Goal-Driven Conceptual Blending: A Computational Approach for Creativity

Aus de_evolutionary_art_org
Version vom 29. Januar 2015, 17:47 Uhr von Gbachelier (Diskussion | Beiträge) (Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „ == Reference == Boyang Li, Alexander Zook, Nicholas Davis and Mark Riedl: Goal-Driven Conceptual Blending: A Computational Approach for Creativity. In: […“)

(Unterschied) ← Nächstältere Version | Aktuelle Version (Unterschied) | Nächstjüngere Version → (Unterschied)
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche


Boyang Li, Alexander Zook, Nicholas Davis and Mark Riedl: Goal-Driven Conceptual Blending: A Computational Approach for Creativity. In: Computational Creativity 2012 ICCC 2012.



Conceptual blending has been proposed as a creative cognitive process, but most theories focus on the analysis of existing blends rather than mechanisms for the efficient construction of novel blends. While conceptual blending is a powerful model for creativity, there are many challenges related to the computational application of blending. Inspired by recent theoretical research, we argue that contexts and context-induced goals provide insights into algorithm design for creative systems using conceptual blending. We present two case studies of creative systems that use goals and contexts to efficiently produce novel, creative artifacts in the domains of story generation and virtual characters engaged in pretend play respectively.

Extended Abstract


Used References

Boden, M. A. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and mechanisms. 2nd ed: Routledge.

Brandt, L., and Brandt, P. A. 2002. Making Sense of a blend. Apparatur 4:62-71.

Cavazza, M., Charles, F., and Mead, S. J. 2002. Planning Characters' Behavior in Interactive Storytelling. Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation 13 (2):121 - 131.

Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science 22 (2):133-187.

Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., and Law, K. 1995. MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science 19(2).

Fujio, F. F. 1974-1996. Doraemon. Vol. 1-45. Tokyo: Shogakukan.

Gervás, P., Díaz-Agudo, B., Peinado, F., Hervás, R. 2005. Story Plot Generation based on CBR. Knowledge Based Systems. 18.

Goguen, J., and Harrell, F. 2004. Foundations for Active Multimedia Narrative: Semiotic spaces and structural blending. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Articial Systems.

Grady, J. 2000. Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual integration. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3/4):335-345.

Grady, J., Oakley, T., and Coulson, S. 1999. Conceptual Blending and Metaphor. In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by R. Gibbs and G. Steen. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.Hervás, R., Pereira F. C., Gervás, P., Cardoso A. 2006. Cross-Domain Analogy in Automated Text Generation. In 3rd Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity at ECAI.

Hutchins, E. 2005. Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1555-1577.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2002. How Jazz Musicians Improvise. Music Perception 19 (3):415-442.

Jones, D.E. 2002. An Instinct for Dragons. Routledge. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Li, B., and Riedl, M. O. 2011a. Creative Gadget Design in Fictions: Generalized Planning in Analogical Spaces. In 8th ACM Conference of Cognition and Creativity.

Li, B., and Riedl, M. O. 2011b. A Phone That Cures Your Flu: Generating Imaginary Gadgets in Fictions with Planning and Analogies. In 4th Workshop of Intelligent Narrative Technologies. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.

Li, B., Lee-Urban, S., Appling, D. S., Riedl, M. 2012. Automatically Learning to Tell Stories about Social Situations from the Crowd. In the LREC 2012 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative.

Martinez, M., Besold, T., Abdel-Fattah, A., Kuehnberger, K.-U., Gust, H., Schmidt, M., and Krumnack, U. 2011. Towards a Domain-Independent Computational Framework for Theory Blending. In The ACM Fall 2011 Symposium on Advances in Cognitive Systems.

Nourot, P.M. 1998. Sociodramatic play: Pretending together. In Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings.

Ontañón, S., and Zhu, J. 2010. Story and Text Generation through Computational Analogy in the Riu System. In 7th AI and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference.

Pereira, F. C. 2007. Creativity and AI: A Conceptual Blending Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Riedl, M. O., and Young, R. M. 2010. Narrative Planning: Balancing Plot and Character. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 39:217-268.

Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thagard, P., and Stewart, T. C. 2011. The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks. Cognitive Science 35 (1):1-33.

Veale, T., and O'Donoghue, D. 2000. Computation and Blending. Cognitive Linguistics 11:253-281.

Weld, D. 1994. An Introduction to Least Commitment Planning. AI Magazine 15 (4):27-61.

Wolverton, M. 1994. Retrieving Semantically Distant Analogies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.

Yamada, K., Taura, T., and Nagai, T. 2011. Design and Evaluation of Creative and Emotional Motion. In 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition.

Zook, A. E., Riedl, M. O., and Magerko, B. S. 2011. Understanding Human Creativity for Computational Play. In 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition.


Full Text


intern file

Sonstige Links