Inspiration-Triggered Search: Towards Higher Complexities by Mimicking Creative Processes
Authors: 
Milan Rybář, 
Heiko HamannAuthors Info & Claims
Milan Rybář, Heiko HamannAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 165 - 172
Abstract
Open-ended evolution is still an unachieved goal in evolutionary computation. Evolution guided by objective functions can easily be trapped on local optima. Our approach is inspired by evolutionary paths along stepping stones, as observed in user behaviors of Picbreeder. We propose a general framework, inspiration-triggered search, which tries to roughly mimic the creative design process of a human being. Instead of using a fixed objective function, the search algorithm itself is free to switch between objectives within certain constraints but inspired by features of the currently evolved artifacts. The overall optimization task is to generate complex artifacts that cannot be generated by a direct optimization approach. In contrast to other approaches that make extensive use of external knowledge (e.g., Innovation Engines), we try to approach the ambitious goal of virtually bootstrapping a creative process from scratch. The proposed method is tested in the domain of images, that is to find complex and aesthetically pleasant images, and is compared to novelty search.
References
[1]
J. Avnet. Computation, dynamics and the phase-transition, 2000.
[2]
G. Bradski. The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, 2000.
[3]
P. Chervenski and S. Ryan. MultiNEAT.
[4]
E. den Heijer. Evolving art using measures for symmetry, compositional balance and liveliness. In Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Comp. Int., pages 52--61, 2012.
[5]
J. Gauci and K. O. Stanley. Autonomous evolution of topographic regularities in artificial neural networks. Neural computation, 22(7):1860--1898, 2010.
[6]
J. Gomes, P. Mariano, and A. L. Christensen. Devising effective novelty search algorithms: A comprehensive empirical study. In Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Comp. Conf. (GECCO'15), pages 943--950. ACM, 2015.
[7]
G. Greenfield. On the origins of the term computational aesthetics. In Proc. of the 1st Eurographics Conf. on Comp. Aesthetics in Graphics, Vis. and Imaging, pages 9--12. Eurographics Association, 2005.
[8]
J. Lehman and K. O. Stanley. Exploiting open-endedness to solve problems through the search for novelty. In ALIFE, pages 329--336, 2008.
[9]
J. Lehman and K. O. Stanley. Abandoning objectives: Evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evolutionary computation, 19(2):189--223, 2011.
[10]
P. Machado and A. Cardoso. Computing aesthetics. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pages 219--228. Springer, 1998.
[11]
K. Matkovic, L. Neumann, A. Neumann, T. Psik, and W. Purgathofer. Global contrast factor-a new approach to image contrast. Comp. Aesthetics, 2005:159--168, 2005.
[12]
L. Neumann, M. Sbert, B. Gooch, W. Purgathofer, et al. Defining computational aesthetics. Comp. Aesthetics in Graphics, Vis. and Imaging, pages 13--18, 2005.
[13]
A. M. Nguyen, J. Yosinski, and J. Clune. Innovation engines: Automated creativity and improved stochastic optimization via deep learning. In Proc. Conf. on Genetic and evolutionary Computation, GECCO'15, pages 959--966, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
[14]
S. Pertuz, D. Puig, and M. A. Garcia. Analysis of focus measure operators for shape-from-focus. Pattern Recognition, 46(5):1415--1432, 2013.
[15]
J. J. Romero and P. Machado. The art of artificial evolution. Springer, 2007.
[16]
A. Santos, C. Ortiz de Solorzano, J. J. Vaquero, J. Pena, N. Malpica, and F. Del Pozo. Evaluation of autofocus functions in molecular cytogenetic analysis. Journal of microscopy, 188(3):264--272, 1997.
[17]
T. Schaul, J. Bayer, D. Wierstra, Y. Sun, M. Felder, F. Sehnke, T. Rückstieß, and J. Schmidhuber. PyBrain. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:743--746, 2010.
[18]
J. Secretan, N. Beato, D. B. D Ambrosio, A. Rodriguez, A. Campbell, and K. O. Stanley. Picbreeder: evolving pictures collaboratively online. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1759--1768. ACM, 2008.%
[19]
%K. O. Stanley.% Exploiting regularity without development.% In Proc. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Developmental Systems,% page 37. AAAI Press Menlo Park, CA, 2006.
[20]
K. O. Stanley. Compositional pattern producing networks: A novel abstraction of development. Genetic programming and evolvable machines, 8(2):131--162, 2007.
[21]
K. O. Stanley and J. Lehman. The art of breeding art. In Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned, pages 21--28. Springer, 2015.
[22]
K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies. Evolutionary computation, 10(2):99--127, 2002.
[23]
Y. Sun, S. Duthaler, and B. J. Nelson. Autofocusing in computer microscopy: selecting the optimal focus algorithm. Microscopy research and technique, 65(3):139--149, 2004.
[24]
B. G. Woolley and K. O. Stanley. On the deleterious effects of a priori objectives on evolution and representation. In Proc. 13th Conf. on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 957--964. ACM, 2011.
Index Terms
- Inspiration-Triggered Search: Towards Higher Complexities by Mimicking Creative Processes
Recommendations
Unplugging Evolutionary Algorithms: an experiment on human-algorithmic creativity
Understanding and emulating human creativity is a key factor when developing computer based algorithms devoted to art. This paper presents a new evolutionary approach to art and creativity aimed at comprehending human principles and motivations, ...
An Extended Study of Quality Diversity Algorithms
GECCO '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference CompanionIn a departure from conventional optimization where the goal is to find the best possible solution, a new class of evolutionary algorithms instead search for quality diversity (QD) -- a maximally diverse collection of individuals in which each member is ...
Incorporating characteristics of human creativity into an evolutionary art algorithm
A perceived limitation of evolutionary art and design algorithms is that they rely on human intervention; the artist selects the most aesthetically pleasing variants of one generation to produce the next. This paper discusses how computer generated art ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2016
1196 pages
ISBN:9781450342063
DOI:10.1145/2908812
- Editor:
- Tobias Friedrich,
- General Chair:
- Frank Neumann,
- Program Chair:
- Andrew M. Sutton
Copyright © 2016 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 20 July 2016
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- EU H2020
Conference
GECCO '16
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
GECCO '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 137 of 381 submissions, 36%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,669 of 4,410 submissions, 38%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 112Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)7
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in