Combining CBR and Deep Learning to Generate Surprising Recipe Designs

  • Kazjon GraceEmail author
  • Mary Lou Maher
  • David C. Wilson
  • Nadia A. Najjar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9969)


This paper presents a dual-cycle CBR model in the domain of recipe generation. The model combines the strengths of deep learning and similarity-based retrieval to generate recipes that are novel and valuable (i.e. they are creative). The first cycle generates abstract descriptions which we call “design concepts” by synthesizing expectations from the entire case base, while the second cycle uses those concepts to retrieve and adapt objects. We define these conceptual object representations as an abstraction over complete cases on which expectations can be formed, allowing objects to be evaluated for surprisingness (the peak level of unexpectedness in the object, given the case base) and plausibility (the overall similarity of the object to those in the case base). The paper presents a prototype implementation of the model, and demonstrates its ability to generate objects that are simultaneously plausible and surprising, in addition to fitting a user query. This prototype is then compared to a traditional single-cycle CBR system.


Case Base Deep Learning Pareto Frontier Deep Neural Network Problem Framing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Gero, J.S.: Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 64(2), 183–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grace, K., Maher, M.L., Fisher, D., Brady, K.: Data-intensive evaluation of design creativity using novelty, value, and surprise. Int. J. Des. Creativity Innov. 3, 125–147 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    French, M.J., Council, D.: Conceptual Design for Engineers. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vadiveloo, M., Dixon, L.B., Mijanovich, T., Elbel, B., Parekh, N.: Dietary variety is inversely associated with body adiposity among us adults using a novel food diversity index. J. Nutr. 145(3), 555–563 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicklaus, S.: Development of food variety in children. Appetite 52(1), 253–255 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colton, S., Wiggins, G.A., et al.: Computational creativity: the final frontier? In: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier, France, vol. 2012, pp. 21–26 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gero, J., Maher, M.: Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design. Psychology Press, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor, C.W.: Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. Nat. Creativity 99–121 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newell, A., Shaw, J., Simon, H.A.: The Processes of Creative Thinking. Rand Corporation, USA (1959)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grace, K., Maher, M.L.: What to expect when youre expecting: the role of unexpectedness in computationally evaluating creativity. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity, Ljubljana, Sloveniar (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grace, K., Maher, M.L., Fisher, D., Brady, K.: Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. In: Gero, J.S., Hanna, S. (eds.) Design Computing and Cognition 2014, pp. 189–206. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valitutti, A.: Creative systems as dynamical systems. In: Workshop proceedings from the 23rd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Germany, pp. 146–150 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ribeiro, P., Pereira, F., Ferrand, M., Cardoso, A.: Case-based melody generation with muzacazuza. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science, pp. 67–74 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gervas, P.: Generating poetry from a prose text: creativity versus faithfulness. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science, pp. 93–99 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peinado, F., Ancochea, M., Gervas, P.: Automated control of interactions in virtual spaces: a useful task for exploratory creativity. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity, pp. 191–202 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammond, K.J.: Chef: A model of case-based planning. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 267–271 (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinrichs, T.R., Kolodner, J.L.: The roles of adaptation in case-based design. In: Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 28–33, AAAI Press (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bridge, D., Larkin, H.: Creating new sandwiches from old. In: Computer Cooking Contest Workshop, pp. 117–124 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goel, A.K., Craw, S.: Design, innovation and case-based reasoning. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 20(3), 271–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Byrne, W., Schnier, T., Hendley, R.: Computational intelligence and case-based creativity in design. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity, pp. 31–40 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smyth, B., McClave, P.: Similarity vs. Diversity. In: Aha, D.W., Watson, I. (eds.) ICCBR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2080, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44593-5_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McSherry, D.: Diversity-conscious retrieval. In: Craw, S., Preece, A. (eds.) ECCBR 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2416, pp. 219–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-46119-1_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaillard, E., Lieber, J., Nauer, E.: Improving ingredient substitution using formal concept analysis and adaptation of ingredient quantities with mixed linear optimization. In: Computer Cooking Contest Workshop, Frankfort, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mller, G., Bergmann, R.: Cookingcake: a framework for the adaptation of cooking recipes represented as workflows. In: Computer Cooking Contest Workshop, Frankfort, Germany, September 2015Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keppler, M., Kohlhase, M., Lauritzen, N., Schmidt, M., Schumacher, P., Spät, A.: Goetheshaker-developing a rating score for automated evaluation of cocktail recipes. In: Computer Cooking Contest Workshop, Cork, Ireland, September 2014Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bengio, Y., Courville, A., Vincent, P.: Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35(8), 1798–1828 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rezende, D.J., Mohamed, S., Wierstra, D.: Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1278–1286 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kingma, D.P., Welling, M.: Auto-encoding variational bayes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baldi, P., Itti, L.: Of bits and wows: a bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention. Neural Netw. 23(5), 649–666 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grace, K., Maher, M.L.: Surprise-triggered reformulation of design goals. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016 (to appear). AAAI Press (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., Jones, B.: A typical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157), 468–472 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Müller, G., Bergmann, R.: Workflow streams: a means for compositional adaptation in process-oriented CBR. In: Lamontagne, L., Plaza, E. (eds.) ICCBR 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8765, pp. 315–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11209-1_23 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J., Pardasani, A.: Collaborative conceptual design state of the art and future trends. Comput. Aided Des. 34(13), 981–996 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazjon Grace
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Lou Maher
    • 1
  • David C. Wilson
    • 1
  • Nadia A. Najjar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software and Information SystemsUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations