Dependent Creativity: A Domain Independent Metric for the Assessment of Creative Artifacts
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Celso França, Luis Fabricio Wanderley Goes, Alvaro Amorim, Rodrigo Rocha and Alysson Ribeiro Da Silva-Regent: Dependent Creativity: A Domain Independent Metric for the Assessment of Creative Artifacts. In: Computational Creativity 2016 ICCC 2016, 68-75
DOI
Abstract
Humans are the ultimate judges on how creative is an artifact. In order to be creative, most researchers agree that an artifact has to be at least new and valuable. However, metrics to evaluate novelty and value are often craft for individual studies. Even within the same domain, these metrics commonly differ. Although this variety of metrics extends the spectrum of alternatives to assess creative artifacts, the lack of domain independent metrics makes hard to compare artifacts produced by different studies, which in turn slows down the research progress in the field. In this paper, we propose an domain independent metric, called Regent-Dependent Creativity (RDC), that assesses the creativity of artifacts. This metric requires that artifacts are described within the Regent-Dependent Model, in which artifacts features are represented as dependency pairs. RDC combines the Bayesian Surprise and Synergy to measure novelty and value, respectively. We show two case studies from different domains (fashion and games) to demonstrate how to model artifacts and assess creativity through RDC. We also propose and make available a simple API to promptly use RDC.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Celso França, Luis Fabricio Wanderley Goes, Alvaro Amorim, Rodrigo Rocha and Alysson Ribeiro Da Silva-Regent},
title = {Dependent Creativity: A Domain Independent Metric for the Assessment of Creative Artifacts},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2016},
year = {2016},
month = {Jun-July},
location = {Paris, France},
pages = {68-75},
url = {http://www.computationalcreativity.net/iccc2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Regent-Dependent-Creativity.pdf http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Dependent_Creativity:_A_Domain_Independent_Metric_for_the_Assessment_of_Creative_Artifacts },
publisher = {Sony CSL Paris},
}
Used References
Amabile, T. M. 1982. The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(5):997–1013.
Baldi, P., and Itti, L. 2010. Of bits and wows: A bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention. Neural Networks 23(5):649–666.
Boden, M. A. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. London: Routledge, 2 edition.
Boden, M. a. 2009. Computer models of creativity. AI MAGAZINE 13(2):72–76.
Boden, M. A. 2015. Creativity and ALife. Artificial Life 21(3):354–365.
Bown, O. 2015. Attributing creative agency: Are we doing it right? In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 17–22.
Burns, K. 2006. Atoms of eve’: A bayesian basis for esthetic analysis of style in sketching. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 20(03):185–199.
Burns, K. 2015. Computing the creativeness of amusing advertisements: A bayesian model of burma-shave’s muse. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29:109–128.
Colton, S.; Pease, A.; Corneli, J.; Cook, M.; and Llano, T. 2014. Assessing progress in building autonomously creative systems. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 137– 145.
Colton, S.; Pease, A.; Corneli, J.; Cook, M.; Hepworth, R.; and Ventura, D. 2015. Stakeholder groups in computational creativity research and practice. In Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines. Springer. 3–36.
Cook, M., and Colton, S. 2015. Generating code for expressing simple preferences: Moving on from hardcoding and randomness. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 8–16.
Cope, D. 2015. Computational creativity and music. In Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines. Springer. 309–326.
Corning, P. 2012. Nature’s Magic: Synergy in Evolution and the Fate of Humankind. Cambridge University Press.
Gabora, L. 2010. Revenge of the neurds: characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal 22(1):1–13.
G´oes, L. F. W.; da Silva, A. R.; Rezende, J.; Amorim, A.; Franc¸a, C.; Zaidan, T.; Ol´ımpio, B.; Ranieri, L.; Morais, H.; Luana, S.; and Martins, C. A. P. S. 2016. Honingstone: Building creative combos with honing theory for a digital card game. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games PP(99):1–1.
Grace, K., and Maher, M. L. 2014. What to expect when you’re expecting: the role of unexpectedness in computationally evaluating creativity. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 120–128.
Itti, L., and Baldi, P. 2009. Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Research 49(10):1295–1306.
Jagmohan, A.; Li, Y.; Shao, N.; Sheopuri, A.;Wang, D.; and Varshney, L. R. 2014. Exploring Application Domains for Computational Creativity. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 328–331.
Jordanous, A.; Allington, D.; and Dueck, B. 2015. Measuring cultural value using social network analysis: a case study on valuing electronic musicians. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 110–117.
Joyner, D. A.; Bedwell, D.; Graham, C.; Lemmon,W.; Martinez, O.; and Goel, A. K. 2015. Using human computation to acquire novel methods for addressing visual analogy problems on intelligence tests. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 23–30.
Karampiperis, P.; Koukourikos, A.; and Koliopoulou, E. 2014. Towards machines for measuring creativity: The use of computational tools in storytelling activities. In Int. Conf. on Advanced Learning Technologies, 508–512.
Krackhardt, D. 1994. Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. In Carley, K. M., and Prietula, M. J., eds., Computational Organization Theory. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. 89–111.
Kruschke, J. 2015. Doing Bayesian data analysis : a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Boston: Academic Press.
Lamb, C.; Brown, D. G.; and Clarke, C. L. 2015. Human competence in creativity evaluation. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 102–109.
Maher, M. L., and Fisher, D. H. 2012. Using AI to evaluate creative designs. In Int. Conf. on Design Creativity, 45–54.
Maher, M. L. 2010. Evaluating creativity in humans, computers, and collectively intelligent systems. In Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, 22–28.
Millington, I. 2009. Artificial Intelligence for Games. CRC Press.
Pinel, F.; Varshney, L. R.; and Bhattacharjya, D. 2015. A culinary computational creativity system. In Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines. Springer. 327–346.
Rigau, J.; Feixas, M.; and Sbert, M. 2007. Conceptualizing birkhoff’s aesthetic measure using shannon entropy and kolmogorov complexity. In Computational Aesthetics, 105– 112.
Schorlemmer, M.; Smaill, A.; Kai-uwe, K.; Kutz, O.; Colton, S.; Cambouropoulos, E.; and Pease, A. 2014. COINVENT : Towards a Computational Concept Invention Theory. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 288–296.
Tomasic, P.; Znidarsic, M.; and Papa, G. 2014. Implementation of a Slogan Generator. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 340–343.
van der Velde, F.; Wolf, R. A.; Schmettow, M.; and Nazareth, D. S. 2015. A semantic map for evaluating creativity. In Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 94–101.
Varshney, L. R.; Pinel, F.; Varshney, K. R.; Schorgendorfer, A.; and Chee, Y.-M. 2013. Cognition as a part of computational creativity. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing, 36–43.
Links
Full Text
Sonstige Links
ndent-Creativity.pdf
