Improving HybrID: How to best combine indirect and direct encoding in evolutionary algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many challenging engineering problems are regular, meaning solutions to one part of a problem can be reused to solve other parts. Evolutionary algorithms with indirect encoding perform better on regular problems because they reuse genomic information to create regular phenotypes. However, on problems that are mostly regular, but contain some irregularities, which describes most real-world problems, indirect encodings struggle to handle the irregularities, hurting performance. Direct encodings are better at producing irregular phenotypes, but cannot exploit regularity. An algorithm called HybrID combines the best of both: it first evolves with indirect encoding to exploit problem regularity, then switches to direct encoding to handle problem irregularity. While HybrID has been shown to outperform both indirect and direct encoding, its initial implementation required the manual specification of when to switch from indirect to direct encoding. In this paper, we test two new methods to improve HybrID by eliminating the need to manually specify this parameter. Auto-Switch-HybrID automatically switches from indirect to direct encoding when fitness stagnates. Offset-HybrID simultaneously evolves an indirect encoding with directly encoded offsets, eliminating the need to switch. We compare the original HybrID to these alternatives on three different problems with adjustable regularity. The results show that both Auto-Switch-HybrID and Offset-HybrID outperform the original HybrID on different types of problems, and thus offer more tools for researchers to solve challenging problems. The Offset-HybrID algorithm is particularly interesting because it suggests a path forward for automatically and simultaneously combining the best traits of indirect and direct encoding.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".