Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt. This conflates two operations with different requirements. Interpreting a source rewards capacity and context. Combining interpretations rewards fixed arithmetic, comparability across instances, and the option to return nothing. Once separated, the design problem becomes the interface between them. We propose a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, provenance) and show that fixing it determines both halves. The separation also reveals a failure mode in how such systems combine, which we call count-scale drift. Thresholding a sum of unnormalized weights is exactly posterior thresholding, but at an operating point that slides with the number of sources consulted. The slide grows with reader reliability. When source reliabilities differ, the vote rule and the posterior order instances differently, and no threshold reconciles them. Pooling calibrated log-likelihood ratios addresses both problems. The fix is arithmetic rather than architectural, and applies to a class of rules beyond language models: score-summing triage engines, diagnostic panels scored by counting positives, and additive multi-signal detectors. We then instantiate the principle twice on one longitudinal corpus, once after outcomes resolve and once before. The same partition helps in both, at different granularities: over reading in the first, over learning capacity in the second. There, a small sequence encoder on an easy auxiliary objective plus a tree ensemble carrying the censored survival loss reaches 0.921 AUPRC against 0.805 for a hand-crafted baseline. We separate what transfers from what must be re-estimated per domain, and state five predictions that would falsify the framework, three negative results, and which comparisons remain confounded.
Matthew Siper, Ahmed Khalifa, Julian Togeliuscs.LG cs.AI
Program evolution can measure whether a mutation helped, but it rarely controls how far the mutation moves in behavior space. Syntactic edit size is an unreliable proxy: a small code change can alter nearly every action, while a larger rewrite can preserve the same execution trace. We introduce an Evolutionary Language Model that searches over natural-language policy descriptions and compiles typed programs for execution. A fully fine-tuned Qwen3-8B model learns three task-conditioned operations: conditional semantic mutation, natural language to domain-specific language (GPTL) compilation, and GPTL to natural language translation. The model is fine-tuned with conditional input on the mutation strength (low, medium, high) using Direct Preference Optimization (oDPO). Across 252 fixed-budget evolutionary searches, oDPO improves both behavioral calibration and finite-budget search efficiency. Natural-language attains the highest observed held-out fitness. Our analysis shows that the condition input (mutation strength) systematically changes semantic edit composition and that language mutations preserve more parent fitness at matched small-to-moderate behavioral displacement. These results show that language can serve as a steerable, execution-grounded search representation over executable program space.