Summary
This chapter presents an approach that takes advantage of the different roles that computers and humans play in an interactive engineering design environment. It draws on the positive features of learning-oriented methods and searching-oriented methods, thus adapting design trade-off strategy when more precise preference information is learned during the evolutionary search process. The rationale and advantages of evaluating design fitness based on a fuzzy-set based preference aggregation are provided, which not only relies on specifying parameters about importance weights of different design attributes, but also the degree of compensation among them. The designers’ preferences are elicited, and the parameter learning of the preference aggregation function is implemented in an artificial neural network. Guided by online adaptive fitness evaluation, the current favorable solution set is generated by means of evolutionary computation through a component-based design synthesis approach. An example problem of panel meter design configuration is provided to demonstrate the approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (1993) Nonlinear programming — theory and algorithms. 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
Coello CAC (1999) A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Knowledge and Information Systems, An International Journal, 1(3):269–308
Coello CAC (2000) Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: A survey. In: 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Piscataway, New Jersey, Vol 1, pp 30–37
Deb K (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization in engineering design. In: Miettinen K, Mäkelä MM, Neittaanmäki P, Periaux J (eds) Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering and Computer Science, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, chapter 8, pp 135–161
Dubois D, Prade H (1984) Criteria aggregation and ranking of alternatives in the framework of fuzzy set theory. In: Zimmermann HJ, Zadeh, LA, Gaines B (eds) Fuzzy Sets and Decision Analysis, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, 20:209–240
Dubois D, Prade H (1985) A review of fuzzy sets aggregation connectives. Information Sciences, 36:85–121
Fodor J, Roubens M (1994), Fuzzy preference modeling and multicriteria decision support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Gardiner LR, Steuer RE (1994) Unified interactive multiple objective programming: an open architecture for accommodating new procedures. J Operations Research Society, 45(12):1456–1466
Goldberg DE (1999) The race, the hurdle, and the sweet Spot: lessons from genetic algorithms for the automation of design innovation and creativity. Evolutionary Design by Computers, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, California
Haykin S (1999) Neural networks — a comprehensive foundation. Macmillan, New York
Hwang CL, Masud ASM (1979) Multiple objective decision making — methods and applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Jin Y, Sendhoff B (2002) Fuzzy preference incorporation into evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Proc. of the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning, Singapore, Vol.1, pp 26–30
Jin Y (2003) Advanced fuzzy systems design and applications. International Series on Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag/SpringerVerlag, Heidelberg
Mehrotra K, Mohan CK, and Ranka S (1997) Elements of Artificial Neural Network, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Otto KN, Antonsson EK (1991) Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 3(2):87–104
Parmee IC, Cvetkovic D, Watson AH, and Bonham CR (2000) Multiobjective satisfaction within an interactive evolutionary design environment. Evolutionary Computation, 8(2):197–222
Sobek II DK, Ward AC, Liker JK (1999) Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40(2): 67–83
Szykman S, Fenves S, Keirouz W, and Shooter S (2001) A foundation for interoperability in next-generation product development systems. J Computer Aided Design, 33:545–559
Scott MJ (1999) Formalizing negotiation in engineering design. PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology.
Takagi H (2001) Interactive evolutionary computation: Fusion of the capacities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proceedings of the IEEE, 89(9):1275–1296
Vanderpooten D (1989) The interactive approach in MCDA: A Technical Framework and Some Basic Conceptions. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 12(10–11):1213–1220
Wang J, Terpenny JP (2003) Interactive evolutionary solution synthesis in fuzzy set-based preliminary engineering design. Special Issue on Soft Computing in Manufacturing, J Intelligent Manufacturing, 14:153–167
Wang J, Terpenny JP (2003) Learning and Adapting fuzzy set-based tradeoff strategy in engineering design synthesis. International Journal of Smart Engineering System Design, 5(3):177–186
Whitney DE (1993) Nippondenso Co. Ltd.: A case study of strategic product design. Research in Engineering Design, 5:1–20
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, J., Terpenny, J.P. (2005). Interactive Preference Incorporation in Evolutionary Engineering Design. In: Jin, Y. (eds) Knowledge Incorporation in Evolutionary Computation. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 167. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44511-1_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44511-1_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-06174-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44511-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)