IP Library Granted Patent US 7,617,171
Granted Patent B2
US 7,617,171 · App. 11/106,275 · Granted Nov 10, 2009

Process for the iterative construction of an explanatory model

Assignee: Intercim
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 7,617,171
App. No.
11/106,275
Granted
Nov 10, 2009
Kind
B2
Abstract

A process for iterative construction of an explanatory model including at least one rule calculated from a plurality of experiments, each of which rules is associated with at least one indicator of the quality of a corresponding rule including determining a rule, of a set of new experiments in an application space, conducting the new experiments to obtain the corresponding results, and calculating and optionally updating indicators of quality of the rule as a function of the experiments and of corresponding results.

Claims (27)

1. A method implemented by a computer programmed as a rule generation apparatus for iterative construction of an explanatory model of an industrial process, the method comprising:

determining, by a processor of the computer, based on experimental data obtained from the industrial process, a rule in the explanatory model that explains at least a part of the experimental data;

displaying the determined rule to a user and allowing the user to modify the rule;

determining a set of new experiments for evaluating the rule;

conducting the determined new experiments to obtain corresponding results;

calculating at least one quality indicator that indicates a quality of the determined rule based on the corresponding results of the experiments; and

determining whether the at least one quality indicator satisfies predetermined conditions for including the rule in the explanatory model of the industrial process.

2. The method according to claim 1 , further comprising:

determining new rules from initial experiments and from the new experiments when the at least one quality indicator is not satisfactory.

3. The method according to claim 1 , further comprising:

modifying at least one initial rule determined from initial experiments and from the new experiments when the at least one quality indicator is not satisfactory.

4. The method according to claim 1 , wherein an initial set of rules is empty.

5. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the steps of determining new experiments and conducting new experiments are repeated until the at least one quality indicator satisfies the predetermined conditions.

6. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the steps of determining new experiments and conducting new experiments are repeated as long as the at least one quality indicator improves between two cycles.

7. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is realized manually for certain experiments of the new experiments.

8. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed, at least for certain experiments, by maximizing a foreseeable effect of the new experiments on the rule.

9. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed taking account of a parameter representative of an expense of the new experiments.

10. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed taking account of a parameter representative of feasibility of the new experiments.

11. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed at least for certain experiments by maximizing a compromise between a foreseeable effect of the new experiments on the rule and a number of new experiments.

12. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed at least for certain experiments by maximizing a compromise between a foreseeable effect of the new experiments on the rule and a cumulative expense of the new experiments.

13. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the step of determining new experiments is performed at least for certain experiments by maximizing distances two-by-two between initial experiments and the new experiments in an application space of the rule.

14. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a quality indicator indicating one of an interest, purity, relative size, robustness, sensitivity, complexity, density, and volume of the rule.

15. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a purity of the rule.

16. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a robustness of the rule.

17. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a complexity of the rule.

18. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a volume of the rule.

19. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one quality indicator includes a density of the rule.

Assignments (3)
MERGER Recorded Feb 28, 2014
From: INTERCIM
To: DASSAULT SYSTEMES SA
Reel/Frame 032321/0312 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Jun 30, 2008
From: PERTINENCE
To: INTERCIM
Reel/Frame 021168/0804 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 8, 2005
From: KERISIT, JEAN-MARC; BOUSQUET, OLIVIER
To: PERTINENCE, A CORPORATION OF FRANCE
Reel/Frame 016618/0406 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20060235815A1 · Oct 19, 2006