblock 1992.

617: \newblock {\em Readings in Model-based Diagnosis}.

618: \newblock Morgan Kaufmann.

619: 

620: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hobbs \bgroup \em et al.\egroup

621:   }{1993}]{Hobbs:93}

622: Hobbs, J.; Stickel, M.; Appelt, D.; and Martin, P.

623: \newblock 1993.

624: \newblock Interpretation as abduction.

625: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence} 63:69--142.

626: 

627: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kautz}{1991}]{Kautz:91:named}

628: Kautz, H.

629: \newblock 1991.

630: \newblock A formal theory of plan recognition and its implementation.

631: \newblock In J. Allen, H. Kautz, R. Pelavin and J. Tenenberg, {\em Reasoning

632:   about Plans}, Morgan Kaufmann.

633: 

634: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Konolige}{1992}]{Konolige:92}

635: Konolige, K.

636: \newblock 1992.

637: \newblock Abduction versus closure in causal theories.

638: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence} 53(2-3):255--272.

639: 

640: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Malik \& Struss}{1996}]{Struss:dx96}

641: Malik, A., and Struss, P.

642: \newblock 1996.

643: \newblock Diagnosis of dynamic systems does not necessarily require simulation.

644: \newblock In {\em Proc. 7th Int. Work. on Principles of Diagnosis},  147--156.

645: 

646: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ng \& Mooney}{1992}]{Ng:92}

647: Ng, H., and Mooney, R.

648: \newblock 1992.

649: \newblock Abductive plan recognition and diagnosis: a comprehensive empirical

650:   evaluation.

651: \newblock In {\em Proc. KR 92},  499--508.

652: 

653: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Poole}{1990}]{Poole:90a}

654: Poole, D.

655: \newblock 1990.

656: \newblock A methodology for using a default and abductive reasoning system.

657: \newblock {\em International Journal of Intelligent Systems} 5(5):521--548.

658: 

659: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Poole}{1994}]{Poole:94}

660: Poole, D.

661: \newblock 1994.

662: \newblock Representing diagnosis knowledge.

663: \newblock {\em Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence}

664:   11(1-4):33--50.

665: 

666: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiter}{1987}]{Reiter:87}

667: Reiter, R.

668: \newblock 1987.

669: \newblock A theory of diagnosis from first principles.

670: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence} 32(1):57--96.

671: 

672: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiter}{1991}]{Reiter:91}

673: Reiter, R.

674: \newblock 1991.

675: \newblock The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution

676:   (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression.

677: \newblock In Lifschitz, V., ed., {\em Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical

678:   Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy}. Academic Press.

679: \newblock  359--380.

680: 

681: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Struss \& Dressler}{1989}]{Struss:89}

682: Struss, P., and Dressler, O.

683: \newblock 1989.

684: \newblock Physical negation - integrating fault models into the general

685:   diagnostic engine.

686: \newblock In {\em Proc. 11th IJCAI},  1318--1323.

687: 

688: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Struss \& Sachenbacher}{1999}]{Struss:qr:99}

689: Struss, P., and Sachenbacher, M.

690: \newblock 1999.

691: \newblock Significant distinctions only: Context-dependent automated

692:   qualitative modeling.

693: \newblock In {\em Proc. 13th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning}.

694: 

695: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Theseider Dupr\'{e}} \&

696:   Panati}{1998}]{Theseider:DX98}

697: {Theseider Dupr\'{e}}, D., and Panati, A.

698: \newblock 1998.

699: \newblock State-based vs simulation-based diagnosis of dynamic systems.

700: \newblock In {\em Proc. DX 98, 9th Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis}.

701: 

702: \end{thebibliography}

703: \end{document}

704: 

705: 

706: