Искусственный интеллект в технологиях синтеза креативных решений
Аннотация и ключевые слова
Аннотация (русский):
Invention problem solving is connected to essential expenses of labour and time, which is spent on the procedures of search and ordering of necessary knowledge, on generation of probable vari-ants of projected systems, on the analysis of offered ideas and de-cisions and understanding perspectiveness of them. The present article outlines the results of the developments in the field of cre-ating computing technology of the synthesis of new engineering on the level of invention. The most attention is paid to problem of computer aided designing on initial stages, where synthesis of new on principal technical systems is carried out. Computer-aided con-struction of new technical system is based on using of data- and knowledge bases of physical effects and of technical decisions as well as different heuristic systematization procedures. The synthe-sis of principles of function of the technical new systems is carried out with using experts knowledge and requires the application of the artificial intelligence methods and the methods of the deci-sions making theory for invention's tasks. Considered approach has been used for synthesis of new technical systems of different functional purposes and had shown high efficiency in computer-aided construction.

Ключевые слова:
artificial intelligence invention, creative solutions, database, knowledge base, knowledge systematization, decisions making, morphological synthesis, hierarchy analysis, fuzzy sets, invention software
Текст произведения (PDF): Читать Скачать
Список литературы

1. Hubka, W. and Eder, W.E. (1992) Engineering Design, General Procedural Model of Engineering Design, Heurista,Zurich.

2. Koller, R. and Kastrup, N. (1994) Prinziplsungen zur Konstruktion techniseher Produkte, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

3. Altshuller, G. (1996) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared, Technical Innovation Centre, Worcester.

4. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

5. Andreasen, M.M. (1992) “The Theory of domains”, Proceedings Workshop Understanding Function Function-to-Form Evolution, Cambridge Engineering Design Centre.

6. Hundal, M.S. (1997) Cost-based Mechanical Designing and Product Development, ASME Press, New York.

7. Suh, N. (1993) Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, USA.

8. Andreichicov, A.V. (1995) “Computer Simulation and Modelling Synthesis of New Technical Decisions on the Invention Level”, Problems of Engineering and Automation, No.1-2, pp. 11-18.

9. Andreichicov, A.V. and Andreichicova, O.N. (1998) Computer Support of Invention, Machine Building Publisher, Moscow.

10. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: John Willey & Sons, 1976.

11. Moulin H. Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

12. Saaty T.L. Decision Making With Dependence And Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 2001.

13. Saaty T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 1994.

14. Andreichicov A.V. and Andreichicova O.N. (2001) “A choice of a perspective system for vibration isolation in conditions of varying environment”, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISAHP’2001, Bern, 13-24.

15. Andreichicova O.N. “A New Approach to the collective choice problem based on the compliance of mutual requirements of the participants”, Software and Computer Systems, 2001, No. 3, p. 24-27 (in Russian).

16. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw–Hill, New York NY.

17. Saaty, T.L. (1994) Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburg, PA: RWS Publications.

18. Saaty, T.L., Vargas L.G. (1994) Decision Making in Economic, Political, Social and Technological Environments with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburg, PA: RWS Publications.

19. Saaty, T.L. (1999) Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburg, PA: RWS Publications.

20. Saaty, T.L. (2001) Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

21. Saaty, T.L. (2005) Theory and Applications of the Analytic network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. Pittsburg, PA: RWS Publications.

22. Andreichicov A.V., Andreichicova O.N. (2003) The Analysis of the Technical Systems’ Evolution. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP’2003), August 7-9, 2003, Bali, Indonesia, p. 121-126.

23. Andreichicov A.V., Andreichicova O.N. (1999) Intelligent software based on AHP. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP'99), August 12-14, 1999, Kobe, Japan, p. 393-398.

24. Andreichicova O.N., Radyshevskaya T.N. (2009) An application of the Analytic Network Process to researching oral health. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol. 1, issue 1, 2009, pp. 45-60, http://ijahp.org.

25. Andreichicova O.N., Andreichicov A.V. (2009) Analytic Network Process as Qualitative Simulating Tool: Researching of Financial Crisis. Proceedings of 10th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process Multi-criteria Decision Making (ISAHP’2009), July 29 — August 1 2009, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, www.isahp.org

26. Brown M.F. (2003). Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge: Harvard University Press

27. Caves R.E. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28. Colston C. & Middleton K. (2005). Modern Intellectual Property Law. Cavendish Publishing, UK.

29. Cowen T. & Michael F. Brown. (2004). Who Owns Native Culture? Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 28, Issue 4, 317–323.

30. Saaty, T.L. (2001). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

31. Super Decisions software (2009). Software for the ANP, downloaded from the website http://www.superdecisions.com.

32. Bainbridge D.I. (2009). Intellectual Property. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson Longman.

33. Liebowitz S.J. (2003). Back to the Future: Can copyright owners appropriate revenues in the face of new technologies? The Economics of Copyright: Recent Developments and Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

34. Towse R. (2001). Creativity, Incentive and Reward: an economic analysis of copyright and culture in the Information Age. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

35. Hansen T.B. (1997). The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good. Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 21, 1–18.

