MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025201938 · doi:10.1142/s1469026805001441

USING COMPETITIVE CO-EVOLUTION TO EVOLVE BETTER PATTERN RECOGNISERS

2005· article· en· W2025201938 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)SoftwareBinary numberArtificial intelligenceReliability (semiconductor)Base (topology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Arithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a system for the automatic synthesis of classifiers. The CellNet system for generating binary pattern classifiers is used as a base for further experimentation. As in the original CellNet software, we evolve pattern recognisers (hunters). However, in this version called CellNet Co-Ev, we also evolve the patterns (prey) in a competitive co-evolution. Patterns evolve through the application of camouflage functions, which are used to obscure the data naturally found in the database. The addition of this competitive co-evolution yields a larger and more varied database, artificially increasing the difficulty of the classification task. Application to the CEDAR database of handwritten characters shows an increase in the reliability of the evolution of recognisers, as well as in the elimination of over-fitting, relative to the original CellNet software.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it