MachineSex/tasks/workorder-pnas-submission.md
Giorgio Gilestro d6a5c5cacd paper (Phase 2): fold hardened E13 into both versions, citation refresh, arXiv package
Speciation section rewritten around the hardened results: alignment
modulo the full function-preserving symmetry group (answers 2606.23607
preemptively), the hybrid-fitness cliff (0.97 -> 0.03), the mu(S)/2
floor, and the pre-registered emergent converse (no isolation without
functional conflict; the merge rescues forgetting specialists) — in the
abstract, §5, §13 ledger, and the accessible version.

Citation refresh (author names verified via arXiv API): concede
First-Extinction Law (Benati 2509.20101) and quantitative-trait collapse
(Yoon 2407.17493) alongside Riis; add verifier-injection (Yi 2510.16657),
Livnat & Papadimitriou (CACM 2016) as the sex-as-computation precursor,
and the adjacent 2024-26 merge/LMC/multi-agent literature (Ainsworth,
Pari, Zhou, Cao, Sharma, Hu, Kozodoi, Li & Shen, Harris, Chen, Tanaka).

arXiv package (paper/arxiv/): md2tex.py — a small block-based
Markdown->LaTeX converter keeping the Markdown as source of truth —
main.tex, generated body.tex, 3 vector figures; builds clean under
tectonic (20 pp; pdflatex hint guarded for arXiv); ARXIV-SUBMISSION.md
carries categories, license note, and a <=1,920-char abstract. 149 tests
green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BkRLcc18rwT2Lysu6PbG7v
2026-09-06 12:49:52 +01:00

164 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# Work order — PNAS submission: "The Evolution of Sex for Artificial Intelligence"
*Created 2026-08-11. Target: PNAS Direct Submission research article (~6 pp main + SI Appendix),
preceded by an arXiv preprint (q-bio.PE × cs.LG). Decision basis: 2026-08-11 literature + venue scan
(see memory/competitive-landscape.md, August addendum). GG approved PNAS + the analysis.*
**Governing constraints.** (1) Dual audience: every claim stated so a computer scientist and a
biologist can each follow it — keep the "two statements of the same fact" device and the
dictionary table; define every term at first use. (2) Honesty ledger: concede Riis +
First-Extinction + quantitative-trait collapse up front; claims are the *cure* and its theory, not
the diagnosis. (3) Reproducibility is the differentiator: every figure from committed artifacts,
code+data DOI at submission.
---
## Phase 1 — Referee-proof the headline (E13 hardening) — Week 1
The speciation result (E12+E13) is both our most novel and most exposed claim
(arXiv:2606.23607, June 2026: a symmetry group larger than permutations removes most transformer
barriers). Patch before the preprint goes up.
- [x] **E13c — scale-aware alignment (the symmetry defense).** *(Done 2026-08-11: canonicalise_scale
+ gated tests; decomposition & cliff regenerated — conflict residual 0.502→0.497 under the full
group, independent 0.001; floor proposition drafted in paper/si-notes.md S1. Hybrid-fitness
readout added: cliff accuracy 0.97→0.03.)*
- Extend `neural/rebasin.py` with per-unit **positive rescaling** canonicalisation: for the
no-BatchNorm ReLU MLP, the full function-preserving unit symmetry group is permutation ∘
positive diagonal scaling. Canonicalise both nets first (rescale each hidden unit to
‖in-weights‖=1, pushing the norm into the out-weights), *then* permutation-match. Sanity gate:
a randomly permuted **and rescaled** copy must realign to functional identity (extend
`tests/test_rebasin.py`).
- Re-run `speciation_real` + `speciation_real_cliff` reporting `residual_perm` vs
`residual_perm_scale`. Expected: independent-init residual stays ≈0; conflict residual
unchanged. Update figure/README.
- Write the **theoretical floor proposition** (SI): two models with low loss on *contradictory*
label assignments over the same inputs cannot both be matched by any function-preserving
transformation — any single merged function errs on at least the disagreement mass, so the
conflict-condition barrier has an information-theoretic floor independent of the symmetry
group. Cite 2606.23607 and position: their result strengthens ours (the *removable* part may
grow with richer groups; the *functional* residual cannot vanish). Also cite the two June-2026
LMC papers found in the direct arXiv sweep (2026-08-11): "Beyond Structural Symmetries: Linear
Mode Connectivity via Neuron Identifiability" (2606.03…) and "Functional Equivalence in
Attention … Applications to Linear Mode Connectivity" (2606.16…) — same objection family, same
defense. Direct arXiv API sweep also re-confirmed: speciation/DMI/FisherMuller/ratchet/
evolution-of-sex/mating-for-models have zero ML hits on arXiv itself as of the newest listings.
