Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Automated Critique of Sketched Mechanisms Jon Wetzel and Ken Forbus Qualitative Reasoning Group Northwestern University.

Published byFelicia Haynes Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Automated Critique of Sketched Mechanisms Jon Wetzel and Ken Forbus Qualitative Reasoning Group Northwestern University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Automated Critique of Sketched Mechanisms Jon Wetzel and Ken Forbus Qualitative Reasoning Group Northwestern University

2 Outline Motivation Algorithm –Input: CogSketch –State Transition Verification Generate requirements from sketches Make predictions using QM Verify that predictions reflect requirements Evaluation Related Work Future Work

3 Motivation Engineering Design and Communication Course at Northwestern University http://www.segal.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/edc/

4 Example Sketch of EDC project Palm-actuated one-handed fingernail clipper

5 Long-term Goal: Design Buddy Given: An explanation consisting of… Return: –Is the explanation logically consistent? –Why or why not? –Provide feedback that improves users’ communication skills SketchesLanguage-like input +

6 Outline Motivation Algorithm –Input: CogSketch –State Transition Verification Generate requirements from sketches Make predictions using QM Verify that predictions reflect requirements Evaluation Related Work Future Work

7 Critique of Sketched Mechanisms Critique is a three-step process 1.Derive a set of state transition requirements using the qualitative representation of a sketch 2.Use qualitative mechanics (QM) to predict outcome of each state Qualitative mechanics (Wetzel and Forbus, 2008) based on Nielsen (1988) and Kim (1993) 3.Compare prediction with requirements

8 Input: CogSketch User draws three categories of things –Objects –Annotations –Relations User labels each using our ontology (based on OpenCyC KB) No reliance on recognition, except for arrows

9 Input: CogSketch Sketches include knowledge representation (isa PalmRest RigidObject) (isa Spring1 Spring-Device) (forceApplied PalmRest Down)...

10 Input: CogSketch CogSketch computes spatial relations (touchesDirectly PalmRest LeverArm) (connectedTo-Directly Spring1 LeverArm) (QualitativeVectorBetween (tail ForceArrow1) (head ForceArrow1) Down)

11 Input: CogSketch Multiple subsketches One subsketch per mechanical state Up (open) positionDown (closed) position

12 Each sketch has a metalayer Contains all of the subsketches User draws relation arrows indicating cause-effect relationship Input: CogSketch

13 Outline Motivation Algorithm –Input: CogSketch –State Transition Verification Generate requirements from sketches Make predictions using QM Verify that predictions reflect requirements Evaluation Related Work Future Work

14 State Transition Verification Input: CogSketch sketch with labeled state transitions Output: Comparison of requirements and verification 1.Sketches depict the required result of previous state 2.Qualitative mechanics predicts state behaviors 3.Verify the predicted behavior makes required results

15 Step 1/3: Derive Requirements Spatial relations are computed between subsketches (relativePositionChange State1 State2 PalmRest ClipperFrame Down) (q-2D-orientation State1 PalmRest Horizontal) (q-2D-orientation State2 PalmRest Horizontal)...

16 Step 1/3: Derive Requirements Spatial relations become the state transition requirements. (relativePositionChange State1 State2 PalmRest ClipperFrame Down) (q-2D-orientation State1 PalmRest Horizontal) (q-2D-orientation State2 PalmRest Horizontal)... To go from state1 from state2, PalmRest must move down. To go from state1 from state2, PalmRest must not rotate.... RequirementsSpatial Relations

17 Step 2/3: QM Predicts Behavior Each requirement becomes a query for the initial state. To go from state1 from state2, PalmRest must move down. To go from state1 from state2, PalmRest must not rotate.... Query: (in State1 (transMotion PalmRest ?dir)) How will PalmRest translate? Query: (in State1 (rotMotion PalmRest ?dir)) How will PalmRest rotate?... Requirements Queries based on requirements

18 Step 2/3: QM Predicts Behavior Qualitative Mechanics rules generate prediction Last year: –Representation for forces, rigid objects and their surfaces –Rules propagate forces and motion between surface contacts New this year: –Non-rigid body: springs –Representation for surface textures –Gears Based on work by Nielsen (1988) and Kim (1993)

19 Step 2/3: QM Predicts Behavior Qualitative Mechanics rules generate prediction QM Query: (in State1 (transMotion PalmRest ?dir)) How will PalmRest translate? Query: (in State1 (rotMotion PalmRest ?dir)) How will PalmRest rotate?... (transMotion PalmRest Down)) PalmRest will move down. (rotMotion PalmRest CW)) PalmRest will rotate clockwise.... Result of verificationQueries based on requirements

20 Step 3/3: Compare Results Check to see if requirements are verified (transMotion PalmRest Down)) PalmRest will move down. (rotMotion PalmRest CW)) PalmRest will rotate clockwise.... To go from state1 to state2, PalmRest must move down. To go from state1 to state2, PalmRest must not rotate.... RequirementsResult of verification Disagree Indicates a possible bug in the design or explanation Agree

21 Outline Motivation Algorithm –Input: CogSketch –State Transition Verification Generate requirements from sketches Make predictions using QM Verify that predictions reflect requirements Evaluation Related Work Future Work

22 Evaluation Selected EDC projects from previous years –Mechanical systems –Could be easily represented in two dimensions Final corpus:16 student projects worked with CogSketch and our QM –6 were very similar to other projects, so 10 were sketched

