Evolution by Computational Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A complexity-theoretic approach to studying biological networks is proposed. A simple graph representation is used where molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins and chemicals) are vertices and relations between them are directed and signed (promotional (+) or inhibitory (-)) edges. Based on this model, the problem of network evolution (NE) is defined formally as an optimization problem and subsequently proven to be fundamentally hard (NP-hard) by means of reduction from the Knapsack problem (KP). Second, for empirical validation, various biological networks of experimentally-validated interactions are compared against randomly generated networks with varying degree distributions. An NE instance is created using a given real or synthetic (random) network. After being reverse-reduced to a KP instance, each NE instance is fed to a KP solver and the average achieved knapsack value-to-weight ratio is recorded from multiple rounds of simulated evolutionary pressure. The results show that biological networks (and synthetic networks of similar degree distribution) achieve the highest ratios at maximal evolutionary pressure and minimal error tolerance conditions. The more distant (in degree distribution) a synthetic network is from biological networks the lower its achieved ratio. The results shed light on how computational intractability has shaped the evolution of biological networks into their current topology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".