COMPARING MINIMUM NEIGHBORHOOD EVALUATION SCHEMES FOR FINDING SPATIALLY ROBUST SOLUTIONS
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
The common definition for robust solutions considers a solution robust if it remains optimal when the parameters defining the fitness function are perturbed. A second definition that can be found in the literature: robustness occurs when a solution can be varied spatially without a significant drop in fitness. We propose an alternative operational definition for spatial robustness: both the solution and the neighbourhood around the solution has fitness above a given threshold. With this new definition, we created a set of functions with useful properties to allow for the testing of solution robustness. The performance of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is then evaluated based on its ability to identify multiple robust solutions based on the above robustness definition. Different neighbourhood evaluation schemes are identified from the literature and compared, with the minimum neighbour technique proving to be the most effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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