Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

AI Drawing Partner: Co-Creative Drawing Agent and Research Platform to Model Co-Creation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a drawing agent can collaborate with a user and automatically quantify, model, and visualize the co-creative process, with case-study data validating the measurement framework.

desk verdict A genuinely useful system paper wrapped around a measurement framework whose validation is undercut by its own coding choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06607 v1 pith:ONXDQVWJ submitted 2025-01-11 cs.HC

Nicholas Davis , Janet Rafner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords human-AIco-creationco-creativedrawingagentsense-makingframeworkinteractiondynamicscreativecurveenactionquantifiedsystemcomputationalcreativity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper presents the AI Drawing Partner, a web-based agent that draws with a user in real time on a shared canvas while automatically logging every interaction. Those logs are structured by the co-creative sense-making (CCSM) framework, which assigns each action a code on a clamped-to-unclamped cognition scale: communicating counts as $1$, manipulating the interface as $0.5$, waiting as $0$, and executing a drawing action as $-1$. Summing the codes over time produces a creative sense-making curve that shows whether a session trends toward executing, regulating, or waiting, and the paper argues this turns qualitative theories of participatory sense-making into quantitative, comparable process data. A case study of ten five-minute sessions finds statistically significant differences between abstract and representational drawing (curve slope $p=.002$, communication $p=.003$, turns $p=.0001$), which the authors read as evidence that the framework captures real differences in co-creative experience. If the approach holds, co-creative AI researchers gain a common, domain-independent metric for comparing co-creation across systems and domains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the creative sense-making coding convention: four interaction modes mapped to numeric values on a clamped-to-unclamped cognition continuum — communicate to the AI $= 1$, manipulate the interface $= 0.5$, wait $= 0$, execute a drawing action $= -1$. Continuously applied to the interaction log, these codes form a time series whose cumulative sum is the 'creative sense-making curve': rising segments mean the partner is regulating the interaction, falling segments mean fluid execution, and flat segments mean waiting. Linear regression on the curve yields its slope, and a moving-average convergence-divergence (MACD) analysis with exponential moving averages classifies each time step as regulate (buy), execute (sell), or wait (hold), producing the visualized trend sequences. This machinery converts an enactive theory of sense-making into a dataset the system records automatically — no human video coding, no inter-rater reliability — and every reported statistic, curve, and trend visualization is computed from it.

What would settle it

Record a set of co-creative sessions in which the user's moment-by-moment intentions are captured (e.g., by retrospective protocol analysis or think-aloud) and compare them against the automatically coded curve: if reported 'reflecting on the artwork' moments produce the same curve pattern as moments of merely waiting for the agent to finish, the cognitive interpretation of the wait category is falsified; if the coded phases instead align with reported intentions across many users, the framework's validity is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a co-creative system can be both the collaborator and the measurement instrument: the AI Drawing Partner draws with the user and, in the same run, emits a complete quantitative record of the co-creative process. The record is generated by the co-creative sense-making framework, which draws on enactive cognitive science to define four data categories — cognitive dynamics, interaction dynamics, collaboration dynamics, and domain behaviors — and continuously codes user actions onto a continuum from clamped cognition (fluently executing, $-1$) to unclamped cognition (communicating, $1$). From this coded time series the system builds the creative sense-making curve, applies a linear regression for its slope, and uses stock-market-style moving-average analysis to label each time step as regulate, execute, or wait. In the demonstrative case study, the user's execute codes ($p=.039$), communication ($p=.003$), interface manipulation ($p=.009$), average coded value ($p=.0003$), CSM-curve slope ($p=.002$), lines drawn ($p=.005$), and turns ($p=.0001$) all differed significantly between five abstract and five representational sessions. The authors take these differences as validating CCSM: a quantitative method that coincides with the qualitative difference between the two creative strategies.

