Normality and Faults in Logic-Based Diagnosis

Abstract

Is there one logical definition of diagnosis? In this paper I argue that the answer to this question is "no". This paper is about the pragmatics of using logic for diagnosis; we show how two popular proposals for using logic for diagnosis, (namely abductive and consistency-based approaches) can be used to solve diagnostic tasks. The cases with only knowledge about how normal components work (any deviation being an error) and where there are fault models (we try to find a covering of the observations) are considered as well as the continuum between. The result is that there are two fundamentally different, but equally powerful diagnostic paradigms. They require different knowledge about the world, and different ways to think about a domain. This result indicates that there may not be an axiomatisation of a domain that is independent of how the knowledge is to be used. 1 Introduction If someone comes up to you and says that they have used logic to come up with a selection of diagnoses, ...