EP1459253A2

EP1459253A2 - Selective solution determination for a multiparametric system

Info

Publication number: EP1459253A2
Application number: EP02719927A
Authority: EP
Inventors: Peter Gschwender
Original assignee: Wittenstein SE
Current assignee: Wittenstein SE
Priority date: 2001-08-06
Filing date: 2002-02-26
Publication date: 2004-09-22
Also published as: US20060253829A1; WO2003015024A3; DE10137790A1; WO2003015024A2

Abstract

The invention relates to one or more solutions for a multiparametric system. An input (10) of values and/or value ranges is effected for a multitude of parameters by means of which the solution finding should occur. In addition, an input (20) of a definition of one or more relationships between the parameters and/or of one or more exclusion criteria, which should serve to exclude certain possible solutions, is/are effected. Solutions of this type from a possibility search space (30), which are excluded by the input relationships and/or by exclusion criteria, are discarded, whereby the possibility search space has solutions that are possible on the basis of the parameter input. The solutions (50) that are not discarded from the possibility search space are finally presented, for example, to a user.

Description

Selective solution finding for a highly parametric

system

The present invention relates to a method for determining one or more solutions for a multi-parameter system, in particular for software, and a device and a system for determining one or more solutions.

With many of the calculation programs currently available for determining the solution for a multi-parametric system, a user has to enter a series of data on the basis of which corresponding results are determined by a calculation program. If several variants are examined, the user must create them independently. From the multitude of all solutions the user has to apply various decision criteria and under certain circumstances

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Carrying out external interim calculations carry out a selection process until a solution that is acceptable to him is found.

In an example of such a calculation program, a suitable toothing of a transmission is to be found. Possible parameters for the gearbox can be the height and width of the teeth, the tooth helix angle, the materials used, surface treatment methods, etc., to name just a few of the possible parameters. For many applications, this can be 10, 20 or significantly more different parameters. The calculation program then uses the entered values to calculate values for specified output parameters, such as in this example, e.g. security against tooth breakage, surface fatigue, noise, forces, etc.

Each combination of values of the input parameters provides one or more results of values for corresponding output parameters.

Especially in the technical area, this procedure requires a high degree of specialist knowledge, extensive knowledge, for example, of software used for the calculation program and a considerable amount of time, since it is always necessary to examine several variants for their suitability for the solution sought, to compare them with one another and, if necessary, with regard to each other current criteria are subject to an evaluation scheme (ranking). The information content of the ultimately selected solution (s) is then typically processed in a wide variety of ways and processed in the form of documentation or an offer.

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Depending on the performance of the calculation program used, the solution is found manually according to the "trial and error" principle, so that many less suitable variants are generated during the solution finding, which ultimately place an unnecessary burden on the decision-making process. In the case of critical interpretations of the selected input parameters, the number of unsuitable variants often exceeds the number of suitable solutions, usually even many times over. The search for realizable solutions is then similar to the search for the pin in a haystack.

In cases where there is no feasible solution, the search (albeit senseless) takes the longest until the final task, with one

Uncertainty remains whether an existing solution has not been overlooked.

With many calculation programs, an unergonomic user guidance and frequent appearance of various warning and error messages usually make the search for a solution additionally confusing or ineffective and quickly lead to frustration and rejection for the user.

If the search for a solution has to be carried out under time pressure, it is usually aborted after a first solution has been found. The search for better solutions or even the best solution must be avoided due to time constraints. Any optimization potential that is still available is not used and in extreme cases may even serve the competitor as a starting point for attacks of any kind.

In the case of calculation programs that do not devise any solution variants, the user has to design an organization system himself, and this through several individual calculations

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Archive found solutions accordingly. If this is neglected or is not carried out with the required consequence, knowledge of the origins of the variants and their context can be forgotten and subsequently no longer transparent. Joint project work by several employees or handover to other employees is also made extremely difficult.

It is therefore an object of the present invention to improve the finding of a suitable solution in a multi-parameter system.

The features of claim 1 and the subordinate claims lead to achieving this object.

In a determination program according to the present invention for determining one or more solutions for a multi-parameter system, a definition of values and / or value ranges for a multiplicity of parameters takes place in one input, by means of which the solution is to be found. In addition to the parameter values, relationships between the parameters can also be defined, e.g. by entering rankings, dependencies, conditions, etc. with each other. Furthermore, exclusion criteria (so-called knockout criteria) can be defined, which should serve to exclude certain possible solutions.

