Skip to main content

Learning Symbolic Formulations in Design Optimization

  • Conference paper
Design Computing and Cognition '08

This paper presents a learning and inference mechanism for unsupervised learning of semantic concepts from purely syntactical examples of design optimization formulation data. Symbolic design formulation is a tough problem from computational and cognitive perspectives, requiring domain and mathematical expertise. By conceptualizing the learning problem as a statistical pattern extraction problem, the algorithm uses previous design experiences to learn design concepts. It then extracts this learnt knowledge for use with new problems. The algorithm is knowledge-lean, needing only the mathematical syntax of the problem as input, and generalizes quickly over a very small training data set. We demonstrate and evaluate the method on a class of hydraulic cylinder design problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Papalambros PY, Wilde DJ (2000) Principles of optimal design. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nath G, Gero JS (2004) Learning while designing. AIEDAM 18 (4): 315–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gelsey A, Schwabacher M, Smith D (1998) Using modeling knowledge to guide design space search. Artificial Intelligence 101: 35–62

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Suwa M, Gero JS, Purcell T (2000) Unexpected discoveries and s-inventions of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies 21(6): 539–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moss J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2004) Learning from design experience in an agent-based system. Research in Engineering Design 15: 77–92

    Google Scholar 

  6. Strang G (2003) Introduction to linear algebra. Wellesley-Cambridge Press

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kalman D (1996) A singularly valuable decomposition: the SVD of a matrix. The College Mathematics Journal 27 (1): 2–23

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Balachandran M, Gero JS (1987) A knowledge based approach to mathematical design modeling and optimization. Engineering Optimization 12(2): 91–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mackenzie CA, Gero JS (1987) Learning design rules from decisions and performances. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 2(1): 2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwabacher M, Ellman T, Hirsh H (1998) Learning to set up numerical optimizations of engineering designs. AIEDAM 12: 173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellman T, Keane J, Banerjee A, Armhold G (1998) A transformation system for interactive reformulation of design optimization strategies. Research in Engineering Design 10(1): 30–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell MI, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2003) The A-design approach to managing automated design synthesis. Research in Engineering Design 14: 12–24

    Google Scholar 

  13. Landauer T K, Dumais S T (1997) A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic snalysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2): 211 – 240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dong A, Agogino AM: (1997) Text analysis for constructing design representations. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 11 (2): 65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hill A, Song S, Dong A, Agogino A (2001) Identifying shared understanding in design teams using document analysis. 13th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, DETC2001/ DTM-21713, ASME Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moss J, Kotovsky K, Cagan J (2004) Cognitive investigations into knowledge representation in engineering design. In JS Gero (ed), Design Computing and Cognition '04, Kluwer: 97–116

    Google Scholar 

  17. Michelena N, Agogino A (1988) Multiobjective hydraulic cylinder design, Journal of Mechanisms. Transmissions and Automation in Design 110: 81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sarkar, S., Dong, A., Gero, J.S. (2008). Learning Symbolic Formulations in Design Optimization. In: Gero, J.S., Goel, A.K. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '08. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8728-8_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8728-8_28

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8727-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8728-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics