Genotypic versus Behavioural Diversity for Teams of Programs under the 4-v-3 Keepaway Soccer Task
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
Keepaway soccer is a challenging robot control task that has been widely used as a benchmark for evaluating multi-agent learning systems. The majority of research in this domain has been from the perspective of reinforcement learning (function approximation) and neuroevolution. One of the challenges under multi-agent tasks such as keepaway is to formulate effective mechanisms for diversity maintenance. Indeed the best results to date on this task utilize some form of neuroevolution with genotypic diversity. In this work, a symbiotic framework for evolving teams of programs is utilized with both genotypic and behavioural forms of diversity maintenance considered. Specific contributions of this work include a simple scheme for characterizing genotypic diversity under teams of programs and its comparison to behavioural formulations for diversity under the keepaway soccer task. Unlike previous research concerning diversity maintenance in genetic programming (GP), we are explicitly interested in solutions taking the form of teams of programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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