deletions | additions       diff --git a/conclusion.tex b/conclusion.tex  index 5643d4a..4f57b7b 100644  --- a/conclusion.tex  +++ b/conclusion.tex 
...
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}  %% In Section \ref{sec:literature-review}, we survey the broad literature  %% on serendipity, and examine prior applications of the concept of  %% serendipity in a computing context.  %  We began by surveying ``serendipity'', developing a broad historical  view, and several criteria which are computationally feasible. Along  similar lines to \citeA{andre2009discovery}, we propose a two-phase  model.  %  %% In Section \ref{sec:background} we present our formal definition of  %% serendipity, drawing connections with historical examples and  %% presenting standards for evaluation.  %  Adapting the ``Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative  Systems'' we developed a set of assessment standards for serendipity.  %  %% Section \ref{sec:computational-serendipity} presents computational  %% case studies and thought experiments in terms of this model.  %  We used this model to examine several partial examples of serendipity,  in recommender systems, computerised jazz, and computational concept  invention. We then presented a thought experiment that exhibits all  of the features of the model.  %  %% Section \ref{sec:discussion} offers recommendations for researchers  %% working in computational creativity (a key research area concerned  %% with the computational modelling of serendipity), and describes our  %% own plans for future work.  We then extracted recommendations related to the themes of  \emph{autonomy}, \emph{learning}, \emph{sociality}, and \emph{embedded  evaluation} which appear to be corollaries of serendipitous  computing.   %% Section \ref{sec:conclusion} reviews the argument and summarises the  %% limitations of our analysis.  % What answers have we offered?  The ideas presented in this article outline several possible  directions for implementation, but in any case considerable concrete  work remains to be done in order to realise our model in code. We  examined a number of prior computational systems that match some  aspects of Even  ourmodel, but even these  hand-picked examples of prior art  pale in comparison to the examples of serendipitous discovery and invention from human history. It would seem that a fully-automated system that can realistically be said to behave in a serendipitous manner has not yet been built. % Further questions  Nevertheless, the theoretical work in this paper shows that it is  indeed possible to plan -- and program -- for serendipity.  diff --git a/etymology.tex b/etymology.tex  index 856cf7d..98fafe1 100644  --- a/etymology.tex  +++ b/etymology.tex 
...
discerning a Thousand Variations in visible Objects, that others, less  curious, imagin’d were all alike'' -- and in addition had the  ``peculiar Talent to render Truth as obvious as possible: Whereas most  Men study to render it intricate and obscure.'' An example to aspire to!  diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex  index 3ae7ebd..554d876 100644  --- a/introduction.tex  +++ b/introduction.tex 
...
%  An interdisciplinary perspective on the phenomenon of serendipity  promises further illumination. Here, we consider the potential for  formalising this concept. This paper follows and expands \citeA{pease2013discussion}, where many of the ideas that are developed here were first presented. The current paper uses the opportunity of working with a broader canvas to reassess this earlier work and to  advance some bold claims about the usefulness of that position  serendipity as a new  framework for computational creativity. Serendipity is itself centred on reassessment. reevaluation.  For example, a non-sticky ``superglue'' that no one was quite sure how to use turned out to be just the right ingredient for 3M's Post-it\texttrademark\ notes. %  Serendipity is related, firstly, to deviations from expected or  familiar patterns, and secondly, to new insight.  diff --git a/recommendations.tex b/recommendations.tex  index da1305d..13f07bb 100644  --- a/recommendations.tex  +++ b/recommendations.tex 
...
%% and may even diminish, results from a computationally creative system  %% and the evaluation of such a system's process, we believe that  %% serendipity is both possible and useful to model in future systems.  In short, we advance the following recommendations, viewing the  concepts in Section \ref{sec:by-example} through the practice  scenarios we have discussed.  \subsubsection*{Serendipity as a framework for computational creativity}  \begin{itemize}  \item \textbf{Autonomy}: In the standard cybernetic model, we control computers, and we control the computer's context. There is little room for serendipity because there is nothing outside of our control. Von Foerster \citeyear[p. 286]{von2003cybernetics} advocated a \emph{second-order cybernetics} in which ``the observer who enters the system shall be allowed to stipulate his own purpose.'' An eventual corollary of serendipitous operation of computers will be that \emph{Computational agents can specify their own problems.}  \item \textbf{Learning}: If we admit the possibility of computational agents who operate our world rather than a circumscribed microdomain, together with curiousity about that world, then another corollary is that \emph{Computational agents will learn more and more about the world we live in.}  \item \textbf{Sociality}: Turing recognised that we would not get there overnight, but that computers would have to be coached in this direction. Deleuze \citeyear[p. 26]{deleuze1994difference} wrote: ``We learn nothing from those who say: `Do as I do'. Our only teachers are those who tell us to `do with me'[.]'' The third corollary of serendipitous computing is that \emph{Computational agents will think, much like we do, in a social way rather than by reason alone.}  \item \textbf{Embedded evaluation}: Finally, the fourth corollary is that \emph{Computational agents will evaluate their own creativity.}  \end{itemize}  diff --git a/related-work.tex b/related-work.tex  index 14598cc..8481935 100644  --- a/related-work.tex  +++ b/related-work.tex 
...
\subsection{Related work} \label{sec:related}  An active research community investigating computational models of serendipity can be found exists  in the field of  information retrieval, and specifically, in recommender systems \cite{Toms2000}. In this domain, \citeA{Herlocker2004} and \citeA{McNee2006} view serendipity as an important factor for user satisfaction, next to accuracy and diversity. Serendipity in recommendations variously require the system to deliver an unexpected and useful \cite{Lu2012}, interesting \cite{Herlocker2004}, attractive or relevant item \cite{Ge2010}. %% Recommendations are typically meant to help address the user's difficulty in finding items that meet his or her interests or demands within a large and potentially unobservable search space. The end user can also be passive, and items are suggested to support other stakeholder's goals, e.g. to increase sells.   Definitions differ as to the requirement of novelty; \citeA{Adamopoulos2011}, for example, describe systems that suggest items that may already be known, but are still unexpected in the current context. In terms of our model, these systems focus mainly on producing a serendipity trigger, but they include aspects of user modeling which could bring other elements into play.  diff --git a/ww-intro.tex b/ww-intro.tex  index d55a49d..74c5c7d 100644  --- a/ww-intro.tex  +++ b/ww-intro.tex 
...
\subsection{Thought experiment evaluating our model of serendipity} experiment: Serendipity by design}  \label{sec:ww} To evaluate our computational framework in usage, we apply a thought  experiment based around a scenario where there is high potential for