Enhanced generalized ant programming (EGAP)
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 begins by reviewing different methods of automatic programming while emphasizing the technique of Ant Programming (AP). AP uses an ant foraging metaphor in which ants generate a program by moving through a graph. Generalized Ant Programming (GAP) uses a context-free grammar and an Ant Colony System (ACS) to guide the program generation search process. There are two enhancements to GAP that are proposed in this paper. These are: providing a heuristic for path termination inspired by building construction and a novel pheromone placement algorithm. Three well-known problems -- Quartic symbolic regression, multiplexer, and an ant trail problem -- are experimentally compared using enhanced GAP (EGAP) and GAP. The results of the experiments show the statistically significant advantage of using this heuristic function and pheromone placement algorithm of EGAP over GAP.
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