# Biome Generation Tool: A Mixed-Initiative Software for the Procedural Generation of Biomes
## 4 Results
#### User Study Descriptive Analysis  
A two-sided two-sample \(t\)-test was performed to compare the different indices between the experimental group and the control group. Results were analyzed with the SPSS tool with a \(p<0.05\) level of significance, and are shown in Figure 3.  
* **AI suggestions**: There was a significant difference in how users perceived the AI suggestions between the experimental group (M = 4.93, SD = 1.02) and the control (M = 3.74, SD = 1.63); \(\{\)26\(\}\) = \(-2.26\), \(p=0.032\), meaning that participants in the experimental group had a better opinion about the AI suggestions they received, compared to those of participants in the control group about the ones they received.
* **AI Creation Features**: There was not a significant difference in how users perceived that the tool helped them develop biomes between the experimental group (M = 5.23, SD = 1.28) and control (M = 4.20, SD = 1.50); \(\{\)26\(\}\) = \(-1.93\), \(p=0.064\). It is important to  
Figure 2: **(A)** Top view of the biome generated by BGT on the Unity editor. (**B**) Lateral view of the generated biome in the editor. This is the end-user view, where the designer can see the generated environment in 3D.  
note that the control group M was 4.20, close to the neutral point of the measurement scale. As a complementary analysis, the difference with the middle point of the scale 4 was tested for, finding that the control group feels neutral about how the tool helped them to develop biomes (M = 4.20, SD = 1.50, t(14) = 0.516, \(p\) = 0.614). The experimental group showed a positive perception over the neutral point of the scale (M = 5.23, SD = 1.28); (t(12) = 3.44, \(p\) = 0.005), which indicates that the users felt the tool helped them create more natural, complex, complete, and varied biomes.
* **Productivity**: There was a significant difference in perceived productivity, between the experimental (M = 5.98, SD = 0.78) and control groups (M = 5.13, SD = 1.17); t(26) = -2.20, \(p\) = 0.037. This means that participants in the experimental group considered that the tool helped them to be more productive than the ones in the control group considered it helped them. It is important to note that both groups' means were over four (which is the mid-point of the seven-point Likert scale). This could be related to the fact that participants were asked about the BGT in general and not only about the AI suggestions. In other words, both groups perceived better productivity, with the experimental group showing a greater effect.
* **Satisfaction**: There was a significant difference in satisfaction with the tool between the experimental (M = 6, SD = 0.82) and control groups (M = 4.82, SD = 1.40); t(23) = -2.747, \(p\) = 0.011. This means that participants in the experimental group were more satisfied with the tool than the ones in the control group were. Just as with the last item, it is important to note that the satisfaction of the participants considered the BGT in general and not only the IA suggestions.  
Finally, we compared the number of AI suggestions used by participants in each group. A Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the number of AI suggestions used was not significantly different between the experimental group (Md = 19, n = 13) and the control group (Md = 18, n = 15), U = 78, \(p\) = 0.368. This means that both groups interacted with BGT's AI suggestions during the procedure, with no statistical differences. It is important to note that the only difference between groups is the fitness functions provided by BGT. Therefore, the interaction with the tool was the same for all participants.