Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis describes a novel method for representing and automatically generating computer programs in an evolutionary computation context. Abstraction-Based Genetic Programming (ABGP) is a typed Genetic Programming representation system that uses System F, an expressive lambda-calculus, to represent the computational components from which the evolved programs are assembled. ABGP is based on the manipulation of closed, independent modules expressing computations with effects that have the ability to affect the whole genotype. These modules are plugged into other modules according to precisely defined rules to form complete computer programs. The use of System F allows the straightforward representation and use of many typical computational structures and behaviors (such as iteration, recursion, lists and trees) in modular form. This is done without introducing additional external symbols in the set of predefined functions and terminals of the system. In fact, programming structures typically included in GP terminal sets, such as if_then_else, may be removed and represented as abstractions in ABGP for the same problems. ABGP also provides a search space partitioning system based on the structure of the genotypes, similar to the species partitioning system of living organisms and derived from the Curry-Howard isomorphism. This thesis also presents the results obtained by applying this method to a set of problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".