MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388486995 · doi:10.1007/s10710-023-09462-2

Denoising autoencoder genetic programming: strategies to control exploration and exploitation in search

2023· article· en· W4388486995 on OpenAlexaff
David Wittenberg, Franz Rothlauf, Christian Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Programming and Evolvable Machines · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsComputer scienceGenetic programmingAutoencoderArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSampling (signal processing)Probabilistic logicMathematical optimizationArtificial neural networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Denoising autoencoder genetic programming (DAE-GP) is a novel neural network-based estimation of distribution genetic programming approach that uses denoising autoencoder long short-term memory networks as a probabilistic model to replace the standard mutation and recombination operators of genetic programming. At each generation, the idea is to capture promising properties of the parent population in a probabilistic model and to use corruption to transfer variations of these properties to the offspring. This work studies the influence of corruption and sampling steps on search. Corruption partially mutates candidate solutions that are used as input to the model, whereas the number of sampling steps defines how often we re-use the output during model sampling as input to the model. We study the generalization of the royal tree problem, the Airfoil problem, and the Pagie-1 problem, and find that both corruption strength and the number of sampling steps influence exploration and exploitation in search and affect performance: exploration increases with stronger corruption and lower number of sampling steps. The results indicate that both corruption and sampling steps are key to the success of the DAE-GP: it permits us to balance the exploration and exploitation behavior in search, resulting in an improved search quality. However, also selection is important for exploration and exploitation and should be chosen wisely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic Programming and Evolvable MachinesSame topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207