It is readily apparent that the relationships, exclusion criteria, etc. between the parameters can also be defined before or after entering the parameter values, so that these steps do not have to be carried out at the same time. In addition, these steps can also be carried out by different people, entities, institutions, Groups etc. In other words, these steps can be completely independent of one another, both in terms of time and in terms of personnel, whereby “personnel” is not necessarily restricted to persons, but also includes automated or automated processes. For example, the parameter value input by a user / Users of a software specified for this purpose are carried out while the relationships, exclusion criteria, etc. between the parameters, for example, are predefined in whole or in part by an operator of this software can be specified (e.g. with the help of predefined or definable profiles or based on experience, history, etc.) Furthermore, this definition can also be specified for specific users / user groups, such as for beginners / beginners / advanced / professionals or for certain professional groups (e.g. Install ateurs / architects / DIYers / builders) etc.

Furthermore, a selection of parameters and / or relationships, exclusion criteria, etc. can be specified between parameters for their input / definition depending on the respective user. For example, based on a respective user / user profile, only a selection of 3 parameters Pl, P2 and P3 can be specified for a user A for input, while a user B not only 5 parameters Pl, P2, P4, P5 and P6 but also certain relationships, exclusion criteria, etc. between these parameters can be specified for input. According to what has been said, these or other parameters and / or relationships, exclusion criteria, etc., which are then used to determine the solution, can then be used for different purposes Users / users can also be pre-assigned, specified or defined differently. The respective needs, requirements or problems of the respective users / users can be considered individually.

On the basis of the parameter value input, a possibility search space is defined which has the possible combinations based on the parameter value input. This possibility search space is then searched by a solution search engine according to the relationship (s) of the parameters defined in the input, and these relationships and / or the undesired solutions defined by exclusion criteria are rejected from the possibility search space. In the case of a defined ranking relationship between the parameters, the possibility search space cleaned of the undesired solutions is sorted accordingly into a selection list. The selection list is then transferred to the user, who can then revise the selection list. In this way, one or any number of solution variants can be selected for further processing, or the scope of the selection list can be reduced using any other criteria, so that e.g. optimal solutions are immediately visible. Optionally, a list of or some of the solutions discarded from the search space can also be transferred, for example to make the search for the solution more transparent to the user or for troubleshooting or further improvement of the search for solutions. Furthermore, the shape or format can be adapted for the respective transfer to or for the user, so that, for example, the data can be configured specifically for the user's software (e.g. for further processing of this data).

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE In a preferred embodiment, the selection list for at least one solution variant has a link to an associated document, which represents this solution variant in the context of a desired application. For example, in the example mentioned at the beginning of determining a suitable gear toothing, the solution variant found can be specifically represented as a drawing and / or design profile specifically for the gear. The connection to the associated document can be designed so that customer-specific features are taken into account for the document, such as a customer-specific document layout, etc.

In a preferred embodiment of the determination program according to the invention, the parameters values can be fuzzy, i.e. the parameter values do not have to be quantized exactly, but relative values and relationships can be defined, for example. As a result, data entry can be adjusted dynamically and to the current problems of the application. Typical unsharp formulations can be: "It must be that ...", "It would not be bad if it was also ...", "But it should not ..." or "It doesn't matter if .. . ". Common means such as e.g. Fuzzy logic.

Due to the reduction of the search space in the selection list according to the invention, combinations which (for whatever reason) are not feasible or are not desired for other reasons are hidden and this eliminates the need for these less suitable or technically not

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE assess feasible variants and reject them accordingly. This eliminates the need for interaction with the user and, for example, in the case of software execution, the user interface can do without its own intelligence.

The operation of the investigation program is detached from the specialist knowledge by the invention and can thus be carried out by everyone straight away. The wrong selection of a non-working solution can be excluded from the outset. In a preferred exemplary embodiment, the determination program according to the invention is carried out by software, the input running locally or via a browser. This component does not need its own intelligence and can therefore be implemented as an HTML page or as a simple Java applet or CProgram. Due to the simple structure, any surface variants can be implemented if required, for example to address multilingualism.

The solution search engine is preferably executed on a server, which can be spatially distant from the input and is preferably optimized and specified for this application as a solution search engine.

Communication between the local input and the remote solution search engine can take place via any data network, such as a LAN, WAN or the Internet.

After receiving the selection list, a final selection can be made offline, i.e. separated from the solution search engine, which can ensure data security. A possible attacker only sees that

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Selection list, which is typically relatively useless due to its size and the associated wealth of data.

