On the impact of tangled program graph marking schemes under the atari reinforcement learning benchmark
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
Tangled program graphs (TPG) support emergent modularity by first identifying subsets of programs that can usefully coexist (a team/ graph node) and then identifying the circumstance under which to reference other teams (arc adaptation). Variation operators manipulate the content of teams and arcs. This introduces cycles into the TPG structures. Previously, this effect was eradicated at run time by marking nodes while evaluating TPG individuals. In this work, a new marking heuristic is introduced, that of arc (learner) marking. This means that nodes can be revisited, but not the same arcs. We investigate the impact of this through 18 titles from the Arcade Learning Environment. The performance and complexity of the policies appear to be similar, but with specific tasks (game titles) resulting in preferences for one scheme over another.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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