skip to main content
research-article

Designing Deep Reinforcement Learning for Human Parameter Exploration

Published:20 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Software tools for generating digital sound often present users with high-dimensional, parametric interfaces, that may not facilitate exploration of diverse sound designs. In this article, we propose to investigate artificial agents using deep reinforcement learning to explore parameter spaces in partnership with users for sound design. We describe a series of user-centred studies to probe the creative benefits of these agents and adapting their design to exploration. Preliminary studies observing users’ exploration strategies with parametric interfaces and testing different agent exploration behaviours led to the design of a fully-functioning prototype, called Co-Explorer, that we evaluated in a workshop with professional sound designers. We found that the Co-Explorer enables a novel creative workflow centred on human–machine partnership, which has been positively received by practitioners. We also highlight varied user exploration behaviours throughout partnering with our system. Finally, we frame design guidelines for enabling such co-exploration workflow in creative digital applications.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek G. Murray, Benoit Steiner, Paul Tucker, Vijay Vasudevan, Pete Warden, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng. 2016. Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. 265--283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. 2004. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, William Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine 35, 4 (2014), 105--120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Saleema Amershi, Max Chickering, Steven M. Drucker, Bongshin Lee, Patrice Simard, and Jina Suh. 2015. Modeltracker: Redesigning performance analysis tools for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Saleema Amershi, James Fogarty, and Daniel Weld. 2012. Regroup: Interactive machine learning for on-demand group creation in social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Saleema Amershi, Bongshin Lee, Ashish Kapoor, Ratul Mahajan, and Blaine Christian. 2011. CueT: Human-guided fast and accurate network alarm triage. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 157--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kristina Andersen and Peter Knees. 2016. Conversations with expert users in music retrieval and research challenges for creative MIR. In Proceedings of the 17th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 122--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumaripaba Athukorala, Alan Medlar, Antti Oulasvirta, Giulio Jacucci, and Dorota Glowacka. 2016. Beyond relevance: Adapting exploration/exploitation in information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 359--369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kumaripaba Athukorala, Alan Medlar, Antti Oulasvirta, Giulio Jacucci, and Dorota Glowacka. 2016. Beyond relevance: Adapting exploration/exploitation in information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, 359--369. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2856767.2856786 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Marc Bellemare, Sriram Srinivasan, Georg Ostrovski, Tom Schaul, David Saxton, and Remi Munos. 2016. Unifying count-based exploration and intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1471--1479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark Blythe, Kristina Andersen, Rachel Clarke, and Peter Wright. 2016. Anti-solutionist strategies: Seriously silly design fiction. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4968--4978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eric Brochu, Tyson Brochu, and Nando de Freitas. 2010. A Bayesian interactive optimization approach to procedural animation design. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. Eurographics Association, 103--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2016. Openai gym. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Giuseppe Amato, Malte Behrmann, Frédéric Bimbot, Baptiste Caramiaux, Fabrizio Falchi, Ander Garcia, Joost Geurts, Jaume Gibert, Guillaume Gravier, Hadmut Holken, Hartmut Koenitz, Sylvain Lefebvre, Antoine Liutkus, Fabien Lotte, Andrew Perkis, Rafael Redondo, Enrico Turrin, Thierry Vieville, and Emmanuel Vincent. 2019. AI in the Media and Creative Industries. Doctoral dissertation. New European Media (NEM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mark Cartwright, Bryan Pardo, and Josh Reiss. 2014. Mixploration: Rethinking the audio mixer interface. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 365--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 21, 4 (2014), 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. John M. Chowning. 1973. The synthesis of complex audio spectra by means of frequency modulation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 21, 7 (1973), 526--534.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4299--4307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jacob W. Crandall, Mayada Oudah, Tennom, Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko, Sherief Abdallah, Jean-François Bonnefon, Manuel Cebrian, Azim Shariff, Michael A. Goodrich, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. Cooperating with machines. Nature Communications 9, 1 (2018), 233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1997. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Perennial, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Empirically studying participatory sense-making in abstract drawing with a co-creative cognitive agent. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 196--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nicholas M. Davis, Yanna Popova, Ivan Sysoev, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Dingtian Zhang, and Brian Magerko. 2014. Building artistic computer colleagues with an enactive model of creativity. In Proceedings of the International Conference On Computational Creativity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Stefano Delle Monache, Davide Rocchesso, Frédéric Bevilacqua, Guillaume Lemaitre, Stefano Baldan, and Andrea Cera. 2018. Embodied sound design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 118, (2018), 47–59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruta Desai, Fraser Anderson, Justin Matejka, Stelian Coros, James McCann, George Fitzmaurice, and Tovi Grossman. 