Load-bearing premise

Everything measured rests on the coding assumption that drawing equals clamped cognition ($-1$), waiting equals $0$, interface manipulation equals $0.5$, and communication equals unclamped cognition ($1$) — a mapping the paper itself admits has arbitrary polar values, so if these numbers do not track genuine sense-making, the curves, slopes, trend classifications, and all the significant differences in Section 7 are artifacts of the coding choice rather than measurements of co-creation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CCSM is valid, any co-creative system that adopts the coding schema produces interaction data comparable to any other, enabling within-domain and cross-domain comparison of co-creative experiences.
  • Automatic coding removes human coders from the loop, eliminating inter-rater reliability checks and reducing bias and error in the analysis of co-creative interaction.
  • The trend-sequence visualization splits a session into regulate, execute, and wait phases, allowing researchers to study co-creation in segments rather than as a single aggregate score.
  • Because the platform is public and the analysis pipeline is automated, the AI Drawing Partner can serve as an off-the-shelf experimental platform for studying human-AI drawing without building a new system.
  • Future work (per the paper) suggests the CSM curve can become a real-time model of user intent, letting the agent adapt its contributions to detected phases of ideation or refinement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The coding scale's numerical spacing — $1$, $0.5$, $0$, $-1$ — is treated as interval data, yet the paper concedes the poles are arbitrary; a different monotone encoding would preserve the sign of slopes but could change which group comparisons reach significance, so cross-study comparability rests on the whole community adopting the identical convention.
  • The 'wait' code conflates at least three distinct experiences — user reflection, user waiting for the agent, and user watching the agent draw — and the paper itself flags the first two; separating them in the coding scheme would plausibly change flat segments of the CSM curve and therefore some trend classifications.
  • The case study's single user was the system's designer and thus already fluent with the interface, so the large effect sizes may overstate what naive users would show; a larger study with naive participants would test whether the significant differences replicate.
  • The framework invites a direct validity check the paper does not perform: pair each automatically detected trend phase with a retrospective protocol label of the user's intention, and test whether the curve's 'regulate' phases coincide with reported moments of reflection or evaluation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the AI Drawing Partner, a web-based co-creative drawing agent that also logs user and agent interactions according to the Co-Creative Sense-Making (CCSM) framework. The CCSM maps interaction modes to cognitive states (clamped/unclamped cognition) and assigns numeric codes (communicate=1, manipulate interface=0.5, wait=0, execute=-1). The system records raw interaction counts and computes cumulative sums to form creative sense-making (CSM) curves; slopes and stock-market-style MACD trend classifications are derived from these curves. A case study reports ten five-minute co-creative drawing sessions, five abstract and five representational, all conducted by the first author, who also designed the system. The paper finds significant between-group differences in average coded value, CSM slope, interaction counts, and other metrics, and interprets these as helping to validate CCSM. The primary claimed contribution is the AI Drawing Partner as a unique quantified co-creative AI system and research platform.

Significance. If the validation claims were supported, the paper would provide a useful open platform for studying co-creation and a domain-independent framework for quantifying interaction dynamics. The system is publicly accessible, automatically logs interaction data, and the companion analysis pipeline is a concrete step toward reproducible process-level analysis of human-AI co-creation. The adoption of the COFI framework to situate the system and the detailed system architecture are informative. However, the central evidential claim—that the case study validates CCSM by showing significant differences between abstract and representational sessions—is not supported by the data as analyzed. The numerical coding convention that drives every reported statistic is acknowledged in the paper to be arbitrary, and all sessions come from a single participant who is also the system designer. The paper is better characterized as a systems and demonstration contribution than as a validation of the CCSM framework.

major comments (4)
  1. The coding values in Table 2 are the foundation of every quantitative result in Section 7. The paper states that 'the polar values of the continuum are arbitrary' and offers no theoretical or empirical justification for the spacing among communicate=1, manipulate=0.5, wait=0, and execute=-1. The average coded value, CSM slope, and MACD trend classifications are all monotone functions of these weights. The significant differences reported in Section 7 (e.g., p=.0003 for average coded value, p=.002 for slope) therefore largely reflect the fact that abstract sessions contain more drawing (coded -1) and representational sessions contain more communication (coded +1), which is a property of the chosen coding scheme rather than an independent measurement of cognitive dynamics. I request a robustness analysis using alternative monotone codings (e.g., execute=-2, wait=-0.5, manipulate=0.5, communicate=1) or a non-parametric analysis based on raw interaction-mode counts, or a substantial weakening of the validation claim in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. All ten sessions were conducted by the first author, who designed the AI Drawing Partner. The paper acknowledges in Section 10 that 'the user was also the designer of the AI Drawing Partner, and he was thoroughly familiar with the interface,' yet Section 7 treats the ten sessions as independent observations for statistical testing. With a single participant, these sessions are not independent replicates, and the reported p-values (e.g., p=.002 for slope, p=.0001 for turns) cannot support population-level claims about co-creation or about the validity of CCSM. At most, the case study demonstrates that the pipeline can detect differences in the designer's own behavior across two self-selected conditions. I recommend reframing the reported statistics as descriptive, and moving the validation claim to future work with external participants.
  3. The claim that 'the results help validate the CCSM by showing significant differences' is not justified by the presented evidence. Because the abstract and representational sessions were deliberately chosen by the same individual who designed the system, the observed differences are expected from the experimental setup; the analysis then interprets those differences through the same coding convention that produced them. This creates a circularity concern that is not addressed by the paper. I suggest that the paper either (a) present the case study strictly as an illustrative demonstration of the analytics pipeline, with the validation claim removed, or (b) add a validation study with independent participants, pre-registered hypotheses, and robustness checks on the coding scheme.
  4. The MACD trend analysis uses parameters (12-period EMA, 26-period EMA, 9-period signal) that are standard for financial data but are not justified for the interaction data sampled at 0.5-second intervals. Since the entire trend-classification visualization in Figure 9 depends on these periods, the paper should include a sensitivity analysis or at least a justification for why these specific windows are appropriate for co-creative interaction data. Without this, the trend sequences are one arbitrary choice among many, particularly given that the underlying coding values are already arbitrary.
minor comments (5)
  1. The word 'Maping' in the section title appears to be a typo; it should read 'Mapping.'
  2. Reference [25] contains the typo 'Co-Creativve AI' in the title; please correct it.
  3. The statement that 'Waiting is coded as 0 so waiting and non-action do not influence the direction of the trend' is unclear, since waiting can influence the slope when it appears between other coded events; please clarify whether the coding is applied per time step or per interaction event.
  4. The sentence 'A line is calculated as the content between a pen down event and when the user raises their pen' defines a line as a stroke, but elsewhere the paper also refers to 'lines' as discrete algorithmic outputs; please make the terminology consistent.
  5. The phrase 'the agent is actively engaged in sense-making' in the context of wait time seems to describe the user's cognitive state rather than the agent's; please revise for clarity.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

