Test problems and representations for graph evolution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph evolution - evolving a graph or network to fit specific criteria - is a recent enterprise because of the difficulty of representing a graph in an easily evolvable form. Simple, obvious representations such as adjacency matrices can prove to be very hard to evolve and some easy-to-evolve representations place severe limits on the space of graphs that is explored. This study fills in a gap in the literature by presenting two scalable families of benchmark functions. These functions are tested on a number of representations. The first family of benchmark functions is matching the eccentricity sequences of graphs, the second is locating graphs that are relatively easy to color non-optimally. One hundred examples of the eccentricity sequence matching problem are tested. The examples have a difficulty, measured in time to solution, that varies through four orders of magnitude, demonstrating that this test problem exhibits scalability even within a particular size of problem. The ordering by problem hardness, for different representations, varies significantly from representation to representation. For the difficult coloring problem, a parameter study is presented demonstrating that the problem exhibits very different results for different algorithm parameters, demonstrating its effectiveness as a benchmark problem.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it