Gaggle: Genetic Algorithms on the GPU using PyTorch
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
PyTorch has profoundly impacted the machine learning (ML) community by allowing researchers of all backgrounds to train models efficiently. While PyTorch is the de facto standard in ML, the evolutionary algorithms (EA) community instead relies on many different libraries, each with low adoption in practice. In an effort to provide a standardized library for EA, packages like LEAP and PyGAD have been developed. However, these libraries fall short in either scalability or usability. In particular, neither of these packages offers efficient support for neuroevolutionary tasks. We argue that the best way to develop a PyTorch-like library for EAs is to build on the already solid foundation of PyTorch itself. We present Gaggle, an efficient PyTorch-based EA library that better supports GPU-based tasks like neuroevolution while maintaining the efficiency of CPU-based problems. We evaluate Gaggle on various problems and find statistically significant improvements in runtime over prior work on problems like training neural networks. In addition to efficiency, Gaggle provides a simple single-line interface making it accessible to beginners and a more customizable research interface with detailed configuration files to better support the EA research community.
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 | 0.001 |
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.
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