Searching for surprise

Inspired by the notion of surprise for unconventional discovery in computational creativity, we introduce a general search algorithm we name surprise search. Surprise search is grounded in the divergent search paradigm and is fabricated within the principles of metaheuristic (evolutionary) search. The algorithm mimics the self-surprise cognitive process of creativity and equips computational creators with the ability to search for outcomes that deviate from the algorithm’s expected behavior. The predictive model of expected outcomes is based on historical trails of where the search has been and some local information about the search space. We showcase the basic steps of the algorithm via a problem solving (maze navigation) and a generative art task. What distinguishes surprise search from other forms of divergent search, such as the search for novelty, is its ability to diverge not from earlier and seen outcomes but rather from predicted and unseen points in the creative domain considered.This work has been supported in part by the FP7 Marie Curie CIG project AutoGameDesign (project no: 630665).peer-reviewe

The longer term value of creativity judgements in computational creativity

During research to develop the Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems (SPECS) methodology for evaluat- ing the creativity of ‘creative’ systems, in 2011 an evaluation case study was carried out. The case study investigated how we can make a ‘snapshot’ decision, in a short space of time, on the creativity of systems in various domains. The systems to be evaluated were presented at the International Computational Creativity Conference in 2011. Evaluation was performed by people whose domain expertise ranges from expert to novice, depending on the system. The SPECS methodology was used for evaluation, and was compared to two other creativity evaluation methods (Ritchie’s criteria and Colton’s Creative Tripod) and to results from surveying people’s opinion on the creativity of the systems under investigation. Here, we revisit those results, considering them in the context of what these systems have contributed to computational creativity development. Five years on, we now have data on how influential these systems were within computational creativity, and to what extent the work in these systems has influenced further developments in computational creativity research. This paper investigates whether the evaluations of creativity of these systems have been helpful in predicting which systems will be more influential in computational creativity (as measured by paper citations and further development within later computational systems). While a direct correlation between evaluative results and longer term impact is not discovered (and perhaps too simplistic an aim, given the factors at play in determining research impact), some interesting alignments are noted between the 2011 results and the impact of papers five years on

Computational Social Creativity

This article reviews the development of computational models of creativity where social interactions are central. We refer to this area as computational social creativity. Its context is described, including the broader study of creativity, the computational modeling of other social phenomena, and computational models of individual creativity. Computational modeling has been applied to a number of areas of social creativity and has the potential to contribute to our understanding of creativity. A number of requirements for computational models of social creativity are common in artificial life and computational social science simulations. Three key themes are identified: (1) computational social creativity research has a critical role to play in understanding creativity as a social phenomenon and advancing computational creativity by making clear epistemological contributions in ways that would be challenging for other approaches; (2) the methodologies developed in artificial life and computational social science carry over directly to computational social creativity; and (3) the combination of computational social creativity with individual models of creativity presents significant opportunities and poses interesting challenges for the development of integrated models of creativity that have yet to be realized

Four PPPPerspectives on Computational Creativity

From what perspective should creativity of a system be considered? Are we interested in the creativity of the system’s out- put? The creativity of the system itself? Or of its creative processes? Creativity as measured by internal features or by external feedback? Traditionally within computational creativity the focus had been on the creativity of the system’s Products or of its Processes, though this focus has widened recently regarding the role of the audience or the field surrounding the creative system. In the wider creativity research community a broader take is prevalent: the creative Person is considered as well as the environment or Press within which the creative entity operates in. Here we have the Four Ps of creativity: Person, Product, Process and Press. This paper presents the Four Ps, explaining each of the Four Ps in the context of creativity research and how it relates to computational creativity. To illustrate how useful the Four Ps can be in taking a fuller perspective on creativity, the concepts of novelty and value explored from each of the Four P perspectives, uncovering aspects that may otherwise be overlooked. This paper argues that the broader view of creativity afforded by the Four Ps is vital in guiding us towards more encompassing and comprehensive computational investigations of creativity

Artificial life meets computational creativity?

I review the history of work in Artificial Life on the problem of the open-ended evolutionary growth of complexity in computational worlds. This is then put into the context of evolutionary epistemology and human creativity