Advertisement

Exploring the Feature Space to Aid Learning in Design Space Exploration

  • Hyunseung BangEmail author
  • Yuan Ling Zi Shi
  • Guy Hoffman
  • So-Yeon Yoon
  • Daniel Selva
Conference paper

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the concept of exploring the feature space to aid learning in the context of design space exploration. The feature space is defined as a possible set of features mapped in a 2D plane with each axis representing different interestingness measures, such as precision or recall. Similar to how a designer explores the design space, one can explore the feature space by observing how different features vary in their ability to explain a set of design solutions. We hypothesize that such process helps designers gain a better understanding of the design space. To test this hypothesis, we conduct a controlled experiment with human subjects. The result suggests that exploring the feature space has the potential to enhance the user’s ability to identify important features and predict the performance of a design. However, such observation is limited only to the participants with some previous experience with design space exploration.

References

  1. 1.
    Balling R (1999) Design by shopping: a new paradigm? In: Proceedings of the third world congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimization (WCSMO-3), vol. 1, pp. 295–297Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirschi NW, Frey DD (2002) Cognition and complexity: an experiment on the effect of coupling in parameter design. Res Eng Des 13:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flager F, Gerber DJ, Kallman B (2014) Measuring the impact of scale and coupling on solution quality for building design problems. Des Stud 35(2):180–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grogan PT, de Weck OL (2016) Collaboration and complexity: an experiment on the effect of multi-actor coupled design. Res Eng Des 27(3):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eddy J, Lewis KE (2002) Visualization of multidimensional design and optimization using cloud visualization. In: Proceedings of DETC’02, pp 899–908Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stump GM, Yukish M, Simpson TW, Harris EN (2003) Design space visualization and its application to a design by shopping paradigm. In: Proceedings of DETC’03Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obayashi S, Sasaki D (2003) Visualization and data mining of Pareto solutions using self-organizing map. Evol Multi-Criterion Optim LNCS 2632:796–809Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    (Luke) Zhang X, Simpson T, Frecker M, Lesieutre G (2012) Supporting knowledge exploration and discovery in multi-dimensional data with interactive multiscale visualisation. J Eng Des 23(1):23–47Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    German BJ, Feigh KM, Daskilewicz M (2013) An experimental study of continuous and discrete visualization paradigms for interactive trade space exploration. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 13:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knerr N, Selva D (2016) Cityplot: visualization of high-dimensional design spaces with multiple criteria. J Mech Des 138(9):91403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaz MJ, Fullmer DD, Briceno SI, Mavris DN (2017) A collaborative approach to complex systems engineering using a web-based visual analytics framework. In: 55th AIAA aerospace sciences meetingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kudo F, Yoshikawa T (2012) Knowledge extraction in multi-objective optimization problem based on visualization of Pareto solutions. In: 2012 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen W, Chazan J, Fuge M (2016) How designs differ: non-linear embeddings illuminate intrinsic design complexity. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference IDETC/CIE 2016, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agrawal G, Bloebaum CL, Lewis KE (2005) Intuitive design selection using visualized n-dimensional pareto frontier. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, AIAA 2005–1813, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walker DJ, Everson RM, Fieldsend JE (2013) Visualizing mutually nondominating solution sets in many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(2):165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peng W, Ward MO, Rundensteiner EA (2004) Clutter reduction in multi-dimensional data visualization using dimension reordering. In: Proceedings of IEEE symposium on information visualization, INFO VIS, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agrawal R, Imielinski T, Swami A (1993) Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. ACM SIGMOD Rec 22(2):207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4. 5: programs for machine learning. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cervone G, Franzese P, Keesee APK (2010) Algorithm quasi-optimal (AQ) learning. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(2):218–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santos JCA, Nassif H, Page D, Muggleton SH, Sternberg MJE (2012) Automated identification of protein-ligand interaction fea- tures using inductive logic programming: a hexose binding case study. BMC Bioinform 13(1):162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bang H, Selva D (2016) iFEED: interactive feature extraction for engineering design. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference IDETC/CIE 2016, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watanabe S, Chiba Y, Kanazaki M (2014) A proposal on analysis support system based on association rule analysis for non-dominated solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2014, pp 880–887Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bandaru S, Ng AHC, Deb K (2017) Data mining methods for knowledge discovery in multi-objective optimization: part a—survey. Expert Syst Appl 70:139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brachman R, Levesque H (2004) Knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feldman J (2010) The simplicity principle concept learning in human. Psychol Sci 12(6):227–232Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li WLW, Han JHJ, Pei JPJ (2001) CMAR: accurate and efficient classification based on multiple\nclass-association rules. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE international conference data mining, pp 369–376Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu B, Hsu W, Ma Y, Ma B (1998) Integrating classification and association rule mining. In: Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 80–86Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tan P-N, Kumar V, Srivastava J (2004) Selecting the right objective measure for association analysis. Inf Syst 29(4):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sokolova M, Lapalme G (2009) A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf Process Manag 45(4):427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buckland M, Gey F (1994) The relationship between recall and precision. J Am Soc Inf Sci 45(1):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selva D (2014) Knowledge-intensive global optimization of Earth observing system architectures: a climate-centric case study. SPIE Remote Sens 9241:92411S–92411SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Agrawal R, Srikant R (1994) Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of the 20th VLDB ’94 conference on very large data bases, vol 1215, pp 487–499Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyunseung Bang
    • 1
  • Yuan Ling Zi Shi
    • 1
  • Guy Hoffman
    • 1
  • So-Yeon Yoon
    • 1
  • Daniel Selva
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations