Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T10:55:09.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intelligently helping the human planner in industrial process planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

A. Famili  and
P. Turney
A. Famili
Affiliation:
Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Institute for Information Technology, National Research CouncilCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaK1A 0R6
P. Turney
Affiliation:
Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Institute for Information Technology, National Research CouncilCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaK1A 0R6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The function of a process planning system is to determine the methods by which a product is to be manufactured economically and competitively. In a modern manufacturing environment, a process planning system consists of highly trained people and complex software. The plans prepared by a process planning system are not always executed as planned. It is useful if the system can discover why plans fail, when they do fail. In order to learn why plans fail, the system must analyse a number of plans, both successful and unsuccessful, to find patterns in the failures of plans. This type of analysis is difficult for people, who are much better at analysing single events than multiple events.

The aim of the project described here is to design and implement a computer program which will help human planners in a process planning system to understand why plans fail. To achieve this aim, a program called IMAFO (Intelligent MAnufacturing FOreman) has been developed. IMAFO uses decision tree induction to analyse examples of both successful and unsuccessful plans.

The difficulties presented by this application are discussed and solutions are presented. Problems addressed include finding an appropriate set of attributes for describing the plans, using data efficiently, consolidating input from distinct sources, and presenting decision trees in an understandable form. Potential applications and directions for future research are considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1991 , pp. 109 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albus, J., Barbera, B. and Nagel, R. 1981. Theory and practice of hierarchical control. Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Computer Society International Conference, pp. 18–39. New York, N.Y.: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Albus, J. et al. 1984. A control system for an automated manufacturing research facility. Proceedings of Robots 8 Conference and Exposition, Section 13, pp. 28–44. Detroit, MI:Google Scholar
Bratko, I. and Kononenko, I. 1986. Learning diagnostic rules from incomplete and noisy data. In AI Methods in Statistics. London: UNICOM Seminar.Google Scholar
Bratko, I., Mozetic, I., and Lavrac, N. 1988. Automatic synthesis and compression of cardiological knowledge. In Hayes, J. E., Michie, D. and Richards, J., eds. Machine Intelligence 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Breiman, L., Freidman, J., Olshen, R. and Stone, C. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Carbonell, J. G. 1989. Introduction: paradigms for machine learning. Artificial Intelligence 40, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flann, N. S. and Dietterich, T. G. 1989. A study of explanation-based methods for inductive learning. Machine Learning 4(2), 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holte, R. C., Acker, L. E. and Porter, B. W. 1989. Concept learning and the problem of small disjuncts. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 813–818. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., eds. 1982. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, C. R. 1986. Information architecture of the automated manufacturing research facility. Proceedings of the Information Technologies for Manufacturing Conference. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
Michalski, R. S. 1986. Understanding of the nature of learning: issues and research directions. In Carbonell, J. G., Michalski, R. S. & Mitchell, T. M., eds, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. II, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Mingers, J. 1987. Expert systems—rule induction with statistical data. Journal of the Operational Research Society 38(1), 39–47.Google Scholar
Mingers, J. 1989 a. An empirical comparison of selection measures for decision-tree induction. Machine Learning 3(4), 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mingers, J. 1989 b. An empirical comparison of pruning methods for decision tree induction. Machine Learning 4(2), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, R., Shavlik, J., Towell, G. & Gove, A., 1989. An experimental comparison of symbolic and connectionist learning algorithms. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 775–780. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Niblett, T. and Bratko, I. 1986. Learning decision rules in noisy domains. In Bramer, M. A. ed. Research and Development in Expert Systems, III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. R. 1983. Learning efficient classification procedures and their application to chess end games. In Carbonell, J. G., Michalski, R. S. and Mitchell, T. M., eds. Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I, pp. 463–482. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. R. 1986 a. The effect of noise on concept learning. In Carbonell, J. G., Michalski, R. S. and Mitchell, T. M. eds. Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. II, pp. 149–166. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. R. 1986 b. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1(1), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, J. R. 1987 a. Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, J. R. 1987 b. Generating production rules from decision trees. Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 304–307. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Stirling, D. and Buntine, W. 1988. Process routings in a steel mill: a challenging induction problem. In Gero, J. S. and Stanton, R. eds. Artificial Intelligence Development and Applications, pp. 301–313. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. E. 1988. Practical Planning: Extending the Classical AI Planning Paradigm. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar