Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Can a search over innate drives find intrinsic rewards that help a reinforcement-learning agent learn, transfer to a task it never saw, and resist an exploit that was absent during the search? Each candidate reward combines four generic events (a new view, a pickup, a drop and a toggle), each with a weight, a relief and a refill rate. We ran three pre-registered stages; the search protocol was locked in a public, timestamped commit before any search result existed. CMA-ES and an equal-budget random search used 1,560 PPO training runs, and the final evaluation and tamper test used 340. On the held-out task, KeyCorridorS3R2, the CMA-ES-selected reward (E) beat task-only PPO, episodic novelty and the random-search-selected reward (R) in all 3 registered comparisons, all of them meaningful by the registered size rule. Among these generic rewards E transferred best; the earlier paper's satiation reward, which on this task is given hand-wired key and locked-door events, did better (20 of 20 seeds solved against 4 of 20; descriptive). On UnlockPickup, where that reward uses generic events, E's mean area exceeded it by 0.276 (descriptive). On the training tasks there was no registered difference between E and R: both E-over-R tests missed. A free reset action, absent during the search, collapsed E's learning on DoorKey-8x8 (mean area 0.829 without it, 0.136 with it; registered) to below task-only PPO (descriptive). The searched drives helped on every task tested, but a reward given task-specific events did better on the held-out task, and selection gave E no protection against an exploit absent from the search.