About: Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research

Not logged in : Login

(Sponging disallowed)

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : bibo:BookSection, within Data Space : linkeddata.uriburner.com:28898 associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	http://eprints.org/ontology/BookSectionEPrint http://eprints.org/ontology/EPrint Article Book Section
seeAlso	HTML Summary of #80114 Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research
sameAs	Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research
http://www.loc.gov...erms/relators/EDT	Amílcar F. Cardoso Tony Veale
Title	Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research
described by	https://demo.openlinksw.com/about/id/entity/https/www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/akj22/materials/CO644/export_kar_RDFN3.n3
Date	2019-08-07
Creator	Anna Jordanous
status	peer reviewed published
Publisher	Springer
abstract	Computational creativity research has produced many computational systems that are described as ‘creative’. Historically, these ‘creative systems’ have not received much in terms of evaluation of the actual creativity of the systems, although this has recently attracted more attention as a research perspective. As a scientific research community, computational creativity researchers can benefit from more systematic/standardised approaches to evaluation of the creativity of our systems, to help us progress in understanding creativity and modelling it computationally. A methodology for creativity evaluation should accommodate different manifestations of creativity but also requires a clear, definitive statement of the tests used for evaluation. Here a historical perspective is given on how computational creativity researchers have evaluated (or not evaluated) the creativity of their systems, considering contextual reasons behind this. Different evaluation approaches and frameworks are currently available, though it is not yet clear which (if any) of several recently proposed methods are emerging as the preferred options to use. The Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems (SPECS) forms an overarching set of guidelines for how to tackle evaluation of creative systems and can incorporate recent proposals for creativity evaluation. To help decide which evaluation method is best to use, this chapter concludes by exploring five meta-evaluation criteria devised from cross-disciplinary research into good evaluative practice. Together, these considerations help us explore best practice in computational creativity evaluation, helping us develop the tools we have available to us as computational creativity researchers.
Is Part Of	https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/repository
Subject	Q335 Artificial intelligence QA76.76 Computer software
list of authors	https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/80114#authors
list of editors	https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/80114#editors
is topic of	https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/akj22/materials/CO644/export_kar_RDFN3.n3
is primary topic of	HTML Summary of #80114 Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress and practices in computational creativity research

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git144 as of Jul 26 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: iSPARQL | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Aug 25 2024, on Linux (x86_64-ubuntu_noble-linux-glibc2.38-64), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 16 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software