deletions | additions
diff --git a/3model.tex b/3model.tex
index ea14bc5..d6bb13e 100644
--- a/3model.tex
+++ b/3model.tex
...
\section{Our computational model of serendipity} \label{sec:our-model}
Figure
\ref{model-diagram} \ref{fig:model} recapitulates the ideas from the previous
section.
Dashed paths show some of the things that could go wrong.
The serendipity trigger might not arise, or might not attract
interest. If interest is aroused, a path to a useful result may not
be sought, or if it is sought, may not be found. If a result is
developed, it may turn out not be of value. Prior experience with
related problems may help with the exploration, but may also restrict
innovative thinking. Multiple tasks, influences, and contexts can help to foster
an inventive frame of mind, and send the investigator in a
new and fruitful direction -- but they can also be distractions.
Failures of curiosity or sagacity will undermine the process -- and
although serendipity does not reduce to luck, there is some luck
involved as well.
\begin{figure}[h!] Figure \ref{fig:1a} is a heuristic map of the features of serendipity
introduced in Section \ref{sec:by-example}.
%
Dashed paths ending in X's show some of the things that can go wrong.
A serendipity trigger might not arise, or might not attract interest.
If interest is aroused, a path to a useful result may not be sought,
or if it is sought, may not be found. If a result is developed, it
may turn out to be of little value. Prior experience with a related
problem could be informative, but could also restrict innovative
thinking. Similarly, multiple tasks, influences, and contexts can
help to foster an inventive frame of mind, but they can also be
distractions.
Figure \ref{fig:1b} removes these unserendipitous paths to focus on
the key features of the model.
%
The \textbf{serendipity trigger} is denoted here by $T$.
%
The \textbf{prepared mind} corresponds to those preparations, labeled
$p$ and $p^{\prime}$, that are relevant to the discovery and invention
phases, respectively. These preparations may include training,
current phenomenal experience, access to relevant knowledge sources,
and so on.
%
A \textbf{focus shift} takes place when the trigger is observed to be
interesting. The now-interesting trigger is denoted $T^\star$, and is
common to both the discovery and the invention phases.
%
%
The \textbf{bridge} is comprised of the actions based on $p^{\prime}$
that are taken on $T^\star$ leading to the \textbf{result} $R$, which is ultimately given a positive evaluation.
\afterpage{\clearpage}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
{\centering
\input{heuristic-map-tikz}
\par}
\subcaption{A heuristic map, showing serendipitous and unserendipitous outcomes}\label{fig:1a}
\end{minipage}
\medskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
{\centering
\resizebox{1.02\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzonimage}[width=.45\textwidth,angle=270]{figures/model-diagram/serendipity-attractor-bw}%[tsx/show help lines]
\node (dynamic) at (.1, .47) {\emph{dynamic world}};
\node (trigger) at (.05, .255) {\textbf{trigger}};
\node (chance) at (.045, .165) {chance};
\node (bridge) at (.46, .84) {\textbf{bridge}};
\node (result) at (.055, .665) {\textbf{result}};
\node (result)[text width=2cm,align=center] at (.7, .71) {\textbf{prepared mind}};
\node (focus) at (.93, .88) {{\bf \textsc{focus shift}}};
\node (curiosity)[rotate=35] at (.44,.58) {curiosity};
\node (sagacity)[rotate=-30] at (.72,.45) {sagacity};
\node (value) at (.04, .755) {value};
\node (influences)[text width=2cm,align=center,rotate=30] at (.99, .60) {{\small\baselineskip=2pt \emph{multiple influences}\par}};
\node (tasks)[text width=1.5cm,align=center,rotate=30] at (.85, .39) {{\small\baselineskip=2pt \emph{multiple tasks}\par}};
\node (contexts)[text width=1.5cm,align=center,rotate=30] at (.545, .47) {{\small\baselineskip=2pt \emph{multiple contexts}\par}};
\draw[-latex] (.05,.03) -- (.15,.03) node [midway, above] {\itshape{\scshape{discovery}}};
\draw[-latex] (.95,.03) -- (.85,.03) node [midway, above] {\itshape{\scshape{invention}}};
%% Adding an arrowhead
\draw[-{Latex[width=2mm]}] (-.001,.6265) -- (-.003,.6265);
% \node (begin1) at (-.02,.303) {\handmark};
\node (yes1) at (-.02,.6265) {\sunmark};
\node (no1) at (1.005, .165) {\ymark};
\node (no2) at (1.005, .3) {\ymark};
\node (no3) at (.63, .32) {\ymark};
% \node (no4) at (-0.02, .625) {\xmark};
\end{tikzonimage} \input{schematic-tikz}
%\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{schematic}
\par}
\subcaption{A simplified process schematic, showing the key features of the model}\label{fig:1b}
\end{minipage}
\medskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
{\centering
\input{ww-generative-tikz}
%\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{schematic}
\par}}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\caption{A heuristic map of the features \par}
\smallskip
\subcaption{A boxes-and-arrows diagram, showing one possible implementation architecture}\label{fig:1c}
\end{minipage}
\bigskip
\caption{Three representations of
serendipity introduced in
Section \ref{sec:by-example}. The central black line traces first the
process of \emph{discovery} in which an initial trigger combines
with mounting curiosity to effect a \emph{focus shift}, followed by a
process of \emph{invention} in which a prepared mind draws on
various resources and makes use of its powers of sagacity to find a bridge to
a valuable result. In a typical chaotic fashion, paths that are initially nearby can have very different outcomes: some end
in failure of one form or another, while others yield results elements of
differing value.}
\label{model-diagram} serendipity}\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:1c} expands this schematic into a sketch of the
components of one possible idealised implementation of a serendipitous
system. An initial \emph{generative process} is assumed at the start.
This may be based on observations of the outside world, or it may be a
computational process. In any case, elements from a data stream are
passed on to the next stage of the process. After running a feedback
loop, some of this data is singled out, and perhaps further marked up,
so that it becomes ``interesting.'' Note that this designation need
not arise all at once: rather, it the outcome of a \emph{reflective
process}. In the implementation envisioned here, this process makes
use of two primary functions: $p_1$, which notices aspects of the
data, and $p_2$, which offers additional reflections. Together, these
functions produce a ``feedback object,'' $T^{\star}$, which consists
of the original data and added metadata. This is passed on to an
\emph{experimental process}, which has the task of understanding what
makes the data interesting and what it may be useful for. This is
again an iterative process. Once sufficient understanding of the data
and its potential implications has been reached, a result is
generated, which is passed to a final \emph{evaluation process}, and,
from there, to applications.
The ellipses in the final step are meant to suggest that applications
are open-ended; however, an important class of applications will
result in changes to one or more of the system's modules, for example
by expanding the knowledge base used by one or more of the components.
Note that earlier components of the workflow cannot, in general,
anticipate what the subsequent phases will produce or achieve. If
these operations could be anticipated, we would not say that the
system was serendipitous. Another way to put this is that serendipity
does not adhere to one specific part of the system, but to its
operations as a whole. Furthermore, a machine could be built that
implements all of the steps depicted in this diagram, and yet, if it
only generated uninteresting results it would not be called
``serendipitous.''
Summarising, we propose the following definition for serendipity,
expressed in two
phases: discovery and invention. The definition
centres on the four components of serendipity that were outlined
above. These can 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. phases.
\begin{quote}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=9em,rightmargin=2em] \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=7em,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}
\noindent This definition can be summarised schematically The features of our model match and expand upon Merton's
\citeyear{merton1948bearing} description of the ``serendipity
pattern.'' $T$ is an unexpected observation; $T^\star$ highlights its
interesting or anomalous features and recasts them as
follows, with letters referencing to ``strategic
data.'' Finally, the
key condition result $R$ and
components introduced its evaluation may lead to
updates to the system's operations that will inform further phases of
research. As we will show in the
literature survey:
{\centering
\input{schematic-tikz}
%\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{schematic}
\par} following section, the other
elements of the conceptual framework described in Section
\ref{sec:by-example} help to flesh out the model, to offer quite
detailed evaluation criteria.
diff --git a/5connections.tex b/5connections.tex
index 18ba614..a7d2cdb 100644
--- a/5connections.tex
+++ b/5connections.tex
...
The features of
our this model match and expand upon Merton's
\citeyear{merton1948bearing} description of the ``serendipity
pattern.'' $T$ is an unexpected observation; $T^\star$ highlights its
interesting or anomalous features and recasts them as ``strategic
data''; and, finally, data.'' Finally, the result $R$
and its evaluation may
include lead to
updates to
$p$ or $p^{\prime}$ the system's operations that
will inform further phases of
research.
From the point of view of the system under consideration, $T$ is
indeterminate. Furthermore, one must assume that relatively few of
triggers $T^\star$ that are identified as interesting actually lead to
useful results; in other words, the process is fallible and
\textbf{chance} is likely to play a role.
%
The prior training $p$ causes interesting features
to be extracted, even if they are not necessarily useful; $p^{\prime}$
asks how these features \emph{might} be useful. These routines
suggest the relevance of a computational model of \textbf{curiosity}.
%
Far from being a simple look-up rule, $p^{\prime}$ involves creating new knowledge. A simple example is found in clustering systems, which generate new categories on the fly. A more complicated example, necessary in the case of updating $p$ or $p^{\prime}$, is automatic programming. There is a need for \textbf{sagacity} in this sort of affair.
%
Judgment of the \textbf{value} of the result $R$ may be carried out
``locally'' (as an embedded part of the process of invention of $R$)
or ``globally'' (i.e.~as an external process).
As noted, $T$ (and $T^\star$) appears within a stream of data with
indeterminacy. There is an additional feedback loop, insofar as
products $R$ influence the future state and behaviour of the system.
Thus, the system exists in a \textbf{dynamic world}.
%
Our model separates the
``context of discovery'', involving prior preparations $p$, from the
``context of invention'' involving prior preparations $p^{\prime}$.
Both of these, and the data they deal with, may be subdivided further into \textbf{multiple contexts}.
%
And correspondingly, since both $T$ and $T^\star$ may be complex, they
may be processed using multiple sub-processes that deal with
\textbf{multiple tasks} using different skills sets.
%
The process as a whole may be multiplied out across different
communicating investigators, so that the final result bears the mark
of \textbf{multiple influences}.
diff --git a/9ww-intro.tex b/9ww-intro.tex
index 372f644..7a85cde 100644
--- a/9ww-intro.tex
+++ b/9ww-intro.tex
...
The key steps map quite conveniently into the schematic description of serendipity that we introduced in Section \ref{sec:our-model}:
\input{ww-schematic-tikz}
diff --git a/schematic-tikz.tex b/schematic-tikz.tex
index 6fbd091..6cf27d5 100644
--- a/schematic-tikz.tex
+++ b/schematic-tikz.tex
...
}
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2cm,>=latex']
\node [sum]
(sum1) (A-sum1) {};
\node [input, name=pinput, above left=.7cm and .7cm of
sum1] (pinput) A-sum1] (A-pinput) {};
\node [input, name=tinput, left
of=sum1] (tinput) of=A-sum1] (A-tinput) {};
\node [input, name=minput, below left
of=sum1] (minput) of=A-sum1] (A-minput) {};
\node [input, name=minput, right
of=sum1] (moutput) of=A-sum1] (A-moutput) {};
\draw [->]
(pinput) (A-pinput) -- node{$p$}
(sum1); (A-sum1);
\draw [->]
(tinput) (A-tinput) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}$T$}
(sum1); (A-sum1);
% \draw [->]
(sum1) (A-sum1) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}$T^{\star}$}
(moutput);
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2cm,>=latex'] (A-moutput);
\node
[sum] (sum1) [sum, right=2cm of A-sum1] (B-sum1) {};
\node [input, name=pinput, above left=.7cm and .7cm of
sum1] (pinput) B-sum1] (B-pinput) {};
\node [input, name=tinput, left
of=sum1] (tinput) of=B-sum1] (B-tinput) {};
\node [input, name=minput, below left
of=sum1] (minput) of=B-sum1] (B-minput) {};
\node [sum, right
of=sum1] (sum2) of=B-sum1] (B-sum2) {};
\node [input, name=minput, right
of=sum2] (moutput) of=B-sum2] (B-moutput) {};
\draw [->]
(pinput) (B-pinput) -- node{$p^{\prime}$}
(sum1); (B-sum1);
\draw [->]
(tinput) (A-sum1) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}$T^{\star}$}
(sum1); (B-sum1);
\draw [->]
(sum1) (B-sum1) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}$R$}
(sum2); (B-sum2);
\draw [->]
(sum2) (B-sum2) -- node{$|R|>0$}
(moutput); (B-moutput);
\end{tikzpicture}
\endgroup
diff --git a/serendipity.tex b/serendipity.tex
index 63c0ab6..913a6e0 100644
--- a/serendipity.tex
+++ b/serendipity.tex
...
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{afterpage}
\usepackage{slantsc}
\usepackage{pifont}
\newcommand{\xmark}{\ding{54}}%
...
% \linenumbers
\input{abstract.tex}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
%\tableofcontents
%\newpage
\input{1introduction.tex}
%% The literature review
\input{2literature.tex}
...
% \input{related-work.tex}
%% Our core definition
\input{3model.tex}
\input{4definition.tex} %\input{4definition.tex}
% \input{5connections.tex}
\input{6SPECS-begins.tex}
\input{7SPECS-continues.tex}
% SPECS-begins.tex
...
% SPECS-continues.tex
%% Development of the idea with examples
\input{8cc-intro.tex}
\input{9ww-intro.tex} %\input{9ww-intro.tex}
% figures/ww-serendipity/ww-serendipity.png
\input{10ww-design.tex} %\input{10ww-design.tex}
% figures/ww-schematic/ww-schematic.png
\input{11ww-analysis.tex} %\input{11ww-analysis.tex}
\input{12discussion}
\input{13conclusion}
diff --git a/ww-generative-tikz.tex b/ww-generative-tikz.tex
index 005b325..1ac9b47 100644
--- a/ww-generative-tikz.tex
+++ b/ww-generative-tikz.tex
...
single/.style={draw, anchor=text, rectangle},
]
\node (discovery) {\textbf{\emph{Discovery:}}};
%
poet ``poet generates
poem poem''
\node[single, right=8mm of discovery.east,text width=1.5cm] (poet)
{\emph{text\\ generator}}; {\emph{generative\\ process}};
\node[single,
right=4mm right=6mm of poet.east] (poem)
{T}; {$T$};
\draw [-latex] (poet.east) -- (poem.west);
%
critic ``critic listens to poem and offers
feedback
\node[single, right=4mm feedback''
\node[ellipse, draw, right=9mm of poem.east,text
width=1.5cm] width=1.4cm] (critic)
{comment generator}; {\emph{feedback}};
\draw [-latex] (poem.east) -- (critic.west);
\node[single,
above=8mm of critic.north,text width=1.5cm] (experience) {\emph{reflection\\ process}};
\node[draw,diamond,inner sep =.3mm, above right=4mm
and 3mm of critic] (comment) {\raisebox{1mm}{$p\vphantom{^{\prime}}_1$}} ;
\node[draw,diamond,inner sep =.3mm, above left=4mm and 3mm of critic] (reflection) {\raisebox{1mm}{$p\vphantom{^{\prime}}_2$}} ;