- [x] **E13b — emergent speciation (the decisive missing experiment).** *(Done 2026-08-11: the
pre-registered SECOND reading — residual 0.000 at every t_div ≤ 3200 in both `disjoint` and
`augment`; the merge RESCUES the forgetting specialists (parents 0.535/0.474 → merged 0.955,
sustained FisherMuller). Speciation requires functional conflict in this regime; LLM-scale
over-specialisation deferred to Phase-3 llm_speciation. Figure panel C + READMEs updated.)* Current E13 *imposes*
contradiction; a true DobzhanskyMuller incompatibility is *emergent* (each change harmless
alone, bad only in combination). Design (`speciation_real` new conditions, CPU/torch, cheap):
- `disjoint`: fork from the shared MNIST base; child A continues on classes 04 only, child B on
59 only (no contradiction anywhere). Sweep divergence time `t_div`. Measure naive barrier and
scale+perm-aligned residual on the full task, **and merged-model accuracy vs best parent**.
- `conventions` (optional, purer DMI): same task, different augmentation conventions (A:
rotations, B: inversions) — representational drift with zero output conflict.
- **The money curve:** merged accuracy vs `t_div` should trace E12's *compatible →
outbreeding-depression → inviability* trajectory emergently: at low divergence the merge
*rescues* the two forgetting specialists (FisherMuller), at high divergence it fails
(speciation). If it comes out, this is a headline panel. Either outcome is publishable
(no growth ⇒ "models are safer to merge than biology predicts" — an honest bound).
- Tests + README + fold into figure. Pre-register the falsifier language before running.
## Phase 2 — arXiv preprint (priority stake) — end of Week 1
- [x] Citation refresh in `paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md` *(done 2026-08-11; author names verified against arXiv API)*: **new concessions**
First-Extinction Law (2509.20101), quantitative-trait collapse (2407.17493), verifier-injection
(2510.16657); **precursor** — Livnat & Papadimitriou, *Sex as an algorithm* (CACM 2016);
**adjacent-to-differentiate** — merge-collapse theory (2603.09463), mergeability prediction
(2601.22285), non-local merging (2410.12766), model kinship (2410.12613), expert-duration
(2607.11997), symmetry-scaling (2606.23607), Harris (2604.05142), in-context diversity collapse
(2604.18005, 2603.24676).
- [x] Fold E13b/c results into the speciation section (whatever they show — honestly). *(Done: full-symmetry residual + hybrid-fitness cliff + the emergent converse, in abstract, §5, §13 and the accessible version.)*
- [x] LaTeX conversion: `paper/arxiv/` (md2tex.py block-based converter from the Markdown source of
truth; main.tex; 3 figures; builds clean under tectonic, 20 pp; arXiv pdflatex hint guarded).
- [ ] **Post to arXiv (GG action — package ready):** upload `paper/arxiv/{main.tex,body.tex,figs/}`;
categories, license note, and a ≤1,920-char abstract are prepared in `paper/arxiv/ARXIV-SUBMISSION.md`.
## Phase 3 — New experiments for impact & robustness — Weeks 23
- [ ] **`llm_speciation` — the cliff at the LLM tier (new, highest-impact addition).**
Speciation demonstrated at all three tiers (analytic → MLP → LLM) makes the headline
unassailable. Structural bonus to state in the paper: LoRA deltas live in the frozen base's
coordinate system, so there is **no permutation ambiguity by construction** — any LoRA-merge
failure is *functional* incompatibility, the residual isolated architecturally.
- Conflict knob: two LoRA children from the same base learn contradictory conventions on a
shared family (e.g. "sort ascending" vs "sort descending"; answer-format conflicts) on a
fraction `conflict_frac` of prompts, plus their own disjoint families. Sweep `conflict_frac`,
soup-merge, evaluate on neutral held-out + both convention sets. Predict a monotone cliff.
- Emergent knob: take existing disjoint specialists, sweep **training duration**
(over-specialisation) → merged performance vs steps. Frames the Amazon observation
(2607.11997: optimal expert duration) as *our theory explaining their data* — a strong PNAS
move.
- 0.5B locally first; one 7B CX3 confirm if the sign is clean (`hpc/` PBS, minutes).
- [ ] **Multi-seed the LLM arc (robustness — removes the "one seed" objection).**
- Thread the seed into specialist cache keys (`spec_<family>[_hard]_s<seed>`); verify nothing
else assumes the old names.
