MachineSex/results/figS10_rugged_landscapes/README.md
Giorgio Gilestro ab3dc10587 Restructure: descriptive tier and experiment names, paper/manuscript
- paper/pnas -> paper/manuscript (venue-neutral)
- configs/layer1 -> configs/inheritance, src/knowledge -> src/inheritance
  (imported as `inheritance`), make layer1 -> make inheritance; layer2 alias dropped
- inheritance and trained-network bundles named after the manuscript figure
  they feed (fig2_grounding_sweep, figS3_rebaselining, ...), or descriptively
  where they feed none; configs keep their `experiment:` value so parquet
  hashes are unchanged, only output.dir moves
- figure scripts, SI figure sources, notebooks, REPRODUCING.md, README and the
  SI Methods/tables updated; make clean no longer deletes tracked manifests;
  reproduce.sh hashes the s{seed}/ layouts too

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Y64o8FKP7rCuXzC48pxpMm
2026-09-13 17:00:40 +01:00

2.5 KiB
Raw Blame History

E9 — landscape robustness: when recombination helps, and the outbreeding-depression risk

Claim tested. E8 showed sexual recombination assembling super-parent offspring — but on an additive landscape, where recombination trivially helps. The honest, credibility-critical question (the classic "why sex?" problem): does the benefit survive epistasis, or does merging entangled models break them?

Setup. Parents are local optima ("trained models") of a Kauffman NK landscape (L=12), whose ruggedness K (epistatic interactions per locus) is swept together with the recombination rate. K=0 is additive/smooth; larger K is rugged (co-adapted allele blocks, many local optima). Fitness ∈ [0,1]. 24 replicate landscapes; 200 offspring per point.

Symbols

  • NK landscape — tunable-ruggedness fitness landscape; K = epistasis (0 = additive, high = rugged).
  • recombination rate — per-gap crossover probability (0 = clonal / copy a parent; 0.5 = free recombination, loci independent).
  • outbreeding depression — offspring less fit than parents because recombination broke co-adapted allele blocks.

The two panels

  1. The risk. Mean offspring fitness minus best parent, vs recombination rate, one curve per ruggedness K. On the additive landscape (K=0) it's flat at 0; as K grows the curves plunge negative, and deeper the higher the recombination rate — outbreeding depression, worse the more entangled the skills and the more you mix (K=8, free recombination: ≈ 0.23).
  2. With selection, an optimal rate re-emerges. Best-of-brood fitness (offspring selection) vs rate per K, with parents dotted. On rugged landscapes a nonzero intermediate recombination rate is best — enough mixing to find new combinations, not so much that it shatters good blocks.

Takeaway

Recombination is not a free lunch. Merge freely when skills are complementary/additive; merge sparingly — and always select offspring — when they are entangled. This is the celebrated population-genetics result (recombination load / outbreeding depression) reproduced for AI model merging, and it turns the sexual metaphor from a lucky demo into a law with a design rule. The rescue — directed sex with offspring selection — is E10. Falsifier (not triggered): if recombination rate had no effect, or free recombination never underperformed the parents on rugged landscapes, the epistasis caveat would be moot.