A Comparison Between Representations for Evolving Images

Evolving images using genetic programming is a complex task and the representation of the solutions has an important impact on the performance of the system. In this paper, we present two novel representations for evolving images with genetic programming. Both these representations are based on the idea of recursively partitioning the space of an image. This idea distinguishes these representations from the ones that are currently most used in the literature. The first representation that we introduce partitions the space using rectangles, while the second one partitions using triangles. These two representations are compared to one of the most well known and frequently used expression-based representations, on five different test cases. The presented results clearly indicate the appropriateness of the proposed representations for evolving images. Also, we give experimental evidence of the fact that the proposed representations have a higher locality compared to the compared expression-based representation.

[1]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitness landscapes and GA performance , 1991 .

[2]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abandoning Objectives: Evolution Through the Search for Novelty Alone , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  The Role of Syntactic and Semantic Locality of Crossover in Genetic Programming , 2010, PPSN.

[4]  Ahmed Kattan,et al.  Locality in Continuous Fitness-Valued Cases and Genetic Programming Difficulty , 2012, EVOLVE.

[5]  Jon McCormack,et al.  Open Problems in Evolutionary Music and Art , 2005, EvoWorkshops.

[6]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Foundations of Genetic Programming , 1999, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[7]  Penousal Machado,et al.  The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music , 2007 .

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

[9]  Tatsuo Unemi,et al.  An IEC-based support system for font design , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).

[10]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abstract , 1998, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.

[11]  Penousal Machado,et al.  Evolving Figurative Images Using Expression-Based Evolutionary Art , 2013, ICCC.

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

[13]  J. J. Ventrella,et al.  Evolving the Mandelbrot Set to Imitate Figurative Art , 2008 .

[14]  R. D'Agostino An omnibus test of normality for moderate and large size samples , 1971 .

[15]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Low-Complexity Art , 2017 .

[16]  Evelyne Lutton,et al.  ArtiE-Fract: The Artist's Viewpoint , 2003, EvoWorkshops.

[17]  Uday Kumar Chakraborty,et al.  An analysis of Gray versus binary encoding in genetic search , 2003, Inf. Sci..

[18]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  On the roles of semantic locality of crossover in genetic programming , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[19]  Ellie Baker,et al.  Evolving Line Drawings , 1993, ICGA.

[20]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Evolving art with scalable vector graphics , 2011, GECCO '11.

[21]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Analyzing Deception in Trap Functions , 1992, FOGA.

[22]  David Hart,et al.  Toward greater artistic control for interactive evolution of images and animation , 2006, SIGGRAPH '06.

[23]  Matthew R. Lewis Evolutionary Visual Art and Design , 2008, The Art of Artificial Evolution.

[24]  Jason Yosinski,et al.  Innovation Engines: Automated Creativity and Improved Stochastic Optimization via Deep Learning , 2015, GECCO.

[25]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Picbreeder: A Case Study in Collaborative Evolutionary Exploration of Design Space , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[27]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b2 and √b1 , 1973 .

[28]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Design of Representations and Search Operators , 2015, Handbook of Computational Intelligence.

[29]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Theory and practice for efficient genetic programming , 2004 .

[30]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  What makes a problem hard for a genetic algorithm? Some anomalous results and their explanation , 1993, Machine Learning.

[31]  Tiago Martins,et al.  Evotype: Evolutionary Type Design , 2015, EvoMUSART.

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

[33]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Compositional Pattern Producing Networks : A Novel Abstraction of Development , 2007 .

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

[35]  Penousal Machado,et al.  Expression-Based Evolution of Faces , 2012, EvoMUSART.

[36]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Defining locality as a problem difficulty measure in genetic programming , 2011, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[37]  Vito Di Gesù,et al.  Distance-based functions for image comparison , 1999, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[38]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming (videotape): the movie , 1992 .

[39]  Gary R. Greenfield,et al.  Mathematical Building Blocks for Evolving Expressions , 2000 .