Computational Models of Surprise as a Mechanism for Evaluating Creative Design
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Mary Lou Maher, Douglas Fisher and Kate Brady: Computational Models of Surprise as a Mechanism for Evaluating Creative Design. In: Computational Creativity 2013 ICCC 2013, 147-151.
DOI
Abstract
In this paper we consider how to evaluate whether a de- sign or other artifact is creative. Creativity and its eval- uation have been studied as a social process, a creative arts practice, and as a design process with guidelines for people to judge creativity. However, there are few ap- proaches that seek to evaluate creativity computational- ly. In prior work we presented novelty, value, and sur- prise as a set of necessary conditions when identifying creative designs. In this paper we focus on the least studied of these – surprise. Surprise occurs when expec- tations are violated, suggesting that there is a temporal component when evaluating how surprising an artifact is. This paper presents an approach to quantifying sur- prise by projecting into the future. We illustrate this ap- proach on a database of automobile designs, and we point out several directions for future research in as- sessing surprising and creativity generally.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Mary Lou Maher, Douglas Fisher and Kate Brady},
title = {Computational Models of Surprise as a Mechanism for Evaluating Creative Design},
editor = {Simon Colton, Dan Ventura, Nada Lavrac, Michael Cook},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2013},
year = {2013},
month = {Jun},
location = {Sydney, New South Wales, Australia},
pages = {147-151},
url = {http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2013/download/iccc2013-maher-brady-fisher.pdf, http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Computational_Models_of_Surprise_as_a_Mechanism_for_Evaluating_Creative_Design },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Amabile, T. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A con- sensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:997–1013.
Amabile, T. 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to ”The Social Psychology of Creativity”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Besemer, S., and O’Quin, K. 1987. Creative product analy- sis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument. Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics 367– 389.
Besemer, S. P., and O’Quin, K. 1999. Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal 12:287– 296.
Boden, M. 2003. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mecha- nisms, 2nd edition. Routledge.
Brown, D. C. 2012. Creativity, surprise and design: An introduction and investigation. In The 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2012), 75–84.
Cropley, D. H., and Cropley, A. J. 2005. Engineering crea- tivity: A systems concept of functional creativity. In Crea- tivity Across Domains: Faces of the muse, 169–185. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropley, D. H.; Kaufman, J. C.; and Cropley, A. J. 1991. The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly 35:128–134.
Cropley, D. H.; Kaufman, J. C.; and Cropley, A. J. 2011. Measuring creativity for innovation management. Journal Of Technology Management & Innovation
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Wolfe, R. 2000. New concep- tions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. Interna- tional handbook of giftedness and talent 2:81–91.
Dowlen, C. 2012. Creativity in Car Design – The Behavior At The Edges. A. Duffy, Y. Nagai, T. Taura (eds) Proceed- ings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Crea- tivity (ICDC2012), 253-262.
Forster, E., and Dunbar, K. 2009. Creativity evaluation through latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 602– 607.
Frey, L., and Fisher, D. 1999. Modeling decision tree per- formance with the power law. In Proceedings of the Sev- enth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 59–65. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Morgan Kaufmann.
Goldenberg, J., and Mazursky, D. 2002. Creativity In Product Innovation. Cambridge University Press.
Horn, D., and Salvendy, G. 2003. Consumer-based as- sessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Ser- vice Industries 16:155–175.
Horvitz, E.; Apacible, J.; Sarin, R.; and Liao, L. 2005. Pre- diction, expectation, and surprise: Methods, designs, and study of a deployed traffic forecasting service. In Proceed- ings of the 2005 Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence. AUAI Press.
Itti L. and Baldi P. (2004). A Surprising Theory of Attention, IEEE Workshop on Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition.
Maher, M. L., and Fisher, D. 2012. Using AI to evaluate creative designs. In A. Duffy, Y. Nagai, T. Taura (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2012), 45-54.
Oman, S., and Tumer, I. 2009. The potential of creativity metrics for mechanical engineering concept design. In Bergendahl, M. N.; Grimheden, M.; Leifer, L.; P., S.; and U., L., eds., Proceedings of the 17th International Confer- ence on Engineering Design (ICED’09), Vol. 2, 145–156.
Ranasinghe, N., and Shen, W.-M. 2004. A surprising theo- ry of attention. In IEEE Workshop on Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition.
Ranasinghe, N., and Shen, W.-M. 2008. Surprise-based learning for developmental robotics. In Proceedings of the 2008 ECSIS Symposium on Learning and Adaptive Be- haviors for Robotic Systems.
Rissland, E. (2009). Black Swans, Gray Cygnets and Other Rare Birds. In L. McGinty and D.C. Wilson (Eds.): ICCBR 2009, LNAI 5650, pp. 6–13, 2009. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-02998-1_2?LI=true#page-1
Runco, M. A. 2007. Creativity: Theories and Themes: Re- search, Development and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shah, J.; Smith, S.; and Vargas-Hernandez, N. 2003. Met- rics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24:111–134.
Wiggins, G. 2006. A preliminary framework for descrip- tion, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 16:449–458.
Links
Full Text
http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2013/download/iccc2013-maher-brady-fisher.pdf