Instead of a sequential determination of the possibility search space and subsequent selection of the desired solutions for the selection list, these steps can also be combined with one another so that the selection list is generated immediately. As soon as a solution variant is recognized as not valid, it is immediately discarded. Only valid solution variants are retained and immediately added to the selection list. The separate step with the creation of the possibility search room is accordingly omitted. As already mentioned above, the solutions discarded from the search space can also e.g. in a separate list.

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Further advantages, features and details of the invention emerge from the following description of a preferred exemplary embodiment, which in its single FIG. 1 shows a schematically represented functional sequence.

FIG. 1 uses an arbitrary example to illustrate the functional sequence in a determination program according to the present invention and represents the principle of the invention. In order to find one or more solutions in a multi-parameter system, parameter values are first defined in an input step 10. For this purpose, a large number of parameters A, B, C, ... values or sets of values are assigned. In the example according to FIG. 1, a parameter A is assigned a value range 10 to 15, a parameter B a value range less than 30, a parameter C a value range not equal to 5 and a parameter D a value equal to 12.

In the example here, this parameter value assignment is to be carried out by a user of the determination program. However, the parameters for this assignment are specified by an operator of the determination program, and the parameter specification can be adapted to the respective user on the basis of a user profile, which the user can preferably define himself. The user profile can then be further adapted to the user (e.g., interactively or adaptively), for example by recognizing and omitting in the future those parameters that the respective user did not define or incorrectly defined.

In a further input step 20, further conditions or relationships of the parameters with one another and exclusion criteria (no specified criteria) can now be defined. In the example of Figure 1 is used as a rank relationship

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE for parameters A, C and D it is determined that A has priority over C and C has priority over D. Furthermore, it is defined as an exclusion criterion that the value for a solution parameter k must not be less than 100. The solution must also meet a DIN 4711 standard. Finally, the condition between parameters A and B defines that A must not be greater than 12 if B is less than 20.

In the example here, the definition of part of these conditions, relationships or exclusion criteria is intended to be carried out by the user of the determination program, while the remaining part thereof has already been predefined by an operator of the determination program (for example based on a predetermined user profile).

A possibility search space 30 is now determined for the parameter values defined in step 10, which represents a multiplicity of solutions 40, each of which e.g. be defined by values of solution parameters. In FIG. 1, for example, solution No. 1 has a value of 200 for a solution parameter k and a value of 17 for a solution parameter 1.

It can be seen that, in particular for value range specifications for parameters (in step 10), the gradations in which these ranges are to be considered must be defined in a previous configuration step. Without a definition, a specification can also be assumed for a gradation if the user does not change it. Depending on the selected gradation density, the search space is increased or reduced. In the example of FIG. 1, for example, that should be configured for the value range 10 - 15 of parameter A an integer gradation should take place so that the values 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are considered for parameter A. Correspondingly, for example, parameter B should be graduated in steps of five so that the values 25, 20, 15, ... are considered.

After the possibility search space 30 has been spanned, the number of solutions 40 is narrowed down using the criteria 20. In the example in FIG. 1, solution no. 2 is discarded, for example, since the value of the solution parameter k is 80 and thus the knockout criterion (knockout if k <100) is met. Solution No. 4 is discarded, for example, because the criterion (not A> 12 if B <20) is met and this solution is therefore not accepted. Solution No. 8 should be discarded here because this solution does not meet the required DIN 4711.

The remaining solution variants are then selected from the options search space 30 and arranged in a selection list 50. For the arrangement of the solution variants in the selection list 60, predefined ranking criteria (in particular for the solution parameters of the solution variants) can be taken into account and the solution variants can be classified and displayed according to their ranks. In the example according to FIG. 1, the solutions 40 not sorted out from the possibility search space 30 are selected. The selection list therefore has the solution variants No. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The sorted out solutions can also be handed over to the user on request, e.g. for troubleshooting or process optimization.

In a preferred embodiment, everyone The selected solution variant is also assigned at least one document 60 which represents this solution variant in the context of the desired application. In the example according to FIG. 1, a solution (not shown) is assigned to the solution variant via a so-called hyperlink LINK01, which specifies the solution number 1 found and represents a gearbox in accordance with this solution in a drawing. Correspondingly, solution number 3 is assigned a document via a hyperlink LINK02, etc.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the input steps 10 and 20 take place locally on a computer or in a browser. Since these steps 10 and 20 do not require any intelligence of their own, they can easily be implemented, for example, as an HTML page, simple Java applet or CProgram. In contrast, the search space 30 is preferably determined on a server specially designed and optimized for this purpose, which is located at a distance from the computer used for the input steps 10 and 20. Correspondingly, the solution search engine required for the construction of the selection list 50 also runs on this or a correspondingly different server and can, for example, be an AnsiC program optimized for speed. When implemented in AnsiC, the search engine can be compiled for any platform including UNICOS.

Instead of a sequential determination of the possibility search space 30 and the selection of the desired solutions for the selection list 50, these steps can also be combined with one another, so that the selection list 50 is generated immediately. As soon as a solution variant is recognized as not valid, it is immediately discarded. Only valid solution variants are retained and immediately entered into the

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Selection list 50 added. The separate step with the creation of the possibility search space 30 is accordingly omitted.

The selection list 50 is preferably displayed and processed using a spreadsheet program. Documentation 60 can consist of ready-made templates (e.g. HTML templates), into which only the current parameters are incorporated when called. The layout design can thus be carried out by each user if required.

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE

Claims

P a t e n t a n s r u c h e

Method for determining one or more solutions for a multi-parameter system, with the steps:

(a) input (10) of values and / or value ranges for a large number of parameters by means of which the solution is to be found,

(b) entering (20) a definition of one or more relationships between the parameters and / or one or more exclusion criteria which are intended to exclude certain possible solutions,

(c) discarding those solutions from a possibility search space (30) which are excluded by the entered relationships and / or by the exclusion criteria, the possibility search space having the possible solutions based on the parameter value input, and

(d) Passing the solutions not discarded from the search space

(50).

The method of claim 1, wherein step (c) comprises the steps of:

(cl) determining the possibility search space (30) which has the possible solutions based on the parameter value input, and (c2) Search the possibility search space for the solutions to be rejected.

3. The method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein in step (d) the not rejected solutions are transferred in a selection list.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the selection list is sorted, preferably according to at least one solution parameter of the solutions.

5. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein in step (b) the input of at least one relationship from ranking, dependency or conditions.

6. The method according to one of the preceding claims, with a step before step (d) of assigning at least one document (60) to at least one solution, the document representing this solution variant in the context of a desired application.

7. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein at least in one of the input steps (a) or (b) there is a fuzzy definition, preferably by means of relative values and / or relationships to one another.

8. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the input steps (a) and (b) are independent of one another in terms of time and / or personnel.

9. The method according to one of the preceding Claims, wherein the input steps (a) and (b) are carried out in reverse order in time and / or by different people, entities, institutions, groups etc.

10. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein at least one of the input steps

(a) and (b) is carried out in whole or in part by a user / user, while the input steps which are not carried out in whole or in part by the user / user are carried out by another person.

11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the other person carries out the input steps which are not carried out in whole or in part by the user / user individually or in a group-specific manner directed at the user / user.

12. The method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein in at least one of the input steps (a) and (b) there is a specification for the input specified for the user / user, preferably on the basis of a respective user / user profile.

13. A software program or product, preferably stored on a data carrier, which is adapted to carry out the method according to one of the preceding claims when it runs on a data processing system, such as a computer.

14. Device for determining one or more solutions for a multi-parameter system, comprising: a unit for entering (10) values and / or value ranges for a multiplicity of parameters by means of which the solution is to be found, and for entering (20) a definition of one or more relationships between the parameters and / or one or more exclusion criteria associated therewith serve to exclude certain possible solutions,

a unit for rejecting those solutions from a possibility search space (30) which are determined by the entered relationships and / or by the

Exclusion criteria are excluded, with the

Possibility search space which has possible solutions based on the parameter value input, and

a unit for transferring the solutions (50) not discarded from the search space.

15. A system for determining one or more solutions for a multi-parameter system, comprising:

a first local data processing unit adapted for entering values and / or ranges of values for a large number of parameters by means of which the solution is to be found and for entering a definition of one or more relationships between the parameters and / or one or more exclusion criteria which are intended to serve certain purposes to rule out possible solutions,

a second data processing unit adapted to reject those solutions from a search space that are given by the entered relationships and / or by the

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE Exclusion criteria are excluded, and for transferring the solutions not rejected from the search space, the search space having the possible solutions based on the parameter value input.

16. The system of claim 15, wherein the first local data processing unit does not have its own intelligence and preferably has an HTML page, a Java applet and / or a CProgram.

17. The system of claim 15 or 16, wherein the second data processing unit comprises a solution search engine.

18. The system according to any one of claims 15 to 17, wherein communication between the first and the second data processing unit takes place via a data network, preferably a LAN, WAN or the Internet.

BESTATIGUNGSKOPIE