- 0.5B: seeds 15 × {merge, moe, directed} × {easy, hard}. 7B on CX3: seeds 13 × hard
{merge, moe, directed} (825 min walltimes → trivial). Aggregate figures with 95% CI; update
READMEs; the headroom law now carries error bars.
- [ ] **(Optional, SI-grade) ambiguous-families router stress test** — overlapping-skill families
where the router is no longer trivially perfect; documents the honest limit of union-by-routing.
Do only if time permits; otherwise keep the existing rider sentence.
## Phase 4 — The PNAS manuscript — Weeks 34
- [ ] **Restructure** `paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md` → PNAS research article
(`paper/pnas/`): Significance (~120 w, dual-audience), Abstract (~250 w), Intro (concede the
diagnosis; thesis: the cure is sex; where this sits), **Results ladder**:
1. Collapse is drift, grounding is immigration (E1E3: exact `H_eq`, `g*≈0.048`, tail threshold
`m·p*≳1`) — concede Riis/First-Extinction, keep the immigration delta.
2. Merge, don't average — the conservation law (E4 + neural recombination).
3. Sex: FisherMuller offspring exceed every parent; outbreeding depression on rugged
landscapes; directed sex as the AI advantage (E8E10).
4. **Model speciation** (E12 + hardened E13 + `llm_speciation`) — the headline.
5. The jointly-necessary society (E11) + mating structure (E14, one panel).
6. Real-weight confirmation tier: neural/MNIST (brief) + multi-seed LLM headroom law.
Discussion: the borrowed/ours ledger, the design-rules table (average/route/select/don't-merge ×
landscape), limits (what LLM-scale still lacks: the full grounded society), what biology gets
back (in-silico tests of sex theory in regimes biology can't reach). Methods: brief + SI.
- [ ] **Manifesto sections → Discussion or drop** (institutions, four timescales, re-minting
philosophy, fitness-is-not-truth): compress each to ≤1 paragraph or move to SI "extended
discussion". The accessible companion doc stays as-is for outreach, not submission.
- [ ] **Dual-audience devices**: Table 1 = the population-genetics ↔ machine-learning dictionary;
every term defined in one clause at first use; keep "the ML statement / the genetics statement"
paired-paragraph device, compressed.
- [ ] **Figures: consolidate ~25 per-experiment figures into 5 main multi-panel figures**
(1 concept/dictionary+operator schematic; 2 collapse&grounding incl. the MNIST digit-decay
montage — the one image both audiences get instantly; 3 sex: FisherMuller/outbreeding/directed +
merge-don't-average; 4 speciation across three tiers; 5 society ablation + headroom law).
Everything else → SI figures. All regenerated from committed parquet.
- [ ] **SI Appendix**: results-summary.md as the skeleton; full methods, all closed forms +
tolerances, per-experiment configs/seeds, the E13 floor proposition, confusion matrices,
reproduce.sh instructions.
- [ ] Word budget: main text ≤ ~6,000 words; check PNAS current LaTeX template + submission
checklist at writing time.
## Phase 5 — Submission mechanics — Week 5
- [ ] **Code & data availability**: public GitHub snapshot + Zenodo DOI (code + committed results
artifacts); PNAS data-availability statement; verify `reproduce.sh` end-to-end on a clean clone.
- [ ] **Cover letter**: the fit argument (Evolvable-AI 2026 precedent; geneticist's-lens
contribution; what biology gains); position vs Riis/Shumailov explicitly.
- [ ] **Editor & reviewer suggestions**: identify the editor who handled "Evolvable AI" (PNAS
2527700123; N.C. Stenseth per scan — verify); suggest 35 reviewers mixing (i) an
evolution-of-sex theorist, (ii) a model-merging ML researcher, (iii) a model-collapse author.
- [ ] **Policy checks at submission time** (verify, don't assume): PNAS AI-assistance disclosure
wording; preprint policy; OA/page charges + whether Imperial has a read-publish agreement with
PNAS; ORCID; competing interests.
- [ ] Sync arXiv v2 with the submitted text.
## Decision items for GG (not blocking Phases 13)
- [ ] Title: keep *"The Evolution of Sex for Artificial Intelligence"* vs a more declarative PNAS
title (e.g. *"A population genetics of model merging: why AI societies should reproduce
sexually"*). Decide at Phase 4.
- [ ] Authorship & AI-assistance acknowledgement wording (per PNAS policy).
- [ ] Repo public at submission vs at acceptance (Zenodo DOI needed at submission either way).
- [ ] APC/OA budget approval.
## Discovered During Work
*(append here)*