\draw[-latex,thick] ([yshift=1mm]critic.east) to [out=0,in=270] (comment.south) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (comment.north) to [out=90,in=0] (experience.east) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (experience.west) to [out=180,in=90] (reflection.north) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (reflection.south) to [out=270,in=140] ([yshift=1.5mm]critic.west) ;
% nonprinting point to use to bend curve
\coordinate[below right=3mm and 7mm of
critic.east] critic] (mid1);
\node[single, below left=6mm and 4mm of critic] (feedback)
{F}; {$T^{\star}$};
\node[below=.65cm of discovery] (focusshift) {{\small \textbf{\emph{[focus shift]}}}};
% draw the first curve into focus shift
\draw [-latex]
(critic.east) -- (feedback.west); ([yshift=-1mm]critic.east) to[out=0,in=90] (mid1) to[out=270,in=0] (feedback.east);
%%% Next phase
\node[below=1cm \node[below=2cm of discovery] (invention) {\textbf{\emph{Invention:}}};
% poet integrates feedback
\node[single, right=8mm of invention.east] (feedbackcont) {F};
\node[single, right=8mm of feedbackcont.east,text width=1.7cm] (integrator) {\emph{feedback integrator}};
\draw [-latex] (feedbackcont.east) -- (integrator.west);
\node[single, below=8mm % ``poet integrates feedback''
\node[ellipse, draw, right=12mm of
integrator.south,text width=1.5cm] (explainer) {feedback explainer}; invention.east,text width=2.2cm] (integrator) {\emph{understanding}};
\node[single, below right=2mm and 2mm of integrator] (question) {Q};
\node[single, below % nonprinting point to use to bend curve
\coordinate[above left=2mm and
2mm 9mm of integrator]
(answer) {A}; (mid2);
\draw[-latex] ([yshift=-1.5mm]integrator.east) to [out=0,in=90] (question.north) ;
\draw[-latex] (question.south) to [out=270,in=0] (explainer.east) ;
\draw[-latex] (explainer.west) to [out=180,in=270] (answer.south) ;
\draw[-latex] (answer.north) to [out=90,in=180] ([yshift=-1.5mm]integrator.west) ; % draw the second curve out from focus shift
\draw [-latex] (feedback.west) to[out=180,in=90] (mid2) to[out=270,in=160] (integrator.west);
\node[single, right=8mm of integrator.east] (problem) {X}; % ``poet asks questions about the feedback''
\draw [-latex] (integrator.east) -- (problem.west); \node[single, below=9mm of integrator.south,text width=2cm] (explainer) {\emph{experimental\\ process}};
% poet reflects on feedback \node[draw,diamond,inner sep =.3mm, below right=4mm and
updates codebase 5mm of integrator] (question) {\raisebox{1mm}{$p^{\prime}_1$}};
\node[draw,diamond, inner sep =.3mm, below left=4mm and 5mm of integrator] (answer) {\raisebox{1mm}{$p^{\prime}_2$}};
\node[single, right=4mm of problem.east,text width=1.5cm] (pgrammer) {\emph{code}\\ \emph{generator}}; \draw[-latex,thick] ([yshift=-1mm]integrator.east) to [out=0,in=90] (question.north) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (question.south) to [out=270,in=0] (explainer.east) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (explainer.west) to [out=180,in=270] (answer.south) ;
\draw[-latex,thick] (answer.north) to [out=90,in=200] ([xshift=1mm,yshift=-1.8mm]integrator.west) ;
\draw [-latex] (problem.east) -- (pgrammer.west); \node[yshift=1mm,single, right=10mm of integrator.east] (problem) {$R$};
\node[single, right=4mm of pgrammer.east,text width=.3cm] (etc) {...}; \draw [-latex] ([yshift=1mm]integrator.east) -- (problem.west);
% ``poet reflects on feedback and updates codebase''
\node[single, right=6mm of problem.east,text width=1.6cm] (pgrammer) {\emph{evaluation}\\ \emph{process}};
\draw [-latex] (problem.east) -- (pgrammer.west);
\node[single, right=4mm of pgrammer.east,text width=.3cm] (etc) {...};
\draw [-latex] (pgrammer.east) -- (etc.west);
\end{tikzpicture}
