MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198633914 · doi:10.1162/artl_a_00339

Explaining Evolutionary Agent-Based Models via Principled Simplification

2021· article· en· W3198633914 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Life · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceEvolutionary algorithmTestbedFitness landscapeEvolutionary roboticsMachine learningPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how evolutionary agents behave in complex environments is a challenging problem. Agents can be faced with complex fitness landscapes derived from multi-stage tasks, interaction with others, and limited environmental feedback. Agents that evolve to overcome these can sometimes access greater fitness, as a result of factors such as cooperation and tool use. However, it is often difficult to explain why evolutionary agents behave in certain ways, and what specific elements of the environment or task may influence the ability of evolution to find goal-achieving behaviours; even seemingly simple environments or tasks may contain features that affect agent evolution in unexpected ways. We explore principled simplification of evolutionary agent-based models, as a possible route to aiding their explainability. Using the River Crossing Task (RCT) as a case study, we draw on analysis in the Minimal River Crossing (RC-) Task testbed, which was designed to simplify the original task while keeping its key features. Using this method, we present new analysis concerning when agents evolve to successfully complete the RCT. We demonstrate that the RC- environment can be used to understand the effect that a cost to movement has on agent evolution, and that these findings can be generalised back to the original RCT. Then, we present new insight into the use of principled simplification in understanding evolutionary agents. We find evidence that behaviour dependent on features that survive simplification, such as problem structure, are amenable to prediction; while predicting behaviour dependent on features that are typically reduced in simplification, such as scale, can be invalid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it