Next: From model space to
Up: Inference
Previous: Inference
Scenario + Knowledge Base = Model Space
As previously stated, the aim of a compositional modeller is to
translate a scenario into a scenario model. Both are
representations of the system of interest though they model the system
at a different level of detail. The knowledge base provides the
foundation for translation. All the scenario models that can be
constructed from the given scenario, with regard to the knowledge
base, are stored in the model space.
A model space is an ATMS [7] containing all the
participants, relations and assumptions that can be instantiated from
a given scenario. In this work, the generalised version of the ATMS,
as introduced by de Kleer [8], is employed as it allows the use
of negations of nodes in the justifications. The algorithm
describes how such a
model space can be created from a scenario
. It
first initialises the model space with the participant
instances () and the relation instances () from the scenario.
Then, for each model fragment whose source-participants and structural
conditions match participants and relations already in , new
instances of its target-participants, assumptions and postconditions
are added to . Because each property definition
is equivalent to a model fragment
, this procedure applies to
property definitions as well as model fragments. Matching the
source-participants and structural conditions of a model fragment
to the emerging model space is performed by the function
match as specified below, where is
the model fragment being matched, and is a substitution from
the source-participants of to participant instances.
match |
|
Figure 5:
Model fragment application
|
Each match, specified by a model fragment and a substitution
, is processed as follows:
- For each assumption
, a new node, denoting the
assumption instance , is created and added to .
- Then, a new node
, denoting the instantiation of
via substitution , is created, added to and
justified by the implication:
- Finally, a new instance for each target-participant
and for each postcondition
, provided
does not already exist in the model space , is
created. For the target-participants, this involves creating a new
symbol for each new participant instance with the function
gensym and extending with the substitution
gensym. A new node is created and added to
for each new participant instance and for each
new instantiated relation
. Each of these nodes is
justified by the implication
.
To illustrate this procedure, Figure 5
shows a graphical representation of the inferences that are
constructed by applying a model fragment
with respect to a substitution
.
Figure 6:
Sources of inconsistency
|
Once all possible applications of model fragments have been exhausted,
the inconsistencies in the model space are identified and recorded in
the ATMS. In the algorithm, nogoods are generated for each set
of inconsistent nodes, denoted
inconsistent. There are three sources of
inconsistencies that are each reported to the ATMS in a different way:
- Global properties: Let be an instance of a global
property that any scenario model must satisfy. Then, any
combination of assumptions and negations of assumptions that
prevents from being satisfied is inconsistent. Therefore,
inconsistent must be reported for any required
global property . This type of inconsistency is depicted
in Figure 6(a).
- Purpose-required properties: Any application of a model
fragment without satisfying its purpose-required properties
yields an inconsistency (see (13)).
Hence, for each node
denoting the instantiation
of via substitution , and for each node
describing the appropriate instance of a
purpose-required property
,
inconsistent is
reported. This type of inconsistency is depicted in Figure
6(b).
- Non-composable relations: In any mathematical formalism
designed to describe simulation models of dynamic systems, certain
combinations of relations may over-constrain the model, and hence,
be unsuitable for generating the behaviour of a system of interest.
Within the system dynamics and ODE formalisms used in this paper,
assignments of relations to the same variable are only composable if
those relations are explicitly deemed composable. In other words,
two relations and can only be combined with one
another if and are composable. Examples of pairs of
non-composable relations include
|
and because and
relations are not composable, and |
|
|
and because is not a composable relation. |
|
Combinations of such non-composable relations must be reported as an
inconsistency as well. This type of inconsistency is depicted in
Figure 6(c).
Figure 7:
Partial model space
|
To illustrate the model space construction algorithm, Figure
7 presents a small sample model space.
It results from the application of the population-growth and
logistic-population-growth model fragments and the
endogenous property definition, which were described earlier,
for a single population ``frog''. If a larger scenario involving
multiple populations and relations between these populations were
specified, a similar partial model space would be generated for each
individual population.
Next: From model space to
Up: Inference
Previous: Inference
Jeroen Keppens
2004-03-01