Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistency-based and abductive diagnoses as generalised stable models

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

If realistic systems are to be successfully modelled and efficiently diagnosed using model-based techniques, a more expressive language than classical logic is required. In this paper, we present a definition of diagnosis which allows the use of a nonmonotonic construct, negation as failure, in the modelling language. This definition is based on thegeneralised stable model semantics of abduction. Furthermore, we argue that, if negation as failure is permitted in the modelling language, the distinction between abductive and consistency-based diagnosis is no longer clear. Our definition allows both forms of diagnosis to be expressed in a single framework. It also allows a single interference procedure to perform abductive or consistency-based diagnosis, as appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. B. Bertolino and C. Menchini, Some equivalence results for non-monotonic fault diagnosis, Hewlett-Packard Labs. Tech. Rep. HPL-92-12.

  2. P. Besnard and M.O. Cordier, Explanatory diagnoses and their computation by circumscription,Proc. 10th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1992, pp. 724–728.

  3. K.L. Clark, Negation as failure, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds),Logic and Databases (Plenum Press, New York) pp. 293–322.

  4. L. Console, D. Theseider Dupre and P. Torasso, A completion semantics for object-level abduction,Proc. AAAI Symposium in Automated Abduction, 1990.

  5. L. Console, D. Theseider Dupre and P. Torasso, On the relationship between abduction and deduction, J. Logic and Comput. 2(5) (1991).

  6. L. Console and P. Torasso, Integrating models of the correct behaviour into abductive diagnosis,Proc. 9th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1990.

  7. L. Console and P. Torasso, A spectrum of logical definitions of model-based diagnosis, Comput. Intelligence 7 (1991) 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.T. Cox and T. Pietrzykowski, Causes for events: their computation and application,Proc. 8th Conf. on Computer Aided Design and Engineering, 1986.

  9. R. Davis, Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behaviour, Artificial Intelligence 24 (1984) 347–410.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. de Kleer, A. Mackworth and R. Reiter, Characterizing diagnoses,Proc. 8th Nat. US Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, 1990.

  11. J. de Kleer and B. Williams, Diagnosing multiple faults, Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987) 97–130.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. de Kleer and B. Williams, Diagnosis with behavioural modes.Proc. 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, 1989.

  13. O. Dressler, Computing diagnoses as coherent assumption sets,Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Menlo Park 1990.

  14. O. Dressler and P. Struss, Back to defaults: Characterizing and computing diagnoses as coherent assumption sets,Proc. 10th ECAI, 1992, pp. 719–723.

  15. P.M. Dung, Negation as hypotheses: An abductive foundation for logic programming,Proc. ICLP, 1991. pp. 3–18.

  16. C. Elkan, A rational reconstruction of non-monotonic truth maintenance systems, Artificial Intelligence 43 (1990) pp. 219–234.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Eshghi, Diagnoses as stable models,Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Menlo Park, 1990.

  18. K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski, Abduction compared with negation as failure,Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Lisbon, 1989, pp. 234–254.

  19. K. Eshghi and C. Preist, The Cachebus experiment: Model based diagnosis applied to a real problem, in:Industrial Applications of Knowledge-Based Diagnosis, eds. Guida and Stefanini (Elsevier, 1992).

  20. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, The stable model semantics for logic programming,Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1988.

  21. A. Kakas and P. Mancarella, Generalised stable models: A semantics for abduction,Proc. 9th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1990.

  22. A. Kakas and P. Mancarella, On the relation between truth maintenance and abduction,Proc. PRICAI, 1990.

  23. R.A. Kowalski and M. Sergot, A logic-based calculus of events, New Generation Comput. 4 (1986) 67.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Y. Ohta and K. Inoue, A forward-chaining hypothetical reasoner based on upside-down metainterpretation,Proc. Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1992, pp. 522–529.

  25. L.M. Pereira, C.V. Damasio and J.J. Alferes, Diagnosis and debugging as contradiction removal in logic programs, in: L.M. Pereira and A. Nerode (eds.),Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop, Lisbon, 1993 (MIT Press, 1993) pp. 316–330.

  26. D. Poole, R. Goebel and R. Aleliunas, Theorist: A logical reasoning system for defaults and diagnosis, in: N. Cereone and G. McCalla (eds.),The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge, (1987) pp. 331–352.

  27. D. Poole, Representing knowledge for logic-based diagnosis,Proc. Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1988, pp. 1282–1290.

  28. D. Poole, Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis,Proc. 11th IJCAI, 1989, pp. 1304–1310.

  29. C. Preist and K. Eshghi, Consistency-based and abductive diagnoses as generalised stable models,Proc. Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1992, pp. 514–521.

  30. R. Reiter, A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987).

  31. J.A. Reggia, D.S. Nau and P.Y. Wang, Diagnostic expert systems based on a set covering model, Int. J. Man Machine Stud. 19 (1983) 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Satoh and N. Iwayama, Computing abduction by using the TMS,Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1991.

  33. K. Satoh and N. Iwayama, A correct top-down proof procedure for a general logic program with integrity constraints,Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Extensions of Logic Programming, 1992.

  34. M. Shanahan, Prediction is deduction by explanation is abduction,Proc. 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, 1989.

  35. J.C. Sheperdson, Negation in logic programming,Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988) pp. 19–88.

  36. D.C. van Soest, R.R. Bakker, F. van Raalte and N.J.I. Mars, Improving effectiveness of modelbased diagnosis,Proc. 10th Int. Workshop on Expert Systems and their Applications, Avignon, 1990.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Road, BS12 6QZ, Bristol, UK

    Chris Preist, Kave Eshghi & Bruno Bertolino

Authors
  1. Chris Preist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kave Eshghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Bertolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper is an extended and revised version of ref. [29].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Preist, C., Eshghi, K. & Bertolino, B. Consistency-based and abductive diagnoses as generalised stable models. Ann Math Artif Intell 11, 51–74 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530737

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530737

Keywords

Search

Navigation