Lineage turns experiments into memory
If a candidate improves performance but its ancestry is unknown, the system cannot reproduce the success. Lineage experiments compare family relationships so the ecology learns which parent traits and operators produce useful descendants.
Comparisons
| Comparison | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Parent versus child | identify direct improvement and regression |
| Sibling versus sibling | compare operator configurations |
| Family versus family | compare base model lineages |
| Child versus unrelated champion | test ecological value, not family loyalty |
| Archived ancestor versus current descendant | measure drift and forgetting |
Family scorecard
FUNCTION family_scorecard(family, suites)
rows <- []
FOR package IN family.packages
evidence <- EVALUATE(package, suites)
rows.APPEND({
package_id: package.id,
parent_ids: package.parents,
operator: package.operator,
scores: evidence.scores,
costs: evidence.costs,
regressions: evidence.regressions
})
END FOR
RETURN rows
END FUNCTIONDetecting heritable failure
If multiple descendants from the same parent fail the same slice, the failure may be inherited. Mark the parent family with a known limitation so future candidate generators can compensate or avoid the line.
Detecting operator bias
If a mutation operator repeatedly improves public benchmarks while harming calibration or rare slices, treat that as an operator-level failure. The operator may need tighter budgets, additional gates, or retirement.
Archive use
Lineage experiments should include archived ancestors when feasible. Sometimes an older model family is less accurate on average but more robust on a slice that the new family forgot.
Source reports used for this guide
These reports are preserved verbatim in the site archive. The guide above is an editorial synthesis and may narrow, qualify, or reorganize claims from the source material.