Swarm grammars: growing dynamic structures in 3D agent spaces
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
Abstract We present a new way of dynamically growing and breeding structures in 3D space through swarming agents. Different agent types and the way they evolve over time is specified by a swarm grammar similar to Lindenmayer systems. We expand common L-system string interpretation from a single turtle to a multitude of turtles which behave like a swarm. By describing swarm agents within the framework of formal grammars, we build a bridge from symbolic production systems (rewrite systems) to three-dimensional real-time construction procedures that are executed by reactive and interacting agents which move in simulated physical 3D spaces. We introduce constructor agents, their formal representation in swarm grammars and demonstrate by examples how (1) the swarm rules, (2) the agent parameters and (3) the environ ment can influence the actual construction and growth processes that are initiated and directed by the swarms. In order to facilitate exploration of a large variety of swarm grammars, we apply interactive evolutionary design methods to create swarm grammar sculptures and 3D structures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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