A Comparison of Decision Analysis and Expert Rules for Sequential Diagnosis
Jayant Kalagnanam, Max Henrion

TL;DR
This paper compares decision theoretic methods and heuristic rules for motorcycle engine diagnosis, finding that decision analysis reduces expected diagnostic time by 14% over expert rules, with robust results despite estimate inaccuracies.
Contribution
It provides an experimental comparison showing decision analytic algorithms outperform heuristic expert rules in fault diagnosis efficiency.
Findings
Decision analysis reduces expected diagnosis time by 14%.
Results are robust to inaccuracies in probability and cost estimates.
Supports the use of decision theoretic methods over heuristic rules.
Abstract
There has long been debate about the relative merits of decision theoretic methods and heuristic rule-based approaches for reasoning under uncertainty. We report an experimental comparison of the performance of the two approaches to troubleshooting, specifically to test selection for fault diagnosis. We use as experimental testbed the problem of diagnosing motorcycle engines. The first approach employs heuristic test selection rules obtained from expert mechanics. We compare it with the optimal decision analytic algorithm for test selection which employs estimated component failure probabilities and test costs. The decision analytic algorithm was found to reduce the expected cost (i.e. time) to arrive at a diagnosis by an average of 14% relative to the expert rules. Sensitivity analysis shows the results are quite robust to inaccuracy in the probability and cost estimates. This…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference · AI-based Problem Solving and Planning · Multi-Criteria Decision Making
