A Model-Based Active Testing Approach to Sequential Diagnosis
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
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.
2 papers.
- 2024Shared Control with Black Box Agents using Oracle Queries25 Oct 2024
- 2022System Resilience through Health Monitoring and Reconfiguration30 Aug 2022