Managing team-based problem solving with symbiotic bid-based genetic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bid-based Genetic Programming (GP) provides an elegant mechanism for facilitating cooperative problem decomposition without an a priori specification of the number of team members. This is in contrast to existing teaming approaches where individuals learn a direct input-output map (e.g., from exemplars to class labels), allowing the approach to scale to problems with multiple outcomes (classes), while at the same time providing a mechanism for choosing an outcome from those suggested by team members. This paper proposes a symbiotic relationship that continues to support the cooperative bid-based process for problem decomposition while making the credit assignment process much clearer. Specifically, team membership is defined by a team population indexing combinations of GP individuals in a separate team member population. A Pareto-based competitive coevolutionary component enables the approach to scale to large problems by evolving informative test points in a third population. The ensuing Symbiotic Bid-Based (SBB) model is evaluated on three large classification problems and compared to the XCS learning classifier system (LCS) formulation and to the support vector machine (SVM) implementation LIBSVM. On two of the three problems investigated the overall accuracy of the SBB classifiers was found to be competitive with the XCS and SVM results. At the same time, on all problems, the SBB classifiers were able to detect instances of all classes whereas the XCS and SVM models often ignored exemplars of minor classes. Moreover, this was achieved with a level of model complexity significantly lower than that identified by the SVM and XCS solutions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".