The effect of primitive sets on the expression of evolved images

Genetic programming for evolutionary art often focuses on improving fitness functions to improve image quality. We take the opposite approach, to determine how influential the internal representation is on the expression of images. We define four primitive sets based on common ideas from the literature and compare the resulting images based on a constant fitness function. Although it is obvious that changing the primitive set has an effect on the resulting images and their fitness, it has not been thoroughly investigated. This paper explores the effect of changing primitive sets in genetic programming for evolutionary art. We find that different primitive sets have different effects on how the final image looks as well as how it is affected by genetic operators. We find that geometric primitive sets are better for creating recognisable images, and are able to make small localised changes to the image over generations. In contrast the mathematical primitive sets result in intricate patterns over the whole image, and a small change in the tree can result in a change across the whole image rather than in a localised area.

[1]  Paul Woodruff,et al.  Defining the Art , 2008 .

[2]  Thomas E. Cook GAUGUIN: generating art using genetic algorithms and user input naturally , 2007, GECCO '07.

[3]  Penousal Machado,et al.  All the Truth About NEvAr , 2002, Applied Intelligence.

[4]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  Towards Automated Artificial Evolution for Computer-generated Images , 1993, Connect. Sci..

[5]  Daniel A. Ashlock,et al.  Representation in Evolutionary Computation , 2012, WCCI.

[6]  Penousal Machado,et al.  Computing Aethetics , 1998, SBIA.

[7]  Karl Sims,et al.  Artificial evolution for computer graphics , 1991, SIGGRAPH.

[8]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Automated Aesthetic Selection of Evolutionary Art by Distance Based Classification of Genomes and Phenomes Using the Universal Similarity Metric , 2004, EvoWorkshops.

[9]  Terence Soule,et al.  How to Choose Appropriate Function Sets for Gentic Programming , 2004, EuroGP.

[10]  Scott Draves,et al.  The Electric Sheep Screen-Saver: A Case Study in Aesthetic Evolution , 2005, EvoWorkshops.

[11]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Comparing Aesthetic Measures for Evolutionary Art , 2010, EvoApplications.

[12]  Victor Ciesielski,et al.  Evolving images for entertainment , 2007, IE '07.

[13]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Evolving Pop Art Using Scalable Vector Graphics , 2012, EvoMUSART.

[14]  Brian J. Ross,et al.  Evolutionary Image Synthesis Using a Model of Aesthetics , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[16]  Mengjie Zhang,et al.  Evolution of aesthetically pleasing images without human-in-the-loop , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Jie Yuan,et al.  Large Population Size IGAs with Individuals' Fitness Not Assigned by User , 2008, ICIC.

[18]  Victor Ciesielski,et al.  Non-photorealistic Rendering Using Genetic Programming , 2008, SEAL.

[19]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection , 1993, Complex adaptive systems.

[20]  Wojciech Jaskowski,et al.  Learning and Recognition of Hand-Drawn Shapes Using Generative Genetic Programming , 2009, EvoWorkshops.

[21]  Gary Greenfield Computational aesthetics as a tool for creativity , 2005, C&C '05.

[22]  Jie Yuan,et al.  Large population size IGA with individuals' fitness not assigned by user , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[23]  Changjun Hu,et al.  Aesthetic Learning in an Interactive Evolutionary Art System , 2010, EvoApplications.

[24]  Victor Ciesielski,et al.  Animated drawings rendered by genetic programming , 2009, GECCO.