1 / 21

Neurocognitive Approach to Creativity in the Domain of Word-invention

Maciej Pilichowski 1 Włodzisław Duch 2 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, 2 Department of Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland Contact: macias@mat.umk.pl, Google: W.Duch. Neurocognitive Approach to Creativity in the Domain of Word-invention.

ollie
Download Presentation

Neurocognitive Approach to Creativity in the Domain of Word-invention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maciej Pilichowski1 Włodzisław Duch2 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, 2 Department of Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland Contact: macias@mat.umk.pl, Google: W.Duch Neurocognitive Approach to Creativity in the Domain of Word-invention

  2. Introduction • Creativity: “the capacity to create a solution that is both novel and appropriate”. • Creative brains are: • well trained in a given domain, have great imagination, combine faster basic primitives, recognize interesting combinations of these primitives through emotional and associative filtering.

  3. Computational creativity • To understand creative use of words go to the lower level … • construct words from combinations of phonemes, pay attention to morphemes, flexion etc. Creativity = space + imagination (fluctuations) + filtering (competition) Space: neural tissue providing space for infinite # of activation patterns. Imagination: many chains of phonemes activate in parallel both words and non-words reps, depending on the strength of synaptic connections. Filtering: associations, emotions, phonological/semantic density.

  4. General idea • Start from keywords priming phonological representations in the auditory cortex; spread the activation to concepts that are strongly related. • Use inhibition in the winner-takes-most to avoid false associations. • Find fragments that are highly probable, estimate phonological probability. • Combine them, search for good morphemes, estimate semantic probability.

  5. Autoassociative networks Simplest networks: • binary correlation matrix, • probabilistic p(ai,bj|w) Major issue: rep. of symbols, morphemes, phonology …

  6. Objective Invention of new words that capture some characteristics of objects or processes. For example: • industrial or software products, • activity of companies, • the main topic of web pages. Understanding creative processes in the brain requires network simulations, but here only formal, probabilistic model is considered.

  7. Data • Linguistic source for the Mambo algorithm is based on Google Web 1T 5-gram dictionary. • Spell-checking is based on LRAGR and SCOWL dictionaries. • To avoid over-representation of most common words logarithmic scale of word occurrences has been used.

  8. Word representation • As letters (“the” → ``t'', ``h'', ``e'') – not good for phonological filters, words may not be easy to pronounce. • As phonemes (“the” → “ð”, “ə”) – not easy because most dictionaries do not contain phonological transcriptions. • As a semi-letter form (“the” → “th”, “e”), for English only. • Mixed form of any of the above.

  9. Semantics • “Light” — is it as “small weight” or as “daylight”? • Enforcing required association is crucial: • pairing “possibilities” with “great” (positive association) rather than • “problems” (negative association). • In case of ambiguous situation that the algorithm cannot evaluate the user has to select a proper set of synonyms (synset).

  10. Similarities • real world: “borrow” and yet “sorrow”, “barrow”, or “burrow”, • artificial system: rejected to avoid transitions like “borrow” → “borr” or “borrow” → “borrom”.

  11. Genuineness • Examples of compound words — “bodyguard”, “brainstorm” or “airmail”. • They are forbidden to avoid hijacking of words — priming word “jet” + “●●●mail” from the dictionary → “jetmail”.

  12. ngrams • Function ng(w) returns a sequence of strings (ngrams): where w[i:j] represents string of symbols at positions i to j in the word w, and n·Sng = |w|-Nng-1. In most cases: Nng=2, Sng=1. Example: ''world'' → ''wor'', ''orl'', ''rld''.

  13. Word rank The word rank function Q'(w) • q is a dictionary function, • T(w) is a composition of word w transformations, • ng is a function partitioning symbols in w into overlapping ngrams. The total word rank function is a product over models:

  14. Transformations • Transformation examples for Nng=2, Sng=1:

  15. Data flow topic results WordNet associations associations dictionary priming set word representation word representation word rank similarity probability matrix

  16. Amazon’s Kindle — the core priming set The exclusion list: aird, airin, airs, bookie, collectic, collectiv, globali, globed, papere, papering, pocketf, travelog.

  17. Results

  18. More results

  19. Mambo system — the core priming set The exclusion word: cookie.

  20. Results for Mambo replacement

  21. Computational efficiency • No priming dictionary, Nng=2, Sng=1, 100 best words, English language,requires:

More Related