Evolutionary Art Using Summed Multi-Objective Ranks

  • Steven Bergen
  • Brian J. Ross
Part of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation book series (GEVO, volume 8)


This paper shows how a sum of ranks approach to multi-objective evaluation is effective for some low-order search problems, as it discourages the generation of outlier solutions. Outliers, which often arise with the traditional Pareto ranking strategy, tend to exhibit good scores on a minority of feature tests, while having mediocre or poor scores on the rest. They arise from the definition of Pareto dominance, in which an individual can be superlative in as little as a single objective in order to be considered undominated. The application considered in this research is evolutionary art, inwhich images are synthesized that adhere to an aesthetic model based on color gradient distribution. The genetic programming system uses 4 different fitness measurements, that perform aesthetic and color palette analyses. Outliers are usually undesirable in this application, because the color gradient distribution measurements requires 3 features to be satisfactory simultaneously. Sum of ranks scoring typically results in images that score better on the majority of features, and are therefore arguably more visually pleasing. Although the ranked sum strategy was originally inspired by highly dimensional problems having perhaps 20 objectives or more, this research shows that it is likewise practical for low-dimensional problems.


genetic programming evolutionary art multi-objective optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baluja, S., Pomerleau, D., and Jochem, T. (1994). TowardsAutomated Artificial Evolution for Computer-generated Images. Connection Science, 6(2/3):325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentley, P. and Corne, D.W. (2002). Creative Evolutionary Systems. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Bentley, P.J. and Wakefield, J.P. (1997). Finding acceptable solutions in the pareto-optimal range using multiobjective genetic algorithms. In Soft Computing in Engineering Design and Manufacturing. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Coello, C.A. Coello, Lamont, G.B., and Veldhuizen, D.A. Van (2007). Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. Kluwer, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  5. Corne, D. and Knowles, J. (2007). Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: Some nondominated points are better than others. In Proceedings GECCO 2007, pages 773–780. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker. W.W Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Dorin, A. (2001). Aesthetic Fitness and Artificial Evolution for the Selection of Imagery from the Mythical Infinite Library. In Advances in Artificial Life –Proc. 6th European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 659–668. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Ebert, D.S., Musgrave, F.K., Peachey, D., Perlin, K., and Worley, S. (1998). Texturing andModeling: a Procedural Approach. Academic Press, 2 edition.Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Graf, J. and Banzhaf, W. (1995). Interactive Evolution of Images. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Evolutionary Programming, pages 53–65.Google Scholar
  11. Ibrahim, A.E.M. (1998). GenShade: an Evolutionary Approach to Automatic and Interactive Procedural Texture Generation. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis,M. (2000). Aesthetic Evolutionary Design with Data Flow Networks. In Proc. Generative Art 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Luke, S. (2010). Ecj. Last accessed Feb 24, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Machado, P. and Cardoso, A. (1998). Computing Aesthetics. In Proc. XIVth Brazilian Symposium on AI, pages 239–249. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Machado, P. and Cardoso, A. (2002). All the Truth About NEvAr. Applied Intelligence, 16(2):101–118.Google Scholar
  16. Neufeld, C.,Ross, B., and Ralph,W. (2008). The Evolution of Artistic Filters. In Romero, J. and Machado, P., editors, The Art of Artificial Evolution. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Ralph, W. (2006). Painting the Bell Curve: The Occurrence of the Normal Distribution in Fine Art. In preparation. Google Scholar
  18. Romero, J. and Machado, P. (2008). The Art of Artificial Evolution. Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Rooke, S. (2002). Eons of Genetically Evolved Algorithmic Images. In Bentley, P.J. and Corne,D.W., editors,Creative Evolutionary Systems, pages 330–365. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  20. Ross, B.J., Ralph, W., and Zong, H. (2006).Evolutionary Image Synthesis Using a Model of Aesthetics. In CEC 2006.Google Scholar
  21. Sims, K. (1993). Interactive evolution of equations for procedural models. The Visual Computer, 9:466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spector, L. and Alpern, A. (1994). Criticism, culture, and the automatic generation of artworks. In Proc. AAAI-94, pages 3–8. AAAI Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Svangard, N. and Nordin, P. (2004). Automated Aesthetic Selection of Evolutionary Art by Distance Based Classification of Genomes and Phenomes using the Universal Similarity Metric. In Applications of Evolutionary Computing: EvoWorkshops 2004, pages 447–456. Springer. LNCS 3005.Google Scholar
  24. Todd, S. and Latham, W. (1992). Evolutionary Art and Computers. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Whitelaw,M. (2002). Breeding Aesthetic Objects: Art and Artificial Evolution. In Bentley, P. and Corne,D.W., editors,CreativeEvolutionary Systems, pages 129–145. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. Wiens, A.L. and Ross, B.J. (2002). Gentropy: Evolutionary 2D Texture Generation. Computers and Graphics Journal, 26(1):75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Bergen
    • 1
  • Brian J. Ross
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBrock UniversityOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations