Possible conflicts: a compilation technique for consistency-based diagnosis

Consistency-based diagnosis is one of the most widely used approaches to model-based diagnosis within the artificial intelligence community. It is usually carried out through an iterative cycle of behavior prediction, conflict detection, candidate generation, and candidate refinement. In that process conflict detection has proven to be a nontrivial step from the theoretical point of view. For this reason, many approaches to consistency-based diagnosis have relied upon some kind of dependency-recording. These techniques have had different problems, specially when they were applied to diagnose dynamic systems. Recently, offline dependency compilation has established itself as a suitable alternative approach to online dependency-recording. In this paper we propose the possible conflict concept as a compilation technique for consistency-based diagnosis. Each possible conflict represents a subsystem within system description containing minimal analytical redundancy and being capable to become a conflict. Moreover, the whole set of possible conflicts can be computed offline with no model evaluation. Once we have formalized the possible conflict concept, we explain how possible conflicts can be used in the consistency-based diagnosis framework, and how this concept can be easily extended to diagnose dynamic systems. Finally, we analyze its relation to conflicts in the general diagnosis engine (GDE) framework and compare possible conflicts with other compilation techniques, especially with analytical redundancy relations (ARRs) obtained through structural analysis. Based on results from these comparisons we provide additional insights in the work carried out within the BRIDGE community to provide a common framework for model-based diagnosis for both artificial intelligence and control engineering approaches.