A Creative Analogy Machine: Results and Challenges: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „ == Reference == Diarmuid O’Donoghue and Mark T. Keane: A Creative Analogy Machine: Results and Challenges. In: Computational Creativity 2012 ICCC 201…“) |
(→Abstract) |
||
| Zeile 9: | Zeile 9: | ||
Are we any closer to creating an autonomous model of | Are we any closer to creating an autonomous model of | ||
analogical reasoning that can generate new and creative | analogical reasoning that can generate new and creative | ||
| − | analogical comparisons? A three-phase model of | + | analogical comparisons? A three-phase model of analogical reasoning is presented that encompasses the |
| − | |||
phases of retrieval, mapping and inference validation. | phases of retrieval, mapping and inference validation. | ||
| − | The model of the retrieval phase maximizes its | + | The model of the retrieval phase maximizes its creativity by focusing on domain topology, combating the semantic locality suffered by other models. The mapping |
| − | |||
| − | |||
model builds on a standard model of the mapping | model builds on a standard model of the mapping | ||
phase, again making use of domain topology. A novel | phase, again making use of domain topology. A novel | ||
| − | validation model helps ensure the quality of the | + | validation model helps ensure the quality of the inferences that are accepted by the model. We evaluated the |
| − | |||
ability of our tri-phase model to re-discover several h- | ability of our tri-phase model to re-discover several h- | ||
creative analogies (Boden, 1992) from a background | creative analogies (Boden, 1992) from a background | ||
memory containing many potential source domains. | memory containing many potential source domains. | ||
| − | The model successfully re-discovered all creative | + | The model successfully re-discovered all creative comparisons, even when given problem descriptions that |
| − | |||
more accurately reflect the original problem – rather | more accurately reflect the original problem – rather | ||
| − | than the standard (post hoc) representation of the | + | than the standard (post hoc) representation of the analogy. Finally, some remaining challenges for a truly |
| − | |||
autonomous creative analogy machine are assessed. | autonomous creative analogy machine are assessed. | ||
Version vom 2. Februar 2015, 10:26 Uhr
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Diarmuid O’Donoghue and Mark T. Keane: A Creative Analogy Machine: Results and Challenges. In: Computational Creativity 2012 ICCC 2012.
DOI
Abstract
Are we any closer to creating an autonomous model of analogical reasoning that can generate new and creative analogical comparisons? A three-phase model of analogical reasoning is presented that encompasses the phases of retrieval, mapping and inference validation. The model of the retrieval phase maximizes its creativity by focusing on domain topology, combating the semantic locality suffered by other models. The mapping model builds on a standard model of the mapping phase, again making use of domain topology. A novel validation model helps ensure the quality of the inferences that are accepted by the model. We evaluated the ability of our tri-phase model to re-discover several h- creative analogies (Boden, 1992) from a background memory containing many potential source domains. The model successfully re-discovered all creative comparisons, even when given problem descriptions that more accurately reflect the original problem – rather than the standard (post hoc) representation of the analogy. Finally, some remaining challenges for a truly autonomous creative analogy machine are assessed.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
Used References
Boden, M. 1992. The Creative Mind. London: Abacus.
Bohan, A. O’Donoghue, D.P. 2000. A Model for Geomet- ric Analogies using Attribute Matching, Proc AICS, Gal- way, Ireland, pp 110-119.
Brown, T.L. 2003. Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. University of Illinois Press, New York, USA.
Clement, J. 2008. Creative Model Construction in Scien- tists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Davies, J. Goel, A.K. Yaner P.W. 2008. Pro- teus:Visuospatial analogy in problem-solving, Knowledge- Based Systems 21(7): 636-654.
Dunbar, K. and Blanchette, I. 2001. The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(8): 334–339.
Falkenhainer, B. 1990 A Unified Approach to Explanation and Theory Formation, in Shrager, J. & Langley, P. (eds.) Computational Models of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation, Morgan Kaufman: CA. pp 157-196.
Forbus, K. Gentner, D. Law K. 1995. MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval, Cognitive Science, 19(2): 141-205.
Forbus, K. Usher, J. Lovett, A Lockwood, K. Wetzel J. 2011. CogSketch: Sketch Understanding for Cognitive Science Research and for Education, Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(4): 648–666.
Gentner, D. Kurtz, J. 2006. Relations, Objects, and the Composition of Analogies, Cognitive Science, 30(4): 609– 642.
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Science, 7(2): 155–170.
Gomes P, Seco N, Pereira FC, Paiva P, Carreiro P, Ferreira JL, Bento C. 2006. The importance of retrieval in creative design analogies, Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(7): 480– 488.
Holyoak K. J. Novick L. Melz E. 1994. Component Proc- esses in Analogical Transfer: Mapping, Pattern Comple- tion and Adaptation, in Analogy, Metaphor and Remind- ing, Eds. Barnden and Holyoak, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Keane, M.T. 1985. On Drawing Analogies When Solving Problem, British Journal of Psychology, 76: 449-458.
Keane, M.T., Bradshaw, M. 1988. The Incremental Ana- logical machine: In D. Sleeman (Ed.) 3rd European Work- ing Session on Machine Learning, Kaufmann CA: 53–62.
Keane, M.T., Ledgeway, T. Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping, Cognitive Science, 18: 387-438.
O'Donoghue, D.P. 2007. Statistical Evaluation of Process- Centric Computational Creativity: 4th International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity (IJWCC), Gold- smiths, University of London, 17-19 June.
O'Donoghue, D.P, Bohan, A. Keane M.T, 2006. Seeing Things: Inventive Reasoning with Geometric Analogies and Topographic Maps, New Generation Computing, Ohmsha Ltd. and Springer 24(3): 267-288.
O'Donoghue, D.P. Crean, B. 2002. Searching for Seren- dipitous Analogies, ECAI - Workshop on Creative Systems, Lyon, France, 21-26 July.
Pazzani, M. 1991. A Computational Theory of Learning Causal Relationships, Cognitive Science, 15(3): 401-424.
Plate T. 1998. Structured Operations with Distributed Vec- tor Representations, in Advances in Analogy Research, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Ritchie G. 2007. Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program, Minds & Machines, 17: 67–99.
Ritchie G. 2001. Assessing Creativity, Proc. AISB Sympo- sium on AI and Creativity, York, March.
Thagard, P. Holyoak K. J. Nelson, G. Gochfeld, D. 1990. Analogue Retrieval by Constraint Satisfaction, Artificial Intelligence, 46: 259-10.
Veale, T. 1995. Metaphor, Memory and Meaning, PhD Thesis, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Wolverton M. Hayes-Roth, B. 1994. Retrieving Semanti- cally Distant Analogies with Knowledge-Directed Spread- ing Activation, Proceedings AAAI, pp 56-61.
Yaner, P.W. Goel A.K. 2006 Visual analogy: Viewing analogical retrieval and mapping as constraint satisfaction problems, Applied Intelligence, 25(1): 91-105.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/017-ODonoghue.pdf
