Advertisement

On Collaborator Selection in Creative Agent Societies: An Evolutionary Art Case Study

  • Simo Linkola
  • Otto Hantula
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10783)

Abstract

We study how artistically creative agents may learn to select favorable collaboration partners. We consider a society of creative agents with varying skills and aesthetic preferences able to interact with each other by exchanging artifacts or through collaboration. The agents exhibit interaction awareness by modeling their peers and make decisions about collaboration based on the learned peer models. To test the peer models, we devise an experimental collaboration process for evolutionary art, where two agents create an artifact by evolving the same artifact set in turns. In an empirical evaluation, we focus on how effective peer models are in selecting collaboration partners and compare the results to a baseline where agents select collaboration partners randomly. We observe that peer models guide the agents to more beneficial collaborations.

Keywords

Computational social creativity Evolutionary art Collaboration Learning from experience 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland under grant 313973 (CACS).

References

  1. 1.
    Saunders, R., Bown, O.: Computational social creativity. Artif. Life 21(3), 366–378 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sims, K.: Artificial evolution for computer graphics. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 319–328. ACM, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Romero, J., Machado, P. (eds.): The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music. Natural Computing Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72877-1 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    den Heijer, E., Eiben, A.: Investigating aesthetic measures for unsupervised evolutionary art. Swarm Evol. Comput. 16, 52–68 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salehie, M., Tahvildari, L.: Self-adaptive software: landscape and research challenges. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 4(2), 14:1–14:42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linkola, S., Kantosalo, A., Männistö, T., Toivonen, H.: Aspects of self-awareness: an anatomy of metacreative systems. In: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Computational Creativity Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 189–196 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulus, P., Nijstad, B.: Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uzzi, B., Spiro, J.: Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111(2), 447–504 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pérez y Pérez, R., Negrete, S., Nalosa, E.P., Ávila, R., Castellanos, V., Lemaitre, C.: Mexica-impro: a computational model for narrative improvisation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 90–99 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boden, M.: The Creative Mind. Abacus, London (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ventura, D.: Mere generation: essential barometer or dated concept? In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity, Paris, France, pp. 17–24 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Modelling social action for AI agents. Artif. Intell. 103(1), 157–182 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, pp. 325–339. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kantosalo, A., Toivonen, H.: Modes for creative human-computer collaboration: alternating and task-divided co-creativity. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity, Paris, France, pp. 77–84 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saunders, R., Gero, J.S.: How to study artificial creativity. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Creativity & Cognition, Loughborough, UK, pp. 80–87 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eigenfeldt, A., Bown, O., Casey, B.: Collaborative composition with creative systems: reflections on the first musebot ensemble. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity, Park City, Utah, pp. 134–141 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Velardo, V., Vallati, M.: On the stylistic evolution of a society of virtual melody composers. In: Johnson, C., Carballal, A., Correia, J. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2015. LNCS, vol. 9027, pp. 249–260. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16498-4_22 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, P.R., Chandra, A., Faniyi, F., Glette, K., Chen, T., Bahsoon, R., Torresen, J., Yao, X.: Architectural aspects of self-aware and self-expressive computing systems: from psychology to engineering. Computer 48(8), 62–70 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maher, M.L., Merrick, K.E., Saunders, R.: Achieving creative behavior using curious learning agents. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems 2008, Technical report SS-08-03, Stanford, California, USA, pp. 40–46 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grace, K., Maher, M.L., Mohseni, M., Pérez y Pérez, R.: Encouraging p-creative behavior with computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Computational Creativity, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 120–127 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claus, C., Boutilier, C.: The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National/Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence/Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 746–752 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albrecht, S.V., Stone, P.: Reasoning about hypothetical agent behaviours and their parameters. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, São Paulo, Brazil, pp. 547–555 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Machado, P., Cardoso, A.: Computing aesthetics. In: de Oliveira, F.M. (ed.) SBIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1515, pp. 219–228. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/10692710_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vinhas, A., Assunção, F., Correia, J., Ekárt, A., Machado, P.: Fitness and novelty in evolutionary art. In: Johnson, C., Ciesielski, V., Correia, J., Machado, P. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2016. LNCS, vol. 9596, pp. 225–240. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31008-4_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Romero, J., Machado, P., Santos, A.: On the socialization of evolutionary art. In: Giacobini, M., et al. (eds.) EvoWorkshops 2009. LNCS, vol. 5484, pp. 557–566. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01129-0_62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou, A., Qu, B.Y., Li, H., Zhao, S.Z., Suganthan, P.N., Zhang, Q.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Swarm Evol. Comput. 1(1), 32–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tanese, R.: Distributed genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 434–439 (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watkins, C.J., Dayan, P.: Q-learning. Mach. Learn. 8(3–4), 279–292 (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murphy, K.P.: Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations