Parse tree structure in LTL requirements diagnosis

On the Practical Performance of Minimal Hitting Set Algorithms from a Diagnostic Perspective

“…As mentioned in our discussion of the SAT-solver setups in Section 2, this would involve the use of an engine like a SAT solver to, given some model, verify the intermediate theories that some constructed set is indeed a minimal hitting set. In more detail, we would check with a solver whether assuming the components in h(n) to be faulty makes the observed behavior consistent with the model (see (Reiter, 1987;Pill et al, 2015)) and if not, then we would ask the solver for a minimal unsatisfiable core as new node label.…”

“…Newer approaches to model-based diagnosis that use SAT solvers to compute diagnoses directly (Metodi, Stern, Kalech, & Codish, 2012;Feldman, Provan, de Kleer, Robert, & van Gemund, 2010) might not make the conflicts known to the user, but the connection is still there in the theoretical background (as described by Reiter's theory) and relevant data would be learned in the solvers themselves. Recent work like (Pill, Quaritsch, & Wotawa, 2015) suggests that MHSrelated knowledge specific to a domain could be exploited also in such direct setups. In (Nica, Pill, Quaritsch, & Wotawa, 2013), we showed that the classic computation of diagnoses via explicit conflicts and minimal hitting sets is still competitive compared to direct approaches.…”

Testing Diagnostics Components Supervising Functional Safety Requirements

“…• First, the requirements REQ to be monitored and enforced by SDC have to be available. If we have to convert their informal characterization into a formal syntax (as accessible by automated tools) first, research like (Pill & Quaritsch, 2013) can identify mistakes in this process and provides the means to investigate unexpected results -but is out of the scope of this paper. The formalized requirements REQ will be used to asses whether an individual test scenario passes or fails our expectations in that it complies with REQ or not.…”

“…its monitoring capabilities are insufficient, or whether its response to the situation was inadequate. For an enhanced automated support of debugging which individual parts of the requirements were involved in their violation, adopting the work on requirements/specification diagnosis presented in (Pill & Quaritsch, 2013) could be of interest.…”

“…Recent work assists designers in formalizing these requirements (Bloem, Cavada, Pill, Roveri, & Tchaltsev, 2007). Also an AI-based diagnosis approach for diagnosing faults in such formalized requirements has been proposed (Pill & Quaritsch, 2013).…”