Skip to main content

Evolutionary Art Using Summed Multi-Objective Ranks

Part of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation book series (GEVO,volume 8)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

  • genetic programming
  • evolutionary art
  • multi-objective optimization

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7747-2_14
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4419-7747-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baluja, S., Pomerleau, D., and Jochem, T. (1994). TowardsAutomated Artificial Evolution for Computer-generated Images. Connection Science, 6(2/3):325–354.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, P. and Corne, D.W. (2002). Creative Evolutionary Systems. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker. W.W Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, J. and Banzhaf, W. (1995). Interactive Evolution of Images. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Evolutionary Programming, pages 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, A.E.M. (1998). GenShade: an Evolutionary Approach to Automatic and Interactive Procedural Texture Generation. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis,M. (2000). Aesthetic Evolutionary Design with Data Flow Networks. In Proc. Generative Art 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, S. (2010). Ecj. Last accessed Feb 24, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado, P. and Cardoso, A. (1998). Computing Aesthetics. In Proc. XIVth Brazilian Symposium on AI, pages 239–249. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado, P. and Cardoso, A. (2002). All the Truth About NEvAr. Applied Intelligence, 16(2):101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ralph, W. (2006). Painting the Bell Curve: The Occurrence of the Normal Distribution in Fine Art. In preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, J. and Machado, P. (2008). The Art of Artificial Evolution. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ross, B.J., Ralph, W., and Zong, H. (2006).Evolutionary Image Synthesis Using a Model of Aesthetics. In CEC 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, K. (1993). Interactive evolution of equations for procedural models. The Visual Computer, 9:466–476.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Todd, S. and Latham, W. (1992). Evolutionary Art and Computers. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wiens, A.L. and Ross, B.J. (2002). Gentropy: Evolutionary 2D Texture Generation. Computers and Graphics Journal, 26(1):75–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bergen, S., Ross, B.J. (2011). Evolutionary Art Using Summed Multi-Objective Ranks. In: Riolo, R., McConaghy, T., Vladislavleva, E. (eds) Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VIII. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, vol 8. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7747-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7747-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7746-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7747-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)