Can Human Assistance Improve a Computational Poet: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Reference == Carolyn E. Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles L.A. Clarke: Can Human Assistance Improve a Computational Poet? In: Bridges 2015. Pages 37…“) |
(kein Unterschied)
|
Version vom 23. Oktober 2015, 22:08 Uhr
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Carolyn E. Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles L.A. Clarke: Can Human Assistance Improve a Computational Poet? In: Bridges 2015. Pages 37–44
DOI
Abstract
Good computational poetry requires sufficiently interesting poetic phrases to be generated or chosen. Different metrics for determining what makes a sufficiently interesting phrase have rarely been directly compared. We directly compare of a number of metrics—topicality, sentiment, and concrete imagery—by collecting human judgments on each metric for the same data set of human-generated phrases, then having humans judge computationally generated poems chosen to include high-scoring phrases against each other. We find through a quantitative analysis that the output of at least some of these metrics is perceived as better than output using none of these metrics.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{bridges2015:37,
author = {Carolyn E. Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles L.A. Clarke},
title = {Can Human Assistance Improve a Computational Poet?},
pages = {37--44},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Bridges 2015: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture},
year = {2015},
editor = {Kelly Delp, Craig S. Kaplan, Douglas McKenna and Reza Sarhangi},
isbn = {978-1-938664-15-1},
issn = {1099-6702},
publisher = {Tessellations Publishing},
address = {Phoenix, Arizona},
note = {Available online at \url{http://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2015/bridges2015-37.html}}
}
Used References
[1] K. Burns. EVE’s energy in aesthetic experience: A bayesian basis for haiku humor. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts, 6:77–87, 2012.
[2] Simon Colton, Jacob Goodwin, and Tony Veale. Full face poetry generation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity, pages 95–102, 2012.
[3] Bel´en D´ıaz-Agudo, Pablo Gerv´as, and Pedro A Gonz´alez-Calero. Poetry generation in COLIBRI. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, pages 73–87. Springer, 2002.
[4] D Fox Harrell. Shades of computational evocation and meaning: The GRIOT system and improvisational poetry generation. In Proceedings, Sixth Digital Arts and Culture Conference, pages 133–143, 2005.
[5] Eliˇska Hartlov´a and FM Nack. Mobile social poetry with Tweets. Bachelor thesis, University of Amsterdam. 2013.
[6] Hussein Hirjee and Daniel G Brown. Using automated rhyme detection to characterize rhyming style in rap music. Empirical Musicology Review, 2010.
[7] Anna Katerina Jordanous. Evaluating computational creativity: a standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems and its application. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, 2013.
[8] Justine Kao and Dan Jurafsky. A computational analysis of style, affect, and imagery in contemporary poetry. In In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT 2012 Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature. Montreal, Canada, pages 8–17, 2012.
[9] Ruli Manurung, Graeme Ritchie, and Henry Thompson. Using genetic algorithms to create meaningful poetic text. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 24(1):43–64, 2012.
[10] Yael Netzer, David Gabay, Yoav Goldberg, and Michael Elhadad. Gaiku: Generating haiku with word associations norms. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, pages 32–39. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2009.
[11] Antonio Roque. Language technology enables a poetics of interactive generation. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 14(2), 2011.
[12] Dean Keith Simonton. Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 shakespeare sonnets. Computers and the Humanities, 24(4):251–264, 1990.
Links
Full Text
http://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2015/bridges2015-37.pdf
