This paper reports on the findings of an ongoing project to investigate techniques to diagnose complex dynamical systems that are modeled as hybrid systems. In particular, we examine continuous systems with embedded supervisory controllers which experience abrupt, partial or full failure of component devices. The problem we address is: given a hybrid model of system behavior, a history of executed controller actions, and a history of observations, including an observation of behavior that is aberrant relative to the model of expected behavior, determine what fault occurred to have caused the aberrant behavior. Determining a diagnosis can be cast as a search problem to find the most likely model for the data. Unfortunately, the search space is extremely large. To reduce search space size and to identify an initial set of candidate diagnoses, we propose to exploit techniques originally applied to qualitative diagnosis of continuous systems. We refine these diagnoses using parameter estimation and model fitting techniques. As a motivating case study, we have examined the problem of diagnosing NASA's Sprint AERCam, a small spherical robotic camera unit with 12 thrusters that enable both linear and rotational motion.
We discuss the representation of knowledge and of belief from the viewpoint of decision theory. While the Bayesian approach enjoys general-purpose applicability and axiomatic foundations, it suffers from several drawbacks. In particular, it does not model the belief formation process, and does not relate beliefs to evidence. We survey alternative approaches, and focus on formal model of casebased prediction and case-based decisions. A formal model of belief and knowledge representation needs to address several questions. The most basic ones are: (i) how do we represent knowledge?
This paper introduces conceptual relations that synthesize utilitarian and logical concepts, extending the logics of preference of Rescher. We define first, in the context of a possible worlds model, constraint-dependent measures that quantify the relative quality of alternative solutions of reasoning problems or the relative desirability of various policies in control, decision, and planning problems. We show that these measures may be interpreted as truth values in a multi valued logic and propose mechanisms for the representation of complex constraints as combinations of simpler restrictions. These extended logical operations permit also the combination and aggregation of goal-specific quality measures into global measures of utility. We identify also relations that represent differential preferences between alternative solutions and relate them to the previously defined desirability measures. Extending conventional modal logic formulations, we introduce structures for the representation of ignorance about the utility of alternative solutions. Finally, we examine relations between these concepts and similarity based semantic models of fuzzy logic.
Many real-world problems, including inference in Bayes Nets, can be reduced to #SAT, the problem of counting the number of models of a propositional theory. This has motivated the need for efficient #SAT solvers. Currently, such solvers utilize a modified version of DPLL that employs decomposition and caching, techniques that significantly increase the time it takes to process each node in the search space. In addition, the search space is significantly larger than when solving SAT since we must continue searching even after the first solution has been found. It has previously been demonstrated that the size of a DPLL search tree can be significantly reduced by doing more reasoning at each node. However, for SAT the reductions gained are often not worth the extra time required. In this paper we verify the hypothesis that for #SAT this balance changes. In particular, we show that additional reasoning can reduce the size of a #SAT solver's search space, that this reduction cannot always be achieved by the already utilized technique of clause learning, and that this additional reasoning can be cost effective.
The square of opposition is a structure involving two involutive negations and relating quantified statements, invented in Aristotle time. Rediscovered in the second half of the XXth century, and advocated as being of interest for understanding conceptual structures and solving problems in paraconsistent logics, the square of opposition has been recently completed into a cube, which corresponds to the introduction of a third negation. Such a cube can be encountered in very different knowledge representation formalisms, such as modal logic, possibility theory in its all-or-nothing version, formal concept analysis, rough set theory and abstract argumentation. After restating these results in a unified perspective, the paper proposes a graded extension of the cube and shows that several qualitative, as well as quantitative formalisms, such as Sugeno integrals used in multiple criteria aggregation and qualitative decision theory, or yet belief functions and Choquet integrals, are amenable to transformations that form graded cubes of opposition. This discovery leads to a new perspective on many knowledge representation formalisms, laying bare their underlying common features. The cube of opposition exhibits fruitful parallelisms between different formalisms, which leads to highlight some missing components present in one formalism and currently absent from another.