2019. Geppetto: Enabling semantic design of expressive robot behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Christoph Sebastian Deterding, Jonathan David Hook, Rebecca Fiebrink, Jeremy Gow, Memo Akten, Gillian Smith, Antonios Liapis, and Kate Compton. 2017. Mixed-initiative creative interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mark d’Inverno and Jon McCormack. 2015. Heroic versus collaborative AI for the arts. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Alan Dix. 2007. Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI… but not as we know it-Volume 2. British Computer Society, 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross. 2001. Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22, 5 (2001), 425--437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2017. UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 278--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jerry Alan Fails and Dan R. Olsen Jr. 2003. Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 39--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Rebecca Fiebrink. 2019. Machine learning education for artists, musicians, and other creative practitioners. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 19, 4 (2019), 1--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Rebecca Fiebrink and Baptiste Caramiaux. 2016. The machine learning algorithm as creative musical tool. In Handbook of Algorithmic Music. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Rebecca Fiebrink, Perry R. Cook, and Dan Trueman. 2011. Human model evaluation in interactive supervised learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, 147--156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978965 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Rebecca Fiebrink, Daniel Trueman, N. Cameron Britt, Michelle Nagai, Konrad Kaczmarek, Michael Early, M. R. Daniel, Anne Hege, and Perry R. Cook. 2010. Toward understanding human-computer interaction in composing the instrument. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Tesca Fitzgerald, Ashok Goel, and Andrea Thomaz. 2017. Human-robot co-creativity: Task transfer on a spectrum of similarity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David B. Fogel. 2006. Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence. Vol. 1. John Wiley 8 Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Meire Fortunato, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Bilal Piot, Jacob Menick, Ian Osband, Alex Graves, Vlad Mnih, Remi Munos, Demis Hassabis, Olivier Pietquin, Charles Blundell, and Shane Legg. 2018. Noisy networks for exploration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jules Francoise and Frederic Bevilacqua. 2018. Motion-sound mapping through interaction: An approach to user-centered design of auditory feedback using machine learning. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 8, 2 (2018), 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Rémy Frenoy, Yann Soullard, Indira Thouvenin, and Olivier Gapenne. 2016. Adaptive training environment without prior knowledge: Modeling feedback selection as a multi-armed bandit problem. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization. ACM, 131--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jérémie Garcia, Theophanis Tsandilas, Carlos Agon, and Wendy Mackay. 2012. Interactive paper substrates to support musical creation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1825--1828. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Marco Gillies. 2019. Understanding the role of interactive machine learning in movement interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 26, 1 (2019), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Marco Gillies, Rebeca Fiebrink, Atau Tanaka, Jérémie Garcia, Frédéric Bevilacqua, Alexis Heloir, Fabrizio Nunnari, Wendy E. Mackay, Saleema Amershi, Bongshin Lee, Nicolas D'Alessandro, Joëlle Tilmanne, Todd Kulesza, and Baptiste Caramiaux. 2016. Human-centred machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3558--3565. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Dorota Glowacka, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Ksenia Konuyshkova, Kumaripaba Athukorala, Samuel Kaski, and Giulio Jacucci. 2013. Directing exploratory search: Reinforcement learning from user interactions with keywords. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’13). ACM, New York, NY, 117--128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2449396.2449413 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yuval Hart, Avraham E. Mayo, Ruth Mayo, Liron Rozenkrantz, Avichai Tendler, Uri Alon, and Lior Noy. 2017. Creative foraging: An experimental paradigm for studying exploration and discovery. PloS One 12, 8 (2017), e0182133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Xu He, Haipeng Chen, and Bo An. 2020. Learning behaviors with uncertain human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04201 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 159--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Andy Hunt and Ross Kirk. 2000. Mapping strategies for musical performance. Trends in Gestural Control of Music 21, 2000 (2000), 231--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Andy Hunt and Marcelo M. Wanderley. 2002. Mapping performer parameters to synthesis engines. Organised Sound 7, 2 (2002), 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Hilary Hutchinson, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Wendy Mackay, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Stéphane Conversy, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Nicolas Roussel, Loïc Lacomme, Björn Eiderbäck, Sinna Lindquist, Yngve Sundblad, and Bosse Westerlund. 2003. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ian Jolliffe. 2011. Principal component analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, 1094--1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sergi Jorda. 2005. Digital Lutherie Crafting Musical Computers for New Musics’ Performance and Improvisation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Anna Kantosalo, Jukka M. Toivanen, Ping Xiao, and Hannu Toivonen. 