deletions | additions       diff --git a/SPECS-begins.tex b/SPECS-begins.tex  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..aa79570  --- /dev/null  +++ b/SPECS-begins.tex 
...
\subsection{Using SPECS to evaluate computational serendipity}\label{specs-overview}  In a 2012 special issue of the journal {\em Cognitive Computation}, on  ``Computational Creativity, Intelligence and Autonomy'', Jordanous  analyses current evaluation procedures used in computational  creativity, and provides a much-needed set of customisable evaluation  guidelines, the \emph{Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative  Systems} (SPECS) \cite{jordanous:12}.  %  We follow a slightly modified version of her earlier evaluation  guidelines, in that rather than attempt a definition and evaluation of  {\em creativity}, we follow the three steps for \emph{serendipity}.  \subsubsection*{Step 1: A computational definition of serendipity}  \begin{quote} {\em Identify a definition of serendipity that your  system should satisfy to be considered serendipitous.}\end{quote}  Summarising the criteria discussed earlier, we propose the following  definition, expressed in two phases: discovery and invention. The  definition centres on the four components of serendipity, outlined  above, which can subsequently be made sense of and evaluated with  reference to the four dimensions of serendipity. These, in turn, are  understood to be embedded in an environment exhibiting many, but not  necessarily all, of the environmental factors listed above.  \begin{quote}  \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=6em,rightmargin=2em]  \item[\emph{(\textbf{1 - Discovery})}] \emph{Within a system with a prepared mind, a previously uninteresting serendipity trigger arises due to circumstances that the system does not control, and is classified as interesting by the system; and,}  \item[\emph{(\textbf{2 - Invention})}] \emph{The system, by subsequently processing this trigger and background information together with relevant reasoning, networking, or experimental techniques, obtains a novel result that is evaluated favourably by the system or by external sources.}  \end{enumerate}  \end{quote}  This situation can be pictured schematically as follows. Here, $T$ is  the trigger and $p$ denotes those preparations that afford the  classification $T^\star$, indicating $T$ to be of interest, while  $p^{\prime}$ denotes the preparations that facilitate the creation of a  bridge to a result $R$, which is ultimately given a positive  evaluation.  diff --git a/SPECS-continues.tex b/SPECS-continues.tex  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..7204979  --- /dev/null  +++ b/SPECS-continues.tex 
...
\subsubsection*{ Step 2: Evaluation standards for computational serendipity}  \begin{quote} {\em Using Step 1, clearly state what standards you use to evaluate the serendipity of your  system. }\end{quote}  With our definition in mind, we propose the following standards for  computational serendipity:  \begin{quote}  \begin{description}  \item[\emph{Prepared mind}] \emph{The system can be said to have a  prepared mind, consisting of previous experiences, background  knowledge, a store of unsolved problems, skills, expectations, and  (optionally) a current focus or goal.}  \item[\emph{Serendipity trigger}] \emph{The serendipity trigger is at  least partially the result of factors outside the system's control.  These may include randomness or simple unexpected events. The  trigger should be determined independently from the end result.}  \item[\emph{Bridge}] \emph{The system uses reasoning techniques  associated with serendipitous discovery -- e.g. abduction, analogy,  conceptual blending -- and/or social or otherwise externally enacted  alternatives.}  \item[\emph{Result}] \emph{A novel result is obtained, which is  evaluated as useful, by the system and/or by an external source.}  \end{description}  \end{quote}  \subsubsection*{Step 3: Testing our serendipitous system}  \begin{quote} {\em Test your serendipitous system against the standards stated in Step 2 and report the  results.}\end{quote}  In order to develop connections with our theoretical framework, and  because existing experiments have not been particularly strong, we  focus on a thought experiment in the following section, detailing some  of the outcomes we would like to see, and some of the risks.  diff --git a/background.tex b/background.tex  index 6d743ac..2a8eab0 100644  --- a/background.tex  +++ b/background.tex 
...
\section{Background}  \subsection{Using SPECS to evaluate computational serendipity}\label{specs-overview}  In a 2012 special issue of the journal {\em Cognitive Computation}, on  ``Computational Creativity, Intelligence and Autonomy'', Jordanous  analyses current evaluation procedures used in computational  creativity, and provides a much-needed set of customisable evaluation  guidelines, the \emph{Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative  Systems} (SPECS) \cite{jordanous:12}.  %  We follow a slightly modified version of her earlier evaluation  guidelines, in that rather than attempt a definition and evaluation of  {\em creativity}, we follow the three steps for \emph{serendipity}.  \subsubsection*{Step 1: A computational definition of serendipity}  \begin{quote} {\em Identify a definition of serendipity that your  system should satisfy to be considered serendipitous.}\end{quote}  Summarising the criteria discussed earlier, we propose the following  definition, expressed in two phases: discovery and invention. The  definition centres on the four components of serendipity, outlined  above, which can subsequently be made sense of and evaluated with  reference to the four dimensions of serendipity. These, in turn, are  understood to be embedded in an environment exhibiting many, but not  necessarily all, of the environmental factors listed above.  \begin{quote}  \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=6em,rightmargin=2em]  \item[\emph{(\textbf{1 - Discovery})}] \emph{Within a system with a prepared mind, a previously uninteresting serendipity trigger arises due to circumstances that the system does not control, and is classified as interesting by the system; and,}  \item[\emph{(\textbf{2 - Invention})}] \emph{The system, by subsequently processing this trigger and background information together with relevant reasoning, networking, or experimental techniques, obtains a novel result that is evaluated favourably by the system or by external sources.}  \end{enumerate}  \end{quote}  This situation can be pictured schematically as follows. Here, $T$ is  the trigger and $p$ denotes those preparations that afford the  classification $T^\star$, indicating $T$ to be of interest, while  $p^{\prime}$ denotes the preparations that facilitate the creation of a  bridge to a result $R$, which is ultimately given a positive  evaluation. \input{SPECS-begins.tex}  % \input{schematic-tikz}  {\centering 
...
\par}  \input{SPECS-continues.tex}  diff --git a/layout.md b/layout.md  index 1a5ef05..d6a31a5 100644  --- a/layout.md  +++ b/layout.md 
...
introduction.tex  background.tex  SPECS-begins.tex  figures/schematic/schematic.png  SPECS continues.tex SPECS-continues.tex  related-work.tex  literature.tex  serendipity-in-computational-context.tex  diff --git a/serendipity.tex b/serendipity.tex  index db6b22b..32cf28a 100644  --- a/serendipity.tex  +++ b/serendipity.tex 
...
\input{introduction.tex}  \input{background.tex}  \input{related-work.tex}  \input{literature}  % \input{foundational}  \input{serendipity-in-computational-context}