36. H. Olsson. (2000). The Role of Copyright and Future Challenges to Creators, Industry, Legislators and Society at Large — Inventors’ and Creators’ Rights as Basic Human Rights. WIPO/IP/HEL/00/15, Available from URL: http://www.wipo.int.

37. Woodhead R. (2000). Tipping — a method for optimizing compensation for intellectual property. Available from URL: .

38. Andreichicova O.N. “A New Approach to the collective choice problem based on the compliance of mutual requirements of the participants”, Software and Computer Systems, 2001, No. 3, p. 24-27 (in Russian).

39. Hudson, J. Khazragui, H.F. (2013). Into the valley of death: Research to innovation. Drug Discovery Today, 18(13-14), 610-613. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.01.012

40. Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M.J., Makin, P.J. (2000). Barriers encountered during micro and small business start-up in North-West England. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,7(4), 295-304. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006852

41. Gompers, P. A., Lerner, J. (2004). The venture capital cycle (Second edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

42. Chemmanur, T., Krishnan, K., Debarshi K. Nandy. (2008). How does venture capital financing improve efficiency in private firms? A look beneath the surface. Review of Financial Studies,24(12), 4037-4090. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr096

43. Bertoni, F., Colombo, M.G., Grilli, L. (2011). Venture capital financing and the growth of high-tech start-ups: Disentangling treatment from selection effects. Research Policy,40(7), 1028-1043. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.03.008

44. Monika, D., Sharma, A.K. (2015). Venture capitalists’ investment decision criteria for new ventures: A review.” XVIII Annual International Conference of the Society of Operations Management (SOM-14). Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences,189, 465-470. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.195

45. Miloud, T., Aspelund, A., Cabrol, M. (2012). Startup valuation by venture capitalists: an empirical study. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance,14 (2-3), 151-174. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2012.667907

46. Narayanasamy, C., Hashemoghli, A., Rashid, R.M. (2012). Venture capital pre-investment decision making process: An exploratory study in Malaysia. Global Journal of Business Research, 6(5), 49-63.

47. Mousavi, S., Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1671-1678. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013

48. Zacharakis, A.L., Meyer, G.D. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process?” Journal of Business Venturing,13(1), 57-76. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00004-9

49. MacMillan, I.C., Zeman, L., SubbaNarasimha. P.N. (1987). Criteria distinguishing unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 123-137. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90003-6

50. Robinson, R.B. (1987). Emerging strategies in the venture capital industry. Journal of Business Venturing,2(1), 53–77. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90019-X

51. Hall, J. Hofer, C.W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing,8(1), 25–42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90009-T

52. Landström, H. (2007). Handbook of Research on Venture Capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.

53. Shepherd, D.A., Zacharakis. A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: a new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital,1(3), 197-217. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/136910699295866

54. Hsu, D. K, Haynie, J.M., Simmons, S.A., McKelvie, A. (2014). What matters, matters differently: a conjoint analysis of the decision policies of angel and venture capital investors. Venture Capital,16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.825527

55. Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D.A. (2004). A non-additive decision-aid for venture capitalists investment decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 162, 673–689. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.10.028

56. Zacharakis, A.L., Meyer, G.D. (2000). The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?” Journal of Business Venturing,15(4), 323-346. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00016-0

57. Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D.A. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists' decision making. Journal of Business Venturing,16(4), 311-332. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00052-X

58. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley & Sons.

59. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131. Doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

60. Dimov, D., Shepherd, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Requisite expertise,

61. firm reputation, and status in venture capital investment allocation decisions. Journal of Business Venturing,22(4), 481-502. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.001

62. Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., Cardon, M.S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing,27(5), 592-606. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.003

63. Woike, J.K., Hoffrage, U., Petty, J.S. (2015). Picking profitable investments: The success of equal weighting in simulated venture capitalist decision making. Journal of Business Research,68(8), 1705–1716. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.030

64. Beshah, B., Kitaw, D. (2013). AHP application in a financial institution. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,5(1), 54-71. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v5i1.135

65. Bhandari, A., Nakarmi, A. (2016). A financial perfomance evaluation of commercial banks in Nepal using AHP model. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 8(2), 318-333.Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i2.368

66. Saracoglu, B.O. (2015). An AHP application in the investment selection of small hydropower plants in Turkey. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 7(2), 211-239. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.198

67. Beim, G., Lévesque, M. (2004). Selecting projects for venture capital funding: A Multiple Criteria Decision approach. Technical Memorandum Number 791, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western University.

68. Pakizeh, K., Hosseini, M. (2015). Venture capital investment selection based on PROMETHEE. Applied Mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology, 3(1), 566-572.

