# Evolving to the Aesthetics of a Vision-Language Model

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00112 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00112/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Image editing and quality assessment, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 9 of its 56 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Image editing and quality assessment](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/image-editing-and-quality-assessment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.11239/) (2020)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Exploring CLIP for Assessing the Look and Feel of Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.12396/) (2022)
- [Q-Align: Teaching LMMs for Visual Scoring via Discrete Text-Defined Levels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17090/) (2023)
- [MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04788/) (2024)
- [Is Writing Prompts Really Making Art?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13049/) (2023)
- [Image Aesthetics Assessment via Learnable Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02861/) (2023)
- [Complexity and Aesthetics in Generative and Evolutionary Art](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.01470/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evolutionary systems have demonstrated remarkable results in creative domains, with recent applications in generative typography, design, and music. However, an open problem remains in designing fitness functions that effectively capture the desired aesthetics of abstract outputs. In this work, we explore two methods for evaluating the aesthetics of a population using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). The first method uses CLIP-IQA to predict an aesthetic score for each design. The second method instead pits candidates against each other, with winners determined by a VLM using a custom prompt specified by the user. The outcomes of these pairwise comparisons are then used to estimate a population ranking via the Glicko rating system. We present these methods in the context of a case study using a custom generative system and compare the resulting rankings with an artist's aesthetic ranking and those produced by other aesthetic evaluation techniques. Additionally, we document the artist's experience using these approaches to evolve designs, critically analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both methods.