Biased Randomized Algorithm for Fast Model-Based Diagnosis
A biased randomized algorithm has been developed to enable the rapid computational solution of a propositional- satisfiability (SAT) problem equivalent to a diagnosis problem. The closest competing methods of automated diagnosis are described in the preceding article "Fast Algorithms for Model-Based Diagnosis" and "Two Methods of Efficient Solution of the Hitting-Set Problem" (NPO-30584), which appears elsewhere in this issue. It is necessary to recapitulate some of the information from the cited articles as a prerequisite to a description of the present method. As used here, "diagnosis" signifies, more precisely, a type of model-based diagnosis in which one explores any logical inconsistencies between the observed and expected behaviors of an engineering system. The function of each component and the interconnections among all the components of the engineering system are represented as a logical system. Hence, the expected behavior of the engineering system is represented as a set of logical consequences. Faulty components lead to inconsistency between the observed and expected behaviors of the system, represented by logical inconsistencies. Diagnosis - the task of finding the faulty components - reduces to finding the components, the abnormalities of which could explain all the logical inconsistencies. One seeks a minimal set of faulty components (denoted a minimal diagnosis), because the trivial solution, in which all components are deemed to be faulty, always explains all inconsistencies. In the methods of the cited articles, the minimal-diagnosis problem is treated as equivalent to a minimal-hitting-set problem, which is translated from a combinatorial to a computational problem by mapping it onto the Boolean-satisfiability and integer-programming problems. The integer-programming approach taken in one of the prior methods is complete (in the sense that it is guaranteed to find a solution if one exists) and slow and yields a lower bound on the size of the minimal diagnosis. In contrast, the present approach is incomplete and fast and yields an upper bound on the size of the minimal diagnosis.