CCSM 'validation' reduces to the Table 2 coding convention: the CSM curve, slope, and average coded value are all weighted sums of the same interaction codes, so the abstract-vs-representational differences are built in by definition.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Table 2; Section 7.1]
    "These interaction modes are given a value (communicate = 1; manipulate interface = .5; wait = 0; execute = -1) and continuously coded through time. ... The coded values produce two kinds of data: the raw interaction mode count, and the cumulative sum of the raw interaction mode count, which forms the creative sense-making curve. ... When the curve is trending downward, that means the user is drawing."

    The creative sense-making curve is defined as the cumulative sum of the Table 2 codes, so its slope is by construction a weighted count of execute (-1) versus communicate (+1) events. The paper reads a downward slope as 'the user is drawing' and an upward slope as 'regulating,' but these semantics are assigned in the coding table, not measured. Any session that is mostly drawing mechanically produces a negative slope, and any session that is mostly communicating produces a positive slope. The paper concedes that 'the polar values of the continuum are arbitrary,' which means the curve's direction and magnitude are conventions rather than independent measurements of sense-making.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Hypothesis 2) and Section 7 (Results)]
    "Hypothesis 2: There will be more drawing actions and a greater quantity of lines produced in the abstract group due to lack of communication ... leading to a decreased slope in the CSM curve and a lower average coded value. ... The average coded value ... is significantly different between the two groups (p=.0003). The abstract group had a mean of -.18, and the representational group had a mean of .22, demonstrating more fluid execution of drawing in the abstract versus more regulating the interaction in the representational sessions."

    The hypothesis is directly implied by the coding convention: since drawing is coded -1 and communication is coded +1, any group that draws more and communicates less will have a lower average coded value and a more negative cumulative slope. The reported p-values therefore do not test a theory of creative sense-making; they restate the known behavioral difference that the abstract sessions were mostly sketching while the representational sessions were dominated by image and sketch requests. The 'prediction' is forced by the Table 2 weights, so confirming it cannot independently validate CCSM.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Abstract and Section 8 Discussion]
    "The results help validate the CCSM by showing significant differences in the interaction dynamics and collaboration dynamics between abstract and representational sessions that match the qualitative difference of the user's interactions with the system."

    The qualitative difference to be matched is the same behavior that was coded: more drawing in the abstract sessions and more communication and interface manipulation in the representational sessions. Reporting that the coded values differ between the groups is a rename of the raw interaction counts into 'interaction dynamics and collaboration dynamics.' Because the categories are defined by the very codes that produce the significant results, the match is guaranteed by construction; no independent ground truth about sense-making is used to validate the framework.

