MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013495133 · doi:10.1145/1570256.1570400

Evolving stylized images using a user-interactive genetic algorithm

2009· article· en· W2013495133 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Bergen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceStylized factEvolutionary computationInteractive evolutionary computationFitness functionArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Computer visionGenetic algorithmEvolutionary algorithmTask (project management)Field (mathematics)Image (mathematics)Function (biology)Human–computer interactionMachine learningEvolutionary programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of evolutionary computation to art has produced very interesting results with respect to the generation of images [5]. Systems that rely on automatic image generation, where the computer is relied upon for the production of creative images, often fall short when results are presented to a user for feedback, as results in the field of visual arts are highly subjective. Many systems incorporate user-guided evolution to remedy this situation, requiring the user to supervise the evolutionary process at every step, though this task is largely repetitive. This paper introduces JNetic, a highly user-interactive image evolution system that does not rely on user feedback or supervision. It can be run in two modes, automatic and interactive, using color distance between a source image and generated image as a fitness function in automatic mode. JNetic is a tool for artists, created with user intervention and interaction in mind, but ultimately focusing on the automatic evolution of images.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207