Emergent Tangled Program Graphs in Partially Observable Recursive Forecasting and ViZDoom Navigation Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modularity represents a recurring theme in the attempt to scale evolution to the design of complex systems. However, modularity rarely forms the central theme of an artificial approach to evolution. In this work, we report on progress with the recently proposed Tangled Program Graph (TPG) framework in which programs are modules. The combination of the TPG representation and its variation operators enable both teams of programs and graphs of teams of programs to appear in an emergent process. The original development of TPG was limited to tasks with, for the most part, complete information. This work details two recent approaches for scaling TPG to tasks that are dominated by partially observable sources of information using different formulations of indexed memory. One formulation emphasizes the incremental construction of memory, again as an emergent process, resulting in a distributed view of state. The second formulation assumes a single global instance of memory and develops it as a communication medium, thus a single global view of state. The resulting empirical evaluation demonstrates that TPG equipped with memory is able to solve multi-task recursive time-series forecasting problems and visual navigation tasks expressed in two levels of a commercial first-person shooter environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".