Using feature-based fitness evaluation in symbolic regression with added noise
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
Symbolic regression is a popular genetic programming (GP) application. Typically, the fitness function for this task is based on a sum-of-errors, involving the values of the depen-dent variable directly calculated from the candidate expres-sion. While this approach is extremely successful in many instances, its performance can deteriorate in the presence of noise. In this paper, a feature-based fitness function is considered, in which the fitness scores are determined by comparing the statistical features of the sequence of values, rather than the actual values themselves. The set of features used in the fitness evaluation are customized according to the target, and are drawn from a wide set of features capa-ble of characterizing a variety of behaviours. Experiments examining the performance of the feature-based and stan-dard fitness functions are carried out for non-oscillating and oscillating targets in a GP system which introduces noise during the evaluation of candidate expressions. Results show strength in the feature-based fitness function, especially for the oscillating target. Categories and Subject Descriptors
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 | 0.001 |
| 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