full rationale

The engineering contribution of the paper is not circular: the AI Drawing Partner is a real system that automatically logs raw interaction counts, and those logs are genuinely new functionality. However, the paper's derived scientific output, the quantification and case-study validation of CCSM, reduces to the coding convention in Table 2. The CSM curve is defined as the cumulative sum of the Table 2 codes; the average coded value is a weighted average of the same codes; and the MACD trend classifications operate on that same curve. Since the paper explicitly states that 'the polar values of the continuum are arbitrary' and provides no external construct validation, the significant differences reported in Section 7 are consequences of the chosen weights and the known task instructions, not evidence that the framework measures sense-making. The case study also uses the first author as the participant, which is not itself circularity but reinforces that the 'validation' is self-referential. The result that abstract sessions have negative slopes and representational sessions have positive slopes is forced by defining execute as -1 and communicate as +1. I therefore assign a score of 8: the central validation claim reduces by definition, even though the system's logging architecture and software design remain non-circular contributions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central free parameter is the arbitrary coding mapping in Table 2; it determines every reported result. The axioms concern the validity of the enactive theoretical framing and the exhaustiveness of the interaction categories. No new physical or conceptual entities analogous to particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Interaction mode coding values = communicate = 1, manipulate = 0.5, wait = 0, execute = -1
    These hand-chosen values define the CSM curve and all derived statistics. The paper says the polar values are arbitrary (Section 3.2, Table 2).
  • MACD trend analysis periods = 12, 26, and 9 periods; 0.5 second steps
    Standard stock-market defaults applied to interaction time-series data in Section 7.2; no justification is given for choosing these specific periods for creativity data.
  • Sketch recognition confidence threshold = 30%
    Default threshold for the ml5 object recognition model in Section 5; it influences whether the system treats input as a recognized object, but is not central to the CCSM analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Enaction and participatory sense-making provide a valid theoretical foundation for describing human-AI co-creation.
    The entire CCSM rests on this cognitive science theory, invoked in Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The four interaction modes (execute, manipulate interface, communicate, wait) exhaustively describe user behavior in co-creative drawing and map linearly to clamped/unclamped cognition.
    Table 2 defines this mapping; no empirical evidence is provided that these categories are exhaustive or that the linear coding captures cognitive state.
  • ad hoc to paper The CCSM's four categories (cognitive, interaction, collaboration, domain) are sufficient to model co-creation.
    Section 3.3 introduces this as a data collection schema; it is not derived from prior work or independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Drawing Partner: Co-Creative Drawing Agent and Research Platform to Model Co-Creation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONXDQVWJ

@misc{pith2026250106607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Drawing Partner: Co-Creative Drawing Agent and Research Platform to Model Co-Creation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONXDQVWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06607}
}
read the original abstract

This paper describes the AI Drawing Partner, which is a co-creative drawing agent that also serves as a research platform to model co-creation. The AI Drawing Partner is an early example of a quantified co-creative AI system that automatically models the co-creation that happens on the system. The method the system uses to capture this data is based on a new cognitive science framework called co-creative sense-making (CCSM). The CCSM is based on the cognitive theory of enaction, which describes how meaning emerges through interaction with the environment and other people in that environment in a process of sense-making. The CCSM quantifies elements of interaction dynamics to identify sense-making patterns and interaction trends. This paper describes a new technique for modeling the interaction and collaboration dynamics of co-creative AI systems with the co-creative sense-making (CCSM) framework. A case study is conducted of ten co-creative drawing sessions between a human user and the co-creative agent. The analysis includes showing the artworks produced, the quantified data from the AI Drawing Partner, the curves describing interaction dynamics, and a visualization of interaction trend sequences. The primary contribution of this paper is presenting the AI Drawing Partner, which is a unique co-creative AI system and research platform that collaborates with the user in addition to quantifying, modeling, and visualizing the co-creative process using the CCSM framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06607 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Raw coded values (left) and creative sense-making curve (right) for a five-minute co-creative drawing session. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Co-Creative Sense-Making Framework. Each category has a number of features that can be quantified. This categorization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Action history overlaid onto the CSM curve for the user in Session 6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AI Drawing Partner interface with annotated functionality. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The AI-Human communication channels in the AI Drawing Partner. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interaction design diagram of AI Drawing Partner system. The user is situated on the left, while the AI agent is situated on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstrating interactive text-to-image generation on a shared canvas (left) and image stylization (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The AI Drawing Partner system architecture. The interface artifacts are all the user input into the system. The creative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The trend sequences for the 10 co-creative drawing sessions. The trends were identified using stock market technical analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the rhythm of turns in a 5 minute co-creative drawing session. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: AI Drawing Partner companion app analysis part one. Significant differences are highlighted in yellow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: AI Drawing Partner companion app analysis part two. Significant differences are highlighted in yellow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Who Decides How Knowing Becomes Doing? Redistributing Authority in Human-AI Music Co-Creation

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Editing an AI's reasoning steps instead of only typing prompts made 180 musicians report more contestability, agency, and protection of non-mainstream styles, though the survey evidence lacks statistical analysis.

  2. SakugaFlow: A Stagewise Illustration Framework Emulating the Human Drawing Process and Providing Interactive Tutoring for Novice Drawing Skills

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-stage AI illustration pipeline with a large-language-model tutor aims to scaffold novice drawing skill acquisition by exposing intermediate diffusion outputs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024. chatGPT. https://chat.openai.com Accessed on March 20, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Friendly Machine Learning for the Web

    2024. Friendly Machine Learning for the Web. https://ml5js.org Accessed on April 28, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Github Copilot

    2024. Github Copilot. https://github.com/features/copilot Accessed on March 20, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Google Gemini

    2024. Google Gemini. https://gemini.google.com/app Accessed on March 20, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Imagine with Meta AI

    2024. Imagine with Meta AI. https://imagine.meta.com Accessed on March 20, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    2024. OpenAI. https://openai.com Accessed on March 20, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Quick, Draw! The Data

    2024. Quick, Draw! The Data. https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/data Accessed on April 27, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Sarah Abdellahi, Mary Lou Maher, and Safat Siddiqui. 2020. Arny: A Co-Creative System Design based on Emotional Feedback.. In ICCC. 81–84

    2020

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    Helmut Alt and Michael Godau. 1995. Computing the Fréchet distance between two polygonal curves. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications 5, 01n02 (1995), 75–91

    1995

  2. [10]

    Bonnie B Armbruster. 1989. Metacognition in creativity. In Handbook of creativity. Springer, 177–182. 29 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2024, Woodstock, NY Short authors

    1989

  3. [11]

    Malika Auvray and Marieke Rohde. 2012. Perceptual crossing: the simplest online paradigm. Frontiers in human neuroscience 6 (2012), 181

    2012

  4. [12]

    Donna J Betts. 2006. Art therapy assessments and rating instruments: Do they measure up? The Arts in psychotherapy 33, 5 (2006), 422–434

    2006

  5. [13]

    John A Biles. 2002. GenJam: Evolution of a jazz improviser. In Creative evolutionary systems. Elsevier, 165–187

    2002

  6. [14]

    Volker Bilgram and Felix Laarmann. 2023. Accelerating innovation with generative AI: AI-augmented digital prototyping and innovation methods. IEEE Engineering Management Review (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    John M Carroll. 1997. Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual review of psychology 48, 1 (1997), 61–83

    1997

  8. [16]

    Xiang’Anthony’ Chen, Jeff Burke, Ruofei Du, Matthew K Hong, Jennifer Jacobs, Philippe Laban, Dingzeyu Li, Nanyun Peng, Karl DD Willis, Chien-Sheng Wu, et al. 2023. Next steps for human-centered generative AI: A technical perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15774 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Andy Clark. 1999. An embodied cognitive science? Trends in cognitive sciences 3, 9 (1999), 345–351

    1999

  10. [18]

    Simon Colton. 2008. Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems.. In AAAI spring symposium: creative intelligent systems, Vol. 8. Palo Alto, CA, 7

    2008

  11. [19]

    Simon Colton, John William Charnley, and Alison Pease. 2011. Computational Creativity Theory: The FACE and IDEA Descriptive Models.. In ICCC. Mexico City, 90–95

    2011

  12. [20]

    Simon Colton, Geraint A Wiggins, et al. 2012. Computational creativity: The final frontier?. In Ecai, Vol. 12. Montpelier, 21–26

    2012

  13. [21]

    Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Mihaly Csikzentmihaly. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience . Vol. 1990. Harper & Row New York

    1990

  14. [22]

    Elena Clare Cuffari, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and Hanne De Jaegher. 2015. From participatory sense-making to language: there and back again. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2015), 1089–1125

    2015

  15. [23]

    Nicholas Davis. 2013. Human-computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 9. 9–12

    2013

  16. [24]

    Nicholas Davis. 2023. AI Drawing Partner: Co-Creative Drawing Agent and Research Platform. https://drawing-partner.vercel.app Accessed on March 19, 2024

    2023

  17. [25]

    Nicholas Davis. 2024. Creative Sense-Making: Quantifying the Interaction Dynamics of Co-Creativve AI. To appear in eds. Tigre-Moura, F., AI, Co-Creativity, and Creativity (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Nicholas Davis, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Pramod Gupta, and Shruti Gupta. 2011. Computing harmony with PerLogicArt: perceptual logic inspired collaborative art. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition . 185–194

    2011

  19. [27]

    N Davis, C Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Brenda Lin, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Quantifying collaboration with a co-creative drawing agent. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 7, 4 (2017), 1–25

    2017

  20. [28]

    Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Yanna Popova, and Brian Magerko. 2015. An enactive model of creativity for computational collaboration and co-creation. Creativity in the digital age (2015), 109–133

    2015

  21. [29]

    Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, Sanat Moningi, and Brian Magerko. 2015. Drawing apprentice: An enactive co-creative agent for artistic collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 185–186

    2015

  22. [30]

    Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Brenda Lin, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Creative sense-making: Quantifying interaction dynamics in co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 356–366

    2017

  23. [31]

    Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Co-creative drawing agent with object recognition. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 12. 9–15

    2016

  24. [32]

    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 . 196–207

    2016

  25. [33]

    Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 6 (2007), 485–507

    2007

  26. [34]

    Jan Degenaar and J Kevin O’regan. 2017. Sensorimotor theory and enactivism. Topoi 36 (2017), 393–407

    2017

  27. [35]

    Manoj Deshpande and Brian Magerko. 2021. Drawcto: A Multi-Agent Co-Creative AI for Collaborative Non-Representational Art.. In AIIDE Workshops

    2021

  28. [36]

    Manoj Deshpande, Milka Trajkova, Andrea Knowlton, and Brian Magerko. 2023. Observable Creative Sense-Making (OCSM): A Method For Quantifying Improvisational Co-Creative Interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 103–115

    2023

  29. [37]

    Sebastian Deterding, Jonathan Hook, Rebecca Fiebrink, Marco Gillies, Jeremy Gow, Memo Akten, Gillian Smith, Antonios Liapis, and Kate Compton

  30. [38]

    Ezequiel Di Paolo, Thomas Buhrmann, and Xabier Barandiaran. 2017. Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal . Oxford University Press

    2017

  31. [39]

    Ezequiel A Di Paolo, Marieke Rohde, and Hanne De Jaegher. 2010. Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    John J Dudley and Per Ola Kristensson. 2018. A review of user interface design for interactive machine learning. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 8, 2 (2018), 1–37

    2018

  33. [41]

    Upol Ehsan, Philipp Wintersberger, Q Vera Liao, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Carina Manger, Hal Daumé III, Andreas Riener, and Mark O Riedl. 2022. Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI): beyond opening the black-box of AI. In CHI conference on human factors in computing systems exte...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Jerry Alan Fails and Dan R Olsen Jr. 2003. Interactive machine learning. InProceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces . 39–45. 30 AI Drawing Partner Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2024, Woodstock, NY

    2003

  35. [43]

    Judith E Fan, Monica Dinculescu, and David Ha. 2019. Collabdraw: an environment for collaborative sketching with an artificial agent. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 556–561

    2019

  36. [44]

    Thomas Fuchs and Hanne De Jaegher. 2009. Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 8 (2009), 465–486

    2009

  37. [45]

    Daniel Fuller and Brian Magerko. 2011. Shared mental models in improvisational theatre. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. 269–278

    2011

  38. [46]

    Linda Gantt and Carmello Tabone. 1998. The formal elements art therapy scale: The rating manual . Gargoyle Press Morgantown, WV

    1998

  39. [47]

    Matthew Guzdial, Nicholas Liao, and Mark Riedl. 2018. Co-creative level design via machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09420 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Matthew Guzdial and Mark Riedl. 2019. An interaction framework for studying co-creative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09709 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    David Ha and Douglas Eck. 2017. A neural representation of sketch drawings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03477 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Mika Hämäläinen. 2018. Poem machine-a co-creative nlg web application for poem writing. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation. 195–196

    2018

  43. [51]

    James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 2 (2000), 174–196

    2000

  44. [52]

    Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Hendrik Vincent Koops, Ed Newton-Rex, Monica Dinculescu, and Carrie J Cai. 2020. AI song contest: Human-AI co-creation in songwriting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05388 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Edwin Hutchins. 2000. Distributed cognition. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences 138, 1 (2000), 1–10

    2000

  46. [54]

    Francisco Ibarrola, Tomas Lawton, and Kazjon Grace. 2023. A collaborative, interactive and context-aware drawing agent for co-creative design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Takashi Ikegami and Hiroyuki Iizuka. 2007. Turn-taking interaction as a cooperative and co-creative process. Infant Behavior and Development 30, 2 (2007), 278–288

    2007

  48. [56]

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectations about Generative AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (, Hamburg, Germany,) (CHI EA ’23). Ass...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Chipp Jansen and Elizabeth Sklar. 2021. Predicting Artist Drawing Activity via Multi-camera Inputs for Co-creative Drawing. In Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems. Springer, 217–227

    2021

  50. [58]

    Anna Jordanous. 2016. Four PPPPerspectives on computational creativity in theory and in practice. Connection Science 28, 2 (2016), 194–216

    2016

  51. [59]

    Anna Kantosalo, Prashanth Thattai Ravikumar, Kazjon Grace, and Tapio Takala. 2020. Modalities, Styles and Strategies: An Interaction Framework for Human-Computer Co-Creativity.. In ICCC. 57–64

    2020

  52. [60]

