Evolutionary Intelligence

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 3–21 | Cite as

A semantic network-based evolutionary algorithm for computational creativity

  • Atılım Güneş Baydin
  • Ramon López de Mántaras
  • Santiago Ontañón
Special Issue

Abstract

We introduce a novel evolutionary algorithm (EA) with a semantic network-based representation. For enabling this, we establish new formulations of EA variation operators, crossover and mutation, that we adapt to work on semantic networks. The algorithm employs commonsense reasoning to ensure all operations preserve the meaningfulness of the networks, using ConceptNet and WordNet knowledge bases. The algorithm can be interpreted as a novel memetic algorithm (MA), given that (1) individuals represent pieces of information that undergo evolution, as in the original sense of memetics as it was introduced by Dawkins; and (2) this is different from existing MA, where the word “memetic” has been used as a synonym for local refinement after global optimization. For evaluating the approach, we introduce an analogical similarity-based fitness measure that is computed through structure mapping. This setup enables the open-ended generation of networks analogous to a given base network.

Keywords

Evolutionary computation Memetic algorithms Memetics Analogical reasoning Semantic networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Balkin JM (1998) Cultural software: a theory of ideology. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bedau MA, Snyder E, Brown CT (1997) A comparison of evolutionary activity in artificial evolving systems and in the biosphere. In: Husbands P, Harvey I (eds) Proceedings of the fourth European conference on artificial life. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickhard MH, Campbell DT (2003) Variations in variation and selection: the ubiquity of the variation-and-selective-retention ratchet in emergent organizational complexity. Found Sci 8:215–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boden MA (2009) Computer models of creativity. AI Mag 30(3):23–34Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chafe E (1991) Tonal allegory in the vocal music of JS Bach. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen D, Aoki T, Homma N, Terasaki T, Higuchi T (2002) Graph-based evolutionary design of arithmetic circuits. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(1):86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clement J (1988) Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cogn Sci 12:563–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colton S, Wiggins G (2012) Computational creativity: the final frontier? In: de Raedt C, Bessiere C, Dubois D, Doherty P (eds) Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–26Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diochnos DI (2013) Commonsense reasoning and large network analysis: a computational study of ConceptNet 4 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5863
  12. 12.
    Falkenhainer B, Forbus KD, Gentner D (1989) The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artif Intell 41:1–63CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fauconnier G, Mark T (2002) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    French RM (2002) The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends Cogn Sci 6(5):200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabora L, Kaufman SB (2010) Evolutionary approaches to creativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gil-White F (2008) Let the meme be (a meme): insisting too much on the genetic analogy will turn it into a straightjacket. In: Botz-Bornstein T (ed) Culture, nature, memes. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Havasi C, Speer R, Alonso J (2007) ConceptNet 3: a flexible, multilingual semantic network for common sense knowledge. In: Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hofstadter DR (1995) Fluid concepts and creative analogies: computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hofstadter DR (2001) Analogy as the core of cognition. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov B (eds) Analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 499–538Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofstadter DR, Dennett DC (1981) The mind’s I: fantasies and reflections on self and soul. Basic, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koza JR, Keane MA, Streeter MJ, Mydlowec W, Yu J, Lanza G (2003) Genetic programming IV: routine human-competitive machine intelligence. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuo YL, Hsu J (2010) Bridging common sense knowledge bases with analogy by graph similarity. In: Workshops at the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larkey LB, Love BC (2003) CAB: connectionist analogy builder. Cogn Sci 27(2003):781–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mabu S, Hirasawa K, Hu J (2007) A graph-based evolutionary algorithm: genetic network programming (GNP) and its extension using reinforcement learning. Evol Comput 15(3):369–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manurung HM (2003) An evolutionary algorithm approach to poetry generation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martindale C, Locher P, Petrov VM (2007) Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to aesthetics, creaticity and the arts. Foundations and frontiers of aesthetics, Baywood Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McCarthy J (1958) Programs with common sense. In: Symposium on mechanization of thought processes. National Physical Laboratory, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Minsky M (2006) Emotion machine: commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montes HA, Wyatt JL (2004) Graph representation for program evolution: an overview. Tech. rep., University of Birmingham School of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moscato PA, Cotta C, Mendes A (2004) Studies in fuzziness and soft computing—new optimization techniques in engineering, chap. memetic algorithms. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mueller ET (2006) Commonsense reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pedersen T, Patwardhan S, Michelizzi J (2004) Wordnet: similarity: measuring the relatedness of concepts. In: Demonstration papers at HLT-NAACL 2004, pp 38–41. Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pereira FB, Machado P, Costa E, Cardoso A (1999) Graph based crossover—a case study with the busy beaver problem. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, vol 2. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 1149–1155Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pereira FC (2007) Creativity and artificial intelligence: a conceptual blending approach. Mouton de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pezzotta E (2012) The metaphor of dance in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A space odyssey, a clockwork orange and full metal jacket. J Adapt Film Perform 5(1):51–64Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pohlheim H (2006) Genetic and evolutionary algorithm toolbox documentation http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-02.html
  39. 39.
    Poli R (1999) New ideas in optimisation, chap. parallel distributed genetic programming. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Skusa A, Bedau MA (2002) Towards a comparison of evolutionary creativity in biological and cultural evolution. In: Standish R, Abbass HA, Bedau MA (eds) Artificial life VIII. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sowa JF (2000) Knowledge representation: logical philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Spears WM (1992) Foundations of genetic algorithms 2, chap. crossover or mutation?. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 221–237Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Teller A (1998) Algorithm evolution with internal reinforcement for signal understanding. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Veale T, Keane M (1997) The competence of sub-optimal structure mapping on hard analogies. In: Proceedings of the 15th international joint conference on AI. Morgan Kauffman, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhu J, Ontañón S (2013) Evaluating analogy-based story generation: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual AAAI conference on artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment (AIIDE 2013). Boston, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atılım Güneş Baydin
    • 1
  • Ramon López de Mántaras
    • 2
  • Santiago Ontañón
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & Hamilton InstituteNational University of Ireland MaynoothMaynoothIreland
  2. 2.Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteIIIA - CSIC, Campus Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUnited States

Personalised recommendations