Robustness and evolvability: Revisited, redefined and applied
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on and extending existing definitions of robustness and evolvability, we propose and utilize new formal definitions, with matching measures, of robustness and evolvability of systems with genotypes and corresponding phenotypes. We explain and show how these measures are more general and more representative of the concepts they stand for, than the commonly used/referenced measures originally proposed by Wagner. Further, a versatile digital modeling approach (BNK) is proposed that is inspired by NK systems. However, unlike NK systems, BNK incorporates a genotype and a phenotype, in addition to fitness. We develop and apply an Evolutionary Algorithm to a BNK-modeled system to find different types of perfect oscillators. We then map the resulting oscillating systems to possible genetic circuit realizations. Continuing with the synthetic biology theme, we also investigate the effect of noise in DNA synthesis on the predicted functionality of a DNA-based biosensor (i.e., its robustness), and we carry out a theoretical assessment of the evolvability of different types of ribozymes, undergoing directed evolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".