Using Argumentation to Evaluate Concept Blends in Combinatorial Creativity
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Roberto Confalonieri, Joe Corneli, Alison Pease, Enric Plaza and Marco Schorlemmer: Using Argumentation to Evaluate Concept Blends in Combinatorial Creativity. In: Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015, 174-181.
DOI
Abstract
This paper motivates the use of computational argumentation for evaluating ‘concept blends’ and other forms of combinatorial creativity. We exemplify our approach in the domain of computer icon design, where icons are understood as creative artefacts generated through concept blending. We present a semiotic system for representing icons, showing how they can be described in terms of interpretations and how they are related by sign patterns. The interpretation of a sign pattern conveys an intended meaning for an icon. This intended meaning is subjective, and depends on the way concept blending for creating the icon is realised. We show how the intended meaning of icons can be discussed in an explicit and social argumentation process modeled as a dialogue game, and show examples of these following the style of Lakatos (1976). In this way, we are able to evaluate concept blends through an open-ended and dynamic discussion in which concept blends can be improved and the reasons behind a specific evaluation are made explicit. In the closing section, we explore argumentation and the potential roles that can play at different stages of the concept blending process.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Confalonieri, Roberto and Corneli, Joe and Pease, Alison and Plaza, Enric and Schorlemmer, Marco},
title = {Using Argumentation to Evaluate Concept Blends in Combinatorial Creativity},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2015},
year = {2015},
month = {Jun},
location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
pages = {174-181},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/7_4Confalonieri.pdf },
url = {http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Using_Argumentation_to_Evaluate_Concept_Blends_in_Combinatorial_Creativity },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Abramsky, S., and Sadrzadeh, M. 2014. Semantic unification – A sheaf theoretic approach to natural language. In Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics, volume 8222 of LNCS, 1–13. Springer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Dunne, P. E. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15):619–641.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M.; Doutre, S.; and Dunne, P. E. 2002. Value-based argumentation frameworks. In Artificial Intelligence, 444–453.
Boden, M. A. 2003. The Creative Mind - Myths and Mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bou, F.; Eppe, M.; Plaza, E.; and Schorlemmer, M. 2014. D2.1: Reasoning with Amalgams. Technical report, COINVENT Project. http://www.coinventproject.eu/fileadmin/publications/D2.1.pdf.
Chandler, D. 2004. Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge.
Charnley, J.; Pease, A.; and Colton, S. 2012. On the notion of framing in computational creativiy. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 77–81.
Colton, S.; Pease, A.; and Charnley, J. 2011. Computational creativity theory: The FACE and IDEA descriptive models. In 2nd Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity.
Coulson, S., and Pascual, E. 2006. For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Ann. Rev. of Cognitive Linguistics 4:153–181.
Devereux, J., and Reed, C. 2010. Strategic argumentation in rigorous persuasion dialogue. In ArgMAS, volume 6057 of LNCS. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 94–113.
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2):321 – 357.
Falomir, Z.; Cabedo, L. M.; Abril, L. G.; Escrig, M. T.; and Ortega, J. A. 2012. A model for the qualitative description of images based on visual and spatial features. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 116(6):698–714.
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1998. Principles of conceptual integration. In Koenig, J. P., ed., Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Center for the Study of Language and Information. 269–283.
Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press.
Onta˜n´on, S., and Plaza, E. 2010. Amalgams: A formal approach for combining multiple case solutions. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Case Base Reasoning, volume 6176 of LNCS, 257–271. Springer.
Ouerdane, W.; Labreuche, C.; Maudet, N.; and Parsons, S. 2014. A dialogue game for recommendation with adaptive preference models. Technical report, Ecole Centrale Paris. Cahiers de recherche 2014-02.
Ouerdane, W. 2009. Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding: a Dialectical Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation, University Paris-Dauphine, Paris, France.
Pease, A.; Budzynska, K.; Lawrence, J.; and Reed, C. 2014. Lakatos Games for Mathematical Argument. In Proc. of COMMA, volume 266 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 59–66. IOS Press.
Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. and Comput. 15(6):1009–1040.
Rahwan, I., and Simari, G. R. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Publishing Company.
Schorlemmer, M.; Smaill, A.; K¨uhnberger, K.-U.; Kutz, O.; Colton, S.; Cambouropoulos, E.; and Pease, A. 2014. Coinvent: Towards a computational concept invention theory. In 5th Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity.
Walton, D., and Krabbe, E. C.W. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press.
Wells, S., and Reed, C. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic 10(4):309 – 329.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/7_4Confalonieri.pdf
