MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeated Sequences in Linear Genetic Programming Genomes

2005· article· en· W2170657595 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplex Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGenetic programmingGenomeLinear programmingComputer scienceComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological chromosomes are replete with repetitive sequences, microsatellites, SSR tracts, ALU, and so on, in their DNA base sequences. We started looking for similar phenomena in evolutionary computation. First studies find copious repeated sequences, which can be hierarchically decomposed into shorter sequences, in programs evolved using both homologous and two-point crossover but not with headless chicken crossover or other mutations. In bloated programs the small number of effective or expressed instructions appear in both repeated and nonrepeated code. Hinting that building-blocks or code reuse may evolve in unplanned ways. Mackey-Glass chaotic time series prediction and eukaryotic protein localization (both previously used as artificial intelligence machine learning benchmarks) demonstrate the evolution of Shannon information (entropy) and lead to models capable of lossy Kolmogorov compression. Our findings with diverse benchmarks and genetic programming (GP) systems suggest this emergent phenomenon may be widespread in genetic systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it