MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240996730 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646798.v1

Indirect Estimation Of Distribution Algorithms For The Evolution Of Tree-Shaped Structures

2021· preprint· en· W4240996730 on OpenAlexaff
Elmira Ghoulbeigi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene expression programmingEstimation of distribution algorithmAlgorithmTree (set theory)Computer scienceSampling distributionPopulationSampling (signal processing)MathematicsDistribution (mathematics)Probabilistic logicStatisticsMachine learningFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores indirect estimation of distribution algorithms (IEDAs) for the evolution of tree structured expressions. Unlike conventional estimation of distribution algorithms, IEDAs maintain a distribution of the genotype space and indirectly search the solution space by performing a genotype-to-phenotype mapping. In this work we introduce two IEDAs named PDPE and N-gram GEP. PDPE induces a population of programs, encoded as fixed-length gene expression programming (GEP) chromosomes, by iteratively refining and randomly sampling a probability distribution of program instructions. N-gram GEP attempts to capture regularities in GEP chromosomes by sampling the probability distribution of triplet of instructions (3-grams). We tested the performance of these systems using a variety of non-trivial test problems, such as symbolic regression and the lawn-mower problem. We compared PDPE and N-gram GEP with their predecessors, probabilistic incremental program evolution (PIPE) and N-gram GP, and the canonical GEP algorithm. The results proved that our methodology is more efficient than PIPE and the canonical GEP algorithm.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207