Aesthetics in mate-in-3 combinations part II

Normality

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In part I (see Iqbal, 2010a), experimental results showed that the correlation strength of the scores generated by a computational aesthetics model (for mate-in-3 combinations in chess) with the mean human-player aesthetic ratings alone can be misleading. Moreover, it was shown that the use of weights or multipliers (even those provided by domain experts) to adapt aesthetic features is unreliable. In this article, the probability distribution of the human ratings is explored as a third criterion to substantiate the envisaged model's viability (i.e., after achieving of a minimum qualifying standard, and by having a reasonably good correlation with the human ratings). Only one approach from the thousands of alternatives tested was found that resembled the human ratings in this way. It combined a specific technique (viz. a 'random-alternating' technique using a specific probability-split) with selections of features that are both added and subtracted. The new and unexpectedly adequate stochastic approach contrasts with the author's deterministic existing model that generates only precise aesthetic scores. Given (a) the new model's closer resemblance to the human ratings, (b) its ability to 'change its mind' now slightly, and (c) the otherwise equivalent performance to the existing model, the new model was considered an overall improvement and a recommended modification. Additionally, this article highlights a curious 30-70 'strictness rule' which suggests that humans appreciate only the top 30% of aesthetic features associated with an object, and simultaneously penalize it for (up to) the remaining 70% that 'try' but fail to 'impress'.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)202-211
Number of pages10
JournalICGA Journal
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jan 2010

Fingerprint

Probability distributions

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Computer Science (miscellaneous)
  • Computational Mechanics
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design

Cite this

@article{f1121aa50e6a45eb8c3ddbb058a330bb,
title = "Aesthetics in mate-in-3 combinations part II: Normality",
abstract = "In part I (see Iqbal, 2010a), experimental results showed that the correlation strength of the scores generated by a computational aesthetics model (for mate-in-3 combinations in chess) with the mean human-player aesthetic ratings alone can be misleading. Moreover, it was shown that the use of weights or multipliers (even those provided by domain experts) to adapt aesthetic features is unreliable. In this article, the probability distribution of the human ratings is explored as a third criterion to substantiate the envisaged model's viability (i.e., after achieving of a minimum qualifying standard, and by having a reasonably good correlation with the human ratings). Only one approach from the thousands of alternatives tested was found that resembled the human ratings in this way. It combined a specific technique (viz. a 'random-alternating' technique using a specific probability-split) with selections of features that are both added and subtracted. The new and unexpectedly adequate stochastic approach contrasts with the author's deterministic existing model that generates only precise aesthetic scores. Given (a) the new model's closer resemblance to the human ratings, (b) its ability to 'change its mind' now slightly, and (c) the otherwise equivalent performance to the existing model, the new model was considered an overall improvement and a recommended modification. Additionally, this article highlights a curious 30-70 'strictness rule' which suggests that humans appreciate only the top 30{\%} of aesthetic features associated with an object, and simultaneously penalize it for (up to) the remaining 70{\%} that 'try' but fail to 'impress'.",
author = "{Mohamed Iqbal}, {Mohammed Azlan}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/ICG-2010-33403",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "202--211",
journal = "ICGA Journal",
issn = "1389-6911",
publisher = "Tilburg Centre for Cogination and Communication",
number = "4",

}

Aesthetics in mate-in-3 combinations part II : Normality. / Mohamed Iqbal, Mohammed Azlan.

In: ICGA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, 01.01.2010, p. 202-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aesthetics in mate-in-3 combinations part II

T2 - Normality

AU - Mohamed Iqbal, Mohammed Azlan

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - In part I (see Iqbal, 2010a), experimental results showed that the correlation strength of the scores generated by a computational aesthetics model (for mate-in-3 combinations in chess) with the mean human-player aesthetic ratings alone can be misleading. Moreover, it was shown that the use of weights or multipliers (even those provided by domain experts) to adapt aesthetic features is unreliable. In this article, the probability distribution of the human ratings is explored as a third criterion to substantiate the envisaged model's viability (i.e., after achieving of a minimum qualifying standard, and by having a reasonably good correlation with the human ratings). Only one approach from the thousands of alternatives tested was found that resembled the human ratings in this way. It combined a specific technique (viz. a 'random-alternating' technique using a specific probability-split) with selections of features that are both added and subtracted. The new and unexpectedly adequate stochastic approach contrasts with the author's deterministic existing model that generates only precise aesthetic scores. Given (a) the new model's closer resemblance to the human ratings, (b) its ability to 'change its mind' now slightly, and (c) the otherwise equivalent performance to the existing model, the new model was considered an overall improvement and a recommended modification. Additionally, this article highlights a curious 30-70 'strictness rule' which suggests that humans appreciate only the top 30% of aesthetic features associated with an object, and simultaneously penalize it for (up to) the remaining 70% that 'try' but fail to 'impress'.

AB - In part I (see Iqbal, 2010a), experimental results showed that the correlation strength of the scores generated by a computational aesthetics model (for mate-in-3 combinations in chess) with the mean human-player aesthetic ratings alone can be misleading. Moreover, it was shown that the use of weights or multipliers (even those provided by domain experts) to adapt aesthetic features is unreliable. In this article, the probability distribution of the human ratings is explored as a third criterion to substantiate the envisaged model's viability (i.e., after achieving of a minimum qualifying standard, and by having a reasonably good correlation with the human ratings). Only one approach from the thousands of alternatives tested was found that resembled the human ratings in this way. It combined a specific technique (viz. a 'random-alternating' technique using a specific probability-split) with selections of features that are both added and subtracted. The new and unexpectedly adequate stochastic approach contrasts with the author's deterministic existing model that generates only precise aesthetic scores. Given (a) the new model's closer resemblance to the human ratings, (b) its ability to 'change its mind' now slightly, and (c) the otherwise equivalent performance to the existing model, the new model was considered an overall improvement and a recommended modification. Additionally, this article highlights a curious 30-70 'strictness rule' which suggests that humans appreciate only the top 30% of aesthetic features associated with an object, and simultaneously penalize it for (up to) the remaining 70% that 'try' but fail to 'impress'.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960486024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960486024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/ICG-2010-33403

DO - 10.3233/ICG-2010-33403

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 202

EP - 211

JO - ICGA Journal

JF - ICGA Journal

SN - 1389-6911

IS - 4

ER -