Dynamic Subset Selection Based on a Fitness Case Topology
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
A large training set of fitness cases can critically slow down genetic programming, if no appropriate subset selection method is applied. Such a method allows an individual to be evaluated on a smaller subset of fitness cases. In this paper we suggest a new subset selection method that takes the problem structure into account, while being problem independent at the same time. In order to achieve this, information about the problem structure is acquired during evolutionary search by creating a topology (relationship) on the set of fitness cases. The topology is induced by individuals of the evolving population. This is done by increasing the strength of the relation between two fitness cases, if an individual of the population is able to solve both of them. Our new topology-based subset selection method chooses a subset, such that fitness cases in this subset are as distantly related as is possible with respect to the induced topology. We compare topology-based selection of fitness cases with dynamic subset selection and stochastic subset sampling on four different problems. On average, runs with topology-based selection show faster progress than the others.
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