Agent-Case Embeddings for the Analysis of Evolved Systems
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
This paper introduces agent-case embeddings, a general purpose tool for detecting a variety of solutions produced by an evolutionary algorithm. They can also be used to explore the geometry of the space of problems that agents attempt to solve. Agent-case embeddings permit the comparison of solutions evolved with different representations by directly comparing phenotypes. Use of agent-case embeddings requires that multiple instances of the problems solved by the agent be available or contrivable. Three examples of agent-case embeddings are derived for apoptotic cellular automata, agents playing the iterated prisoner's dilemma, and simple virtual robots performing the Tartarus task. The use of agent-case embeddings is shown to permit visualization of the diversity of evolved agents, demonstrates the impact of changing algorithm parameters, and explores the impact of different representations on evolutionary search. The algorithm parameters explored include population sizes, elite fraction, and choice of variation operators. Agent-case embeddings are used to demonstrate that a novel technique called single-parent crossover can localize evolutionary search in a small part of the adaptive landscape in a controlled manner.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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