MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Drives Evolution of Self-Driving Automata?

2023· article· en· W4390489172 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCrossoverAutomatonMutationComputer sciencePopulationSequence (biology)Matching (statistics)Variety (cybernetics)Diversity (politics)Operator (biology)Cellular automatonFinite-state machineState (computer science)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-Driving Automata (SDAs) are variations on finite automata that both read and output symbols. They are versatile and practical when used for the generation of data for a variety of problems. In this study, we examine several questions regarding their operation, using sequence matching as a test problem in the analysis. We present a new mutation operator and four dynamic mutation adjusters. We analyze these, along with crossover, for their ability to solve the problem and their relative ability to improve the population; in all of these, we also examine population diversity over time. We find that using mutation that implements a static quantity of changes outperforms one with dynamic changes. Further, while population diversity does decrease somewhat, evolution is still possible.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207