An Analysis of the Influence of Noneffective Instructions in Linear Genetic Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear Genetic Programming (LGP) represents programs as sequences of instructions and has a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) dataflow. The results of instructions are stored in registers that can be used as arguments by other instructions. Instructions that are disconnected from the main part of the program are called noneffective instructions, or structural introns. They also appear in other DAG-based GP approaches like Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP). This article studies four hypotheses on the role of structural introns: noneffective instructions (1) serve as evolutionary memory, where evolved information is stored and later used in search, (2) preserve population diversity, (3) allow neutral search, where structural introns increase the number of neutral mutations and improve performance, and (4) serve as genetic material to enable program growth. We study different variants of LGP controlling the influence of introns for symbolic regression, classification, and digital circuits problems. We find that there is (1) evolved information in the noneffective instructions that can be reactivated and that (2) structural introns can promote programs with higher effective diversity. However, both effects have no influence on LGP search performance. On the other hand, allowing mutations to not only be applied to effective but also to noneffective instructions (3) increases the rate of neutral mutations and (4) contributes to program growth by making use of the genetic material available as structural introns. This comes along with a significant increase of LGP performance, which makes structural introns important for LGP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".