    Anna Kantosalo and Sirpa Riihiaho. 2019. Usability testing and feedback collection in a school context: Case poetry machine. Ergonomics in Design 27, 3 (2019), 17–23

    2019

  53. [61]

    Anna Kantosalo, Jukka M Toivanen, Hannu Toivonen, et al. 2015. Interaction Evaluation for Human-Computer Co-creativity: A Case Study.. In ICCC. 276–283

    2015

  54. [62]

    Pegah Karimi, Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, and Nicholas Davis. 2018. Evaluating creativity in computational co-creative systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.09886 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Pegah Karimi, Mary Lou Maher, Nicholas Davis, and Kazjon Grace. 2019. Deep learning in a computational model for conceptual shifts in a co-creative design system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10188 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pegah Karimi, Jeba Rezwana, Safat Siddiqui, Mary Lou Maher, and Nasrin Dehbozorgi. 2020. Creative sketching partner: an analysis of human-AI co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on intelligent user interfaces . 221–230

    2020

  57. [65]

    James C Kaufman and Ronald A Beghetto. 2009. Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology 13, 1 (2009), 1–12

    2009

  58. [66]

    Jody Koenig Kellas and April R Trees. 2014. Rating interactional sense-making in the process of joint storytelling. In The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures. Psychology Press, 281–294

    2014

  59. [67]

    Jingoog Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2021. Evaluating the Effect of Co-Creative Systems on Design Ideation.. In ICCC. 440–443

    2021

  60. [68]

    Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco J Ibarrola. 2023. When is a tool a tool? user perceptions of system agency in human–ai co-creative drawing. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1978–1996

    2023

  61. [69]

    Tomas Lawton, Francisco J Ibarrola, Dan Ventura, and Kazjon Grace. 2023. Drawing with reframer: Emergence and control in co-creative ai. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 264–277

    2023

  62. [70]

    Izabela Lebuda and Mathias Benedek. 2023. A systematic framework of creative metacognition. Physics of Life Reviews (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Lei Li, Changqing Zou, Youyi Zheng, Qingkun Su, Hongbo Fu, and Chiew-Lan Tai. 2020. Sketch-R2CNN: an RNN-rasterization-CNN architecture for vector sketch recognition. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 27, 9 (2020), 3745–3754

    2020

  64. [72]

    Yuyu Lin, Jiahao Guo, Yang Chen, Cheng Yao, and Fangtian Ying. 2020. It is your turn: Collaborative ideation with a co-creative robot through sketch. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2020

  65. [73]

    Ryan Louie, Andy Coenen, Cheng Zhi Huang, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2020. Novice-AI music co-creation via AI-steering tools for deep generative models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13. 31 Conference acronym ’XX, Jun...

    2020

  66. [74]

    Brian Magerko, Christopher DeLeon, and Peter Dohogne. 2011. Digital improvisational theatre: party quirks. In Intelligent Virtual Agents: 10th International Conference, IV A 2011, Reykjavik, Iceland, September 15-17, 2011. Proceedings 11 . Springer, 42–47

    2011

  67. [75]

    Yaoli Mao, Janet Rafner, Yi Wang, and Jacob Sherson. 2023. A hybrid intelligence approach to training generative design assistants: partnership between human experts and AI enhanced co-creative tools. In HHAI 2023: Augmenting Human Intellect . IOS Press, 108–123

    2023

  68. [76]

    Solange Margarido, Penousal Machado, Licínio Roque, and Pedro Martins. 2022. Let’s Make Games Together: Explainability in Mixed-initiative Co-creative Game Design. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) . IEEE, 638–645

    2022

  69. [77]

    Michael Muller and Justin Weisz. 2022. Extending a human-ai collaboration framework with dynamism and sociality. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work . 1–12

    2022

  70. [78]

    Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition . Basic books

    2013

  71. [79]

    Elisabeth Norman, Gerit Pfuhl, Rannveig Grøm Sæle, Frode Svartdal, Torstein Låg, and Tove Irene Dahl. 2019. Metacognition in psychology.Review of General Psychology 23, 4 (2019), 403–424

    2019

  72. [80]

    Alva Noë. 2004. Action in perception. MIT press

    2004

  73. [81]

    Changhoon Oh, Jungwoo Song, Jinhan Choi, Seonghyeon Kim, Sungwoo Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2018. I lead, you help but only with enough details: Understanding user experience of co-creation with artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2018

  74. [82]

    Hugo Gonçalo Oliveira, Tiago Mendes, Ana Boavida, Ai Nakamura, and Margareta Ackerman. 2019. Co-PoeTryMe: interactive poetry generation. Cognitive Systems Research 54 (2019), 199–216

    2019

  75. [83]

