The Effects of Recombination on Phenotypic Exploration and Robustness in 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
Recombination is a commonly used genetic operator in artificial and computational evolutionary systems. It has been empirically shown to be essential for evolutionary processes. However, little has been done to analyze the effects of recombination on quantitative genotypic and phenotypic properties. The majority of studies only consider mutation, mainly due to the more serious consequences of recombination in reorganizing entire genomes. Here we adopt methods from evolutionary biology to analyze a simple, yet representative, genetic programming method, linear genetic programming. We demonstrate that recombination has less disruptive effects on phenotype than mutation, that it accelerates novel phenotypic exploration, and that it particularly promotes robust phenotypes and evolves genotypic robustness and synergistic epistasis. Our results corroborate an explanation for the prevalence of recombination in complex living organisms, and helps elucidate a better understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms involved in the design of complex artificial evolutionary systems and intelligent algorithms.
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