2014. From isolation to involvement: Adapting machine creativity software to support human-computer co-creation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ashish Kapoor, Bongshin Lee, Desney Tan, and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Interactive optimization for steering machine classification. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1343--1352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Simon Katan, Mick Grierson, and Rebecca Fiebrink. 2015. Using interactive machine learning to support interface development through workshops with disabled people. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 251--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Andrea Kleinsmith and Marco Gillies. 2013. Customizing by doing for responsive video game characters. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71, 7–8 (2013), 775--784. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. W. Bradley Knox and Peter Stone. 2009. Interactively shaping agents via human reinforcement: The TAMER framework. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Capture. ACM, 9--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Janin Koch. 2017. Design implications for designing with a collaborative AI. In Proceedings of the 2017 AAAI Spring Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Janin Koch, Andrés Lucero, Lena Hegemann, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2019. May AI?: Design ideation with cooperative contextual bandits. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 633. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Janin Koch and Antti Oulasvirta. 2018. Group cognition and collaborative AI. In Human and Machine Learning. Springer, 293--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer 8 (2009), 30--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Yuki Koyama. 2016. Computational design driven by aesthetic preference. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ranjitha Kumar, Jerry O. Talton, Salman Ahmad, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2011. Bricolage: Example-based retargeting for web design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2197--2206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Bettina Laugwitz, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group. Springer, 63--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Yuxi Li. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06339 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Changchun Liu, Pramila Agrawal, Nilanjan Sarkar, and Shuo Chen. 2009. Dynamic difficulty adjustment in computer games through real-time anxiety-based affective feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25, 6 (2009), 506--529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Wanyu Liu, Rafael Lucas d’Oliveira, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Olivier Rioul. 2017. Bignav: Bayesian information gain for guiding multiscale navigation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5869--5880. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. J. Derek Lomas, Jodi Forlizzi, Nikhil Poonwala, Nirmal Patel, Sharan Shodhan, Kishan Patel, Ken Koedinger, and Emma Brunskill. 2016. Interface design optimization as a multi-armed bandit problem. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4142--4153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, Nov (2008), 2579--2605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Wendy E. Mackay. 1990. Users and Customizable Software: A Co-adaptive Phenomenon. Ph.D. Dissertation. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A. Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K. Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, Stig Petersen, Charles Beattie, Amir Sadik, Ioannis Antonoglou, Helen King, Dharshan Kumaran, Daan Wierstra, Shane Legg, and Demis Hassabis. 2015. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518, 7540 (2015), 529.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Stefano Delle Monache, Pietro Polotti, and Davide Rocchesso. 2010. A toolkit for explorations in sonic interaction design. In Proceedings of the 5th Audio Mostly Conference: A Conference on Interaction with Sound. ACM, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Yael Niv. 2009. Reinforcement learning in the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 3 (2009), 139--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Ian Osband, Charles Blundell, Alexander Pritzel, and Benjamin Van Roy. 2016. Deep exploration via bootstrapped DQN. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4026--4034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. François Pachet, Pierre Roy, Julian Moreira, and Mark d’Inverno. 2013. Reflexive loopers for solo musical improvisation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2205--2208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Kayur Patel, Steven M. Drucker, James Fogarty, Ashish Kapoor, and Desney S. Tan. 2011. Using multiple models to understand data. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 22. 1723. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Jonas Frich Pedersen, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2018. Twenty years of creativity research in human-computer interaction: Current state and future directions. In Designing Interactive Systems. Association for Computing Machinery. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Claire Petitmengin. 2006. Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 5, 3–4 (2006), 229--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Ivan Poupyrev, Michael J. Lyons, Sidney Fels, and Tina Blaine (Bean). 2001. New interfaces for musical expression. In Proceedings of the CHI’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 491--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Landy Rajaonarivo, Matthieu Courgeon, Eric Maisel, and Pierre De Loor. 2017. Inline co-evolution between users and information presentation for data exploration. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 215--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Mitchel Resnick. 2007. All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity 8 Cognition. ACM, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Mitchel Resnick, Brad Myers, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Ben Shneiderman, Randy Pausch, Ted Selker, and Mike Eisenberg. 2005. Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Working Paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Horst W. J. Rittel. 