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
In the field of Evolutionary Robotics, the design, development and application of artificial neural networks as controllers have derived their inspiration from biology. Biologists and artificial intelligence researchers are trying to understand the effects of neural network learning during the lifetime of the individuals on evolution of these individuals by qualitative and quantitative analyses. The conclusion of these analyses can help develop optimized artificial neural networks to perform any given task. The purpose of this thesis is to study the effects of learning on evolution. This has been done by applying Temporal Difference Reinforcement Learning methods to the evolution of Artificial Neural Tissue controller. The controller has been assigned the task to collect resources in a designated area in a simulated environment. The performance of the individuals is measured by the amount of resources collected. A comparison has been made between the results obtained by incorporating learning in evolution and evolution alone. The effects of learning parameters: learning rate, training period, discount rate, and policy on evolution have also been studied. It was observed that learning delays the performance of the evolving individuals over the generations. However, the non zero learning rate throughout the evolution process signifies natural selection preferring individuals possessing plasticity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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