mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Model-Based Active Testing Approach to Sequential Diagnosis

arXiv 1401.3850 ↗First posted 16 Jan 2014cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2014.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.

2 papers.