69. Afful-Dadziea E, Oplatkováa, Z.K., Nabareseh, S. (2015). Selecting startup businesses in a public venture capital financing using Fuzzy PROMETHEE. 19th International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. Procedia Computer Science,60, 63-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.105

70. Lu, Z., Shen, Y. (2011). The study on venture capital project appraisal using AHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology,3(8), 50-56.

71. Su, H., Jiang, R. Ma, X. (2009_. Risk evaluation of venture capital based on AHP and grey relational analysis methods. International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 2009, 316-320. Doi: 10.1109/ICIII.2009.536

72. Gui-lan, Hu. (2011). An improved AHP-based evaluation study on the investment risk of venture capital company. Fourth International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling,2011, 17-20. Doi:10.1109/KAM.2011.12

73. Shijian, F. Yinyan, C. (2015). AHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of venture investment and financing system: Based on the case of incubation base in Anhui. Canadian Social Science,11(1), 148-153.

74. Wiratno, S., Latiffianti, E., Wirawan, K.K. (2015). Selection of business funding proposals using analytic network process: a case study at a venture capital company.” Industrial Engineering and Service Science. Procedia Manufacturing 4: 237-243. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg. 2015.11.037

75. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

76. Forbes, R. (2017). School of a young billionaire. http://www.forbes.ru/school

77. Milkova, M., Andreichikova, O. (2016). Software announcement: Multichoice as new software for decision making with Analytic Network Process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,8(2), 388-400.Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i2.413

78. Saaty, T.L. (2010). Principia mathematica decernendi: Mathematical principles of decision making: Generalization of the Analytic Network Process to neural firing and synthesis. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

79. Aczel, J., Saaty, T. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology,27(1), 93-102. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7

80. Lipovetsky, S. (2016). AHP structuring in best-worst scaling and the secretary problem. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 8(3), 502-513. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i3.332

81. Saaty, T.L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research,145, 85-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8

82. Koczkodaj, W.W., Szybowski. J. (2016). The limit of inconsistency reduction in pairwise comparisons. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science,26 (3), 721–729.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/amcs-2016-0050

83. Fedrizzia, M., Giove S. (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303-313. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.065

84. Bozóki, Sándor, János, Fülöp, Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52 (1-2), 318-333. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.02.047

85. Saaty, T.L. (2013). On the measurement of intangibles. A principal eigenvector approach to relative measurement derived from paired comparisons. Notices of the AMS,60(2), 192-208.

86. Timmons, J.A. Spinelli, S. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

87. Saaty, T.L., Vargas. L.G. (2006). Decision making with the Analytic Network Process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. New York: Springer.

88. Shepherd, D.A., Zacharakis, A. (2002). Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback. Journal of Business Venturing,17(1), 1-20. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00051-3

89. Leont’ev V.K., Shestakov V.T. and Voronin V.F. (2003) Estimation of the basic directions of dentistry development, Moscow: Medical book (in Russian).

90. Rybakov A.I. and Chelidze L.N. (1990), Anatomico-physiological features of an oral cavity and their significance in a pathology, Tbilisi: Metsnierba (in Russian).

91. Eriksen H.M. and Bjertness E. (1991), “Concepts of health and disease and caries prediction: a literature review”, Scand. J. Dent. Res., 99 (6), 476-483.

92. Hollister M.C. and Weintraub J.A. (1993), “The association of oral status with systemic health, quality of life and economic productivity”, J. Dent. Educ., 57 (12), 901-912.

93. Borovskiy E.V. and Leont’ev B.K. (1991) Biology of an oral cavity, Moscow: Medicine, (in Russian).

94. Andreichicova O.N. and Radyshevskaya T.N. (2003) “Application of Analytic Network Process for a forecasting of basic systems' health in the human organism”, Information Technologies, 7, 45-53 (in Russian).

95. Raiffa, H. Decision Analysis: Introductory Readings on Choices Under Uncertainty [Analiz reshenij (vvedenie v problemu vybora v uslovijah neopredelennosti)]. Moscow, Nauka publ., 1990, 562 p.

96. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs [Prinjatie reshenij pri mnogih kriterijah: predpochtenija i zameshhenija]. Moscow, Radio i svjaz’ publ., 1981, 486 p.

97. J. von Neumann., Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior [Teorija igr i ekonomicheskoe povedenie]. Moscow, Nauka publ., 1970, 306 p.

98. Andreychikov, A.V., Andreichikova, O. N. System analysis and synthesis of strategic decisions in Innovation: Innovation Framework for Strategic Management and Marketing [Sistemnyj analiz i sintez strategicheskih reshenij v innovatike: Osnovy strategicheskogo innovacionnogo menedzhmenta i marketinga]. Moscow, Librokom publ., 2011, 248 p.

99. Andreychikov, A.V., Andreichikova, O. N. Strategic management in innovative organizations. System analysis and decision making [Strategicheskij menedzhment v innovacionnyh organizacijah. Sistemnyj analiz i prinjatie reshenij]. Moscow, Infra-M publ., 2013, 396 p.

Войти или Создать
* Забыли пароль?