*
A. Feldman, G. Provan, A. van Gemund
*

Model-based diagnostic reasoning often leads to a large number of diagnostic hypotheses. The set of diagnoses can be reduced by taking into account extra observations (passive monitoring), measuring additional variables (probing) or executing additional tests (sequential diagnosis/test sequencing). In this paper we combine the above approaches with techniques from Automated Test Pattern Generation (ATPG) and Model-Based Diagnosis (MBD) into a framework called FRACTAL (FRamework for ACtive Testing ALgorithms). Apart from the inputs and outputs that connect a system to its environment, in active testing we consider additional input variables to which a sequence of test vectors can be supplied. We address the computationally hard problem of computing optimal control assignments (as defined in FRACTAL) in terms of a greedy approximation algorithm called FRACTAL-G. We compare the decrease in the number of remaining minimal cardinality diagnoses of FRACTAL-G to that of two more FRACTAL algorithms: FRACTAL-ATPG and FRACTAL-P. FRACTAL-ATPG is based on ATPG and sequential diagnosis while FRACTAL-P is based on probing and, although not an active testing algorithm, provides a baseline for comparing the lower bound on the number of reachable diagnoses for the FRACTAL algorithms. We empirically evaluate the trade-offs of the three FRACTAL algorithms by performing extensive experimentation on the ISCAS85/74XXX benchmark of combinational circuits.

This page is copyrighted by AAAI. All rights reserved. Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of all of AAAI's terms and conditions and privacy policy.