    J Kevin O’regan and Alva Noë. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness.Behavioral and brain sciences 24, 5 (2001), 939–973

    2001

  76. [84]

    Daniel J Pesut. 1990. Creative Thinking as a Self-Regulatory Metacognitive Process-A Model for Education, Training and Further Research. The Journal of Creative Behavior 24, 2 (1990), 105–110

    1990

  77. [85]

    Janet Rafner, Roger E Beaty, James C Kaufman, Todd Lubart, and Jacob Sherson. 2023. Creativity in the age of generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour 7, 11 (2023), 1836–1838

    2023

  78. [86]

    Janet Rafner, Dominik Dellermann, Arthur Hjorth, Dora Veraszto, Constance Kampf, Wendy MacKay, and Jacob Sherson. 2022. Deskilling, upskilling, and reskilling: a case for hybrid intelligence. Morals & Machines 1, 2 (2022), 24–39

    2022

  79. [87]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2022. Designing creative AI partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2022)

    2022

  80. [88]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2023. Designing creative AI partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 5 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  81. [89]

    Jeba Rezwana, Mary Lou Maher, and Nicholas Davis. 2021. Creative PenPal: A Virtual Embodied Conversational AI Agent to Improve User Engagement and Collaborative Experience in Human-AI Co-Creative Design Ideation.. In IUI Workshops

    2021

  82. [90]

    Robbins and M

    P. Robbins and M. Aydede (Eds.). 2008. The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition . Cambridge University Press

    2008

  83. [91]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 10684–10695

    2022

  84. [92]

    Maor Rosenberg, Goren Gordon, Lior Noy, and Kristian Tylén. 2022. Social interaction dynamics modulates collective creativity. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , Vol. 44

    2022

  85. [93]

    Ravi Kiran Sarvadevabhatla and Jogendra Kundu. 2016. Enabling my robot to play pictionary: Recurrent neural networks for sketch recognition. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia . 247–251

    2016

  86. [94]

    Donald A Schön. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-based systems 5, 1 (1992), 3–14

    1992

  87. [95]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Three fresh ideas. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 12, 3 (2020), 109–124

    2020

  88. [96]

    Sarah C Slayton, Jeanne D’Archer, and Frances Kaplan. 2010. Outcome studies on the efficacy of art therapy: A review of findings. Art therapy 27, 3 (2010), 108–118

    2010

  89. [97]

    Lucille Alice Suchman. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions . Cambridge university press

    2007

  90. [98]

    Lingyun Sun, Pei Chen, Wei Xiang, Peng Chen, Wei-yue Gao, and Ke-jun Zhang. 2019. SmartPaint: a co-creative drawing system based on generative adversarial networks. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 20, 12 (2019), 1644–1656

    2019

  91. [99]

    Evan Thompson and Mog Stapleton. 2009. Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi 28 (2009), 23–30

    2009

  92. [100]

    E Paul Torrance. 1971. Stimulation, enjoyment, and originality in dyadic creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology 62, 1 (1971), 45

    1971

  93. [101]

    Steve Torrance and Tom Froese. 2011. An inter-enactive approach to agency: participatory sense-making, dynamics, and sociality. Humana. Mente 15, 2011 (2011), 21–53

    2011

  94. [102]

    Francisco J Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 2017. The embodied mind, revised edition: Cognitive science and human experience . MIT press

    2017

  95. [103]

    Geraint A Wiggins. 2006. Searching for computational creativity. New Generation Computing 24, 3 (2006), 209–222

    2006

  96. [104]

    Lauren Winston and Brian Magerko. 2017. Turn-taking with improvisational co-creative agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 13. 129–135. 32 AI Drawing Partner Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 202...

    2017

  97. [105]

    Xingyuan Wu, Yonggang Qi, Jun Liu, and Jie Yang. 2018. Sketchsegnet: A rnn model for labeling sketch strokes. In 2018 IEEE 28th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP) . IEEE, 1–6

    2018

  98. [106]

    Georgios N Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Chao Zhang, Cheng Yao, Jianhui Liu, Zili Zhou, Weilin Zhang, Lijuan Liu, Fangtian Ying, Yijun Zhao, and Guanyun Wang. 2021. StoryDrawer: A Co-Creative Agent Supporting Children’s Storytelling through Collaborative Drawing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Hu...

    2021

  100. [108]

    Jichen Zhu, Antonios Liapis, Sebastian Risi, Rafael Bidarra, and G Michael Youngblood. 2018. Explainable AI for designers: A human-centered perspective on mixed-initiative co-creation. In 2018 IEEE conference on computational intelligence and games (CIG) . IEEE, 1–8. Fig. 11. ...

    2018

  101. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Mixed-initiative creative interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 628–635

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.