1972. On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the “First and Second Generations”. Institute of Urban and Regional Development.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Tuukka Ruotsalo, Giulio Jacucci, Petri Myllymäki, and Samuel Kaski. 2014. Interactive intent modeling: Information discovery beyond search. Communications of the ACM 58, 1 (Dec. 2014), 86--92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2656334 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Diemo Schwarz and Norbert Schnell. 2009. Sound search by content-based navigation in large databases. In Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing. 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Hugo Scurto, Frédéric Bevilacqua, and Baptiste Caramiaux. 2018. Perceiving agent collaborative sonic exploration in interactive reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 15th Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Hugo Scurto and Rebecca Fiebrink. 2016. Grab-and-play mapping: Creative machine learning approaches for musical inclusion and exploration. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Computer Music Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Burr Settles. 2010. Active learning literature survey. University of Wisconsin, Madison 52, 55–66 (2010), 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando De Freitas. 2016. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 1 (2016), 148--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Michael Shilman, Desney S. Tan, and Patrice Simard. 2006. CueTIP: A mixed-initiative interface for correcting handwriting errors. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 323--332. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. Communications of the ACM 50, 12 (2007), 20--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J. Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George van den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, Sander Dieleman, Dominik Grewe, John Nham, Nal Kalchbrenner, Ilya Sutskever, Timothy Lillicrap, Madeleine Leach, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Thore Graepel, and Demis Hassabis. 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 7587 (2016), 484.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Malcolm Strens. 2000. A Bayesian framework for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning. 943--950. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Simone Stumpf, Vidya Rajaram, Lida Li, Margaret Burnett, Thomas Dietterich, Erin Sullivan, Russell Drummond, and Jonathan Herlocker. 2007. Toward harnessing user feedback for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 82--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Simone Stumpf, Vidya Rajaram, Lida Li, Weng-Keen Wong, Margaret Burnett, Thomas Dietterich, Erin Sullivan, and Jonathan Herlocker. 2009. Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, 8 (2009), 639--662. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Harini Suresh and John V. Guttag. 2019. A framework for understanding unintended consequences of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10002 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. 2011. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Andrea L. Thomaz and Cynthia Breazeal. 2008. Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build more effective robot learners. Artificial Intelligence 172, 6–7 (2008), 716--737. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Garrett Warnell, Nicholas Waytowich, Vernon Lawhern, and Peter Stone. 2018. Deep TAMER: Interactive agent shaping in high-dimensional state spaces. In Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Christopher John Cornish Hellaby Watkins. 1989. Learning From Delayed Rewards. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Geraint A. Wiggins. 2006. A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 19, 7 (2006), 449--458. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Weng-Keen Wong, Ian Oberst, Shubhomoy Das, Travis Moore, Simone Stumpf, Kevin McIntosh, and Margaret Burnett. 2011. End-user feature labeling: A locally-weighted regression approach. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 115--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  103. Matthew Wright. 2005. Open sound control: An enabling technology for musical networking. Organised Sound 10, 3 (2005), 193--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Qian Yang, Nikola Banovic, and John Zimmerman. 2018. Mapping machine learning advances from HCI research to reveal starting places for design innovation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. Qian Yang, Alex Scuito, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2018. Investigating how experienced UX designers effectively work with machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 585--596. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. Georgios N. Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Mehmet Ersin Yumer, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Jessica K. Hodgins, and Levent Burak Kara. 2015. Semantic shape editing using deformation handles. ACM Transactions on Graphics 34, 4 (2015), 86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  108. Bruno Zamborlin, Frederic Bevilacqua, Marco Gillies, and Mark D’inverno. 2014. Fluid gesture interaction design: Applications of continuous recognition for the design of modern gestural interfaces. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 3, 4 (2014), 22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. Xiang Sean Zhou and Thomas S. Huang. 2003. Relevance feedback in image retrieval: A comprehensive review. Multimedia Systems 8, 6 (2003), 536--544.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Designing Deep Reinforcement Learning for Human Parameter Exploration

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
        ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 28, Issue 1
        February 2021
        322 pages
        ISSN:1073-0516
        EISSN:1557-7325
        DOI:10.1145/3447785
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 January 2021
        • Revised: 1 July 2020
        • Accepted: 1 July 2020
        • Received: 1 June 2019
        Published in tochi Volume 28, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format