23 Evaluation Success criterion: –Illustrate motions and forces in the design –Successful state transition verification All requirements correctly derived from sketch QM successfully verifies all requirements Result: succeeded on examples representing 15 of the 16 projects

24 Examples from EDC Projects

25

26

27

28 Related Work SketchIt (Stahovich et al, 1998) Recognition: ( Alvarado and Davis, 2004; Hammond & Davis, 2005; Kurtoglu and Stahovich, 2002) Physics simulation: (Alvarado and Davis, 2001)

29 Future Work Extend and improve QM –Use surface texture representation to implement friction –Automatically suggest axes of rotation –Predict possible outcomes from ambiguous input Studies with EDC students this Fall –Add interface for language-like input –Generate feedback which improves communication skills

30 Acknowledgements This research was supported by NSF SLC Grant SBE-0541957, the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC)

31 Examples from EDC Projects

Download ppt "Automated Critique of Sketched Mechanisms Jon Wetzel and Ken Forbus Qualitative Reasoning Group Northwestern University."

Similar presentations

Intelligent Technologies Module: Ontologies and their use in Information Systems Revision lecture Alex Poulovassilis November/December 2009.

Intelligent Technologies Module: Ontologies and their use in Information Systems Revision lecture Alex Poulovassilis November/December 2009.
© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.

© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.
TAILS: COBWEB 1 [1] Online Digital Learning Environment for Conceptual Clustering This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation.

TAILS: COBWEB 1 [1] Online Digital Learning Environment for Conceptual Clustering This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation.
Indexing 3D Scenes Using the Interaction Bisector Surface Xi Zhao He Wang Taku Komura University of Edinburgh.

Indexing 3D Scenes Using the Interaction Bisector Surface Xi Zhao He Wang Taku Komura University of Edinburgh.
Inferences The Reasoning Power of Expert Systems.

Inferences The Reasoning Power of Expert Systems.
What are we going to do? CFU Learning Objective Activate Prior Knowledge Standard 7.G.1 Verify experimentally the properties of Transformations 2. Our.

What are we going to do? CFU Learning Objective Activate Prior Knowledge Standard 7.G.1 Verify experimentally the properties of Transformations 2. Our.
Background information Formal verification methods based on theorem proving techniques and model­checking –to prove the absence of errors (in the formal.

Background information Formal verification methods based on theorem proving techniques and model­checking –to prove the absence of errors (in the formal.
Optimal Design Laboratory | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2011 Design Preference Elicitation Using Efficient Global Optimization Yi Ren Panos Y. Papalambros.

Optimal Design Laboratory | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2011 Design Preference Elicitation Using Efficient Global Optimization Yi Ren Panos Y. Papalambros.
Soul Envoy Final Year Project 22nd April 2006 By Zhu Jinhao.

Soul Envoy Final Year Project 22nd April 2006 By Zhu Jinhao.
Chapter 2- Visual Basic Schneider

Chapter 2- Visual Basic Schneider
Management Support Systems A Hierarchy and a Guide.

Management Support Systems A Hierarchy and a Guide.
Spatial Reasoning for Semi-Autonomous Vehicles Using Image and Range Data Marjorie Skubic and James Keller Students: Sam Blisard, George Chronis, Grant.

Spatial Reasoning for Semi-Autonomous Vehicles Using Image and Range Data Marjorie Skubic and James Keller Students: Sam Blisard, George Chronis, Grant.
08/07/041 CSE-221 Digital Logic Design (DLD) Lecture-8:

08/07/041 CSE-221 Digital Logic Design (DLD) Lecture-8:
ECE 667 - Synthesis & Verification1 ECE 667 Spring 2011 Synthesis and Verification of Digital Systems Verification Introduction.

ECE Synthesis & Verification1 ECE 667 Spring 2011 Synthesis and Verification of Digital Systems Verification Introduction.
Proof System HY-566. Proof layer Next layer of SW is logic and proof layers. – allow the user to state any logical principles, – computer can to infer.

Proof System HY-566. Proof layer Next layer of SW is logic and proof layers. – allow the user to state any logical principles, – computer can to infer.
Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall Chapter 7 - 1 Chapter 7: Expert Systems and Artificial Intelligence Decision Support.

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall Chapter Chapter 7: Expert Systems and Artificial Intelligence Decision Support.
Logic Design Outline –Logic Design –Schematic Capture –Logic Simulation –Logic Synthesis –Technology Mapping –Logic Verification Goal –Understand logic.

Logic Design Outline –Logic Design –Schematic Capture –Logic Simulation –Logic Synthesis –Technology Mapping –Logic Verification Goal –Understand logic.
1 Simulation Modeling and Analysis Verification and Validation.

1 Simulation Modeling and Analysis Verification and Validation.
Analyzing Student Responses to a Multiple Representation Problem Tara Bartiromo and Eugenia Etkina GSE Rutgers University NSF DRL-0733140.

Analyzing Student Responses to a Multiple Representation Problem Tara Bartiromo and Eugenia Etkina GSE Rutgers University NSF DRL
Lesson 6. Refinement of the Operator Model This page describes formally how we refine Figure 2.5 into a more detailed model so that we can connect it.

Lesson 6. Refinement of the Operator Model This page describes formally how we refine Figure 2.5 into a more detailed model so that we can connect it.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google