Model-Based Chemical Compound Formulation

  • Stefania Bandini
  • Alessandro Mosca
  • Matteo Palmonari
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 64)

Summary. Many connections have been established in recent years between Chemistry and Computer Science, and very accurate systems, based on mathematical and physical models, have been suggested for the analysis of chemical substances. However, such a systems suffer from the difficulties of processing large amount of data, and their computational cost grows largely with the chemical and physical complexity of the investigated chemical substances. This prevent such kind of systems from their practical use in many applicative domain, where complex chemical compound are involved. In this paper we proposed a formal model, based on qualitative chemical knowledge, whose aim is to overcome such computational difficulties. The model is aimed at integrating ontological and causal knowledge about chemical compounds and compound transformations. The model allowed the design and the implementation of a system, that is based on the well known Heuristic Search paradigm, devoted to the automatically resolution of chemical formulation problems in the industrial domain of rubber compounds.


Natural Rubber Description Logic Compound Formulation Label Transition System Rubber Compound 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Grant, G., Richards, W.: Computational Chemistry. Volume 29 of Oxford Chem-istry Primers. Oxford University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., Laloe, F.: Quantum Mechanics Volume I & II. John Wiley & Sons (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacQuarrie, D.: Quantum Chemistry. Prentice Hall (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond, B., Lester, W., Reynolds, P.: Monte Carlo Methods in Ab Initio Quantum Chemistry. World Scientific (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parr, R., Yang, W.: Density Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules. Oxford University Press (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffmann, W.: Rubber Technology Handbook. Oxford University Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkert, U., Allinger, N.: Molecular Mechanics. American Chemical Society (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlick, T.: Molecular Modeling and Simulation. Springer Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Young, D.: Computational Chemistry : A Practical Guide for Applying Tech-niques to Real World Problems. Wiley-Interscience (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mittal, S., Frayman, F.: Towards a generic model of configuration tasks. In: Proc. of the 11th IJCAI, Detroit, MI (1989) 1395-1401Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.J.: Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2 (1971) 189-208zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: Gps, a program that simulates human thought. In Feigenbaum, E.A., Feldman, J., eds.: Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill (1963)279-293Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green, C.C.: Theorem proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems. In Meltzer, Michie, eds.: Machine Intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1969)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green, C.C.: Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: IJCAI1. (1969)219-239Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Meltzer, B., Michie, D., eds.: Machine Intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press (1969) 463-502Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: The automatic inference of state invariants in tim. Journal of AI Research 9 (1998) 367-421zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerevini, A., Schubert, L.: Inferring state constraints for domain-independent planning. In: AAAI ’98/IAAI ’98: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National/Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence/Innovative Applications of Artificial intel-ligence, Menlo Park, CA, USA, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (1998)905-912Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borrett, J.E., Tsang, E.P.K.: A context for constraint satisfaction problem formulation selection. Constraints 6 (2001) 299-327zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Westfold, S., Smith, D.: Synthesis of efficient constraint satisfaction programs (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: ECAI ’92: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Artificial intelligence, New York, NY, USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1992) 359-363Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelli-gence 138 (2002) 39-54zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: ICLP. (1999) 23-37Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Representing transition systems by logic programs. In: LPNMR. (1999) 92-106Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Subrahmanian, V.S., Zaniolo, C.: Relating stable models and ai planning domains. In: ICLP. (1995) 233-247Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giunchiglia, F., Traverso, P.: Planning as model checking. In: ECP ’99: Proceed-ings of the 5th European Conference on Planning, London, UK, Springer-Verlag (2000)1-20Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spalazzi, L., Traverso, P.: A dynamic logic for acting, sensing, and planning. Journal of Logic Computation 10 (2000) 787-821zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, ii: the dlvk system. Artificial Intelligence 144 (2003) 157-211zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mosca, A.: A theoretical and computational inquiry into the Compounding Problem. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Systems, and Com-munication - University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Himmelblau, D.M., Riggs, J.B.: Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical Engineering. 7 edn. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Duncan, T.M., Reimer, J.A.: Chemical Engineering Design and Analysis, An introduction. Cambridge Series in Chemical Engineering. Cambridge University Press (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fine, K.: Compounds and aggregates. Nous 28 (1992) 137-158Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Husserl, E.: Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band. Untersuchungen zur Phnomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Halle: Niemeyer (1900/1901) [2nd ed. 1913; Eng. trans. by J. N. Findlay: Logical Investigations, Volume Two, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (1970)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rescher, N.: Axioms for the part relation. Philosophical Studies 6 (1955) 8-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Montague, R.: On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist 53 (1969) 159-194Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simons, P., Dement, C.: Aspects of the mereology of artifacts. In Poli, R., Simons, P., eds.: Computers and Thought. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1996) 255-276Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sattler, U.: Description logics for the representation of aggregated objects. In W. Horn, ed.: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gent, A.E.: Engineering with rubber, how to design rubber components. Hanser Publisher, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simons, P.: Parts: A Study In Ontology. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    White, J.L.: Rubber processing, Technology - Materials - Principles. Hanser Publisher, Munich Vienna New York (1995)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roberts, A.D., ed.: Natural rubber science and technology. Oxford University Press, Ney York (1988) s. 161.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Commun. ACM 19 (1976) 113-126CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Korf, R.E.: Artificial intelligence search algorithms. In: Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, CRC Press, 1999. CRC Press (1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Korf, R.E.: Search: A survey of recent results for Artificial Intelligence. In Shrobe, H.E., A.A., eds.: Exploring Artificial Intelligence: Survey Talks from the National Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, San Mateo, CA, Kaufmann (1988)197-237Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bandini, S., Manzoni, S., Sartori, F.: Knowledge maintenance and sharing in the KM context: the case of P-Truck. In Cappelli, A., Turini, F., eds.: AI*IA 2003: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of 8th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Pisa (I), September 2003. Volume 2829 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag (2003)499-510Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bandini, S., Mosca, A., Vanneschi, L.: Towards the use of genetic algorithms for the chemical formulation problem. In Manzoni, S., Palmonari, M., Sartori, F., eds.: Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2005), Workshop on Evolutionary Computation (GSICE 2005), Milano, Centro Copie Bicocca (2005) ISBN 88-900910-0-2.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1975)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Bandini
    • 1
  • Alessandro Mosca
    • 1
  • Matteo Palmonari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Systems and Communication (DISCo)University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations