This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Abstract
Current LLM aggregation methods struggle with correlated errors and lack a mechanism for long-term consensus. I propose a unified architecture composed of three layers: 1) The Conductor, which uses Mahalanobis distance and Physarum dynamics to filter information per query; 2) Logic Darwinism, which introduces "Ego" penalties to evolutionary agent selection; and 3) The Blockchain Mind, a Bayesian framework where a global "Overmind" emerges as an asymptotic fixed point of distributed belief updates.
1. The Conductor: Covariance-Aware Aggregation
For a query x, standard ensembles fail when models Mj share training biases. We define answer embeddings vj and a covariance matrix ∑.
The Pairwise Mahalanobis distance penalizes correlated hallucinations:
djl=√(vj−vl)TΣ−1(vj−vl)
Answers are weighted by their information density relative to this metric, prioritizing unique but grounded insights over "echo chamber" consensus2.
2. Physarum Dynamics: Structural Filtering
To reconstruct a coherent answer from the best parts of multiple models, we decompose answers into chunks and form a semantic graph. We apply Physarum polycephalum (slime mold) dynamics to extract the logical backbone3:
Reconstruction: The final answer y∗C is generated by a decoder conditioned only on the surviving, high-flow chunks4.
3. Logic Darwinism & The "Heretic" Problem
When computational costs allow for massive agent instantiation (N avatars), we apply an evolutionary tournament.
Ego Filtering: To prevent "confident but wrong" agents from dominating, we penalize agents based on a Big Five personality vector θBFk. The fitness function is5:
Fr(k)=Lr(k)−αe⋅Ego(θBFk)
where Ego is high for agents with low Agreeableness or high Neuroticism.
Handling Outliers: Using the Mahalanobis threshold, we identify "Extreme Outliers" (Cout). From these, we selectively retain "Heretics" (Hout)—chunks that are statistically distant but possess high logical scores—ensuring the system does not discard genius-level insights that defy the majority6.
4. The Overmind: Asymptotic Bayesian Convergence
Extending this to a continuous system, each user $u$ possesses a persistent Avatar with belief Pu(θ).
The global belief PBCM is the geometric mean of local beliefs7. The update rule combines local data Du with the global prior:
Pt+1u(θ)∝[Ptu(θ)]1−αu[Pt+1BCM(θ)]αuL(Dtu|θ)
Mathematically, the "Overmind" is defined as the asymptotic fixed point of this dynamic system8:
PΩ(θ)=limT→∞PTBCM(θ)
This guarantees that as individual Avatars learn and filter "Ego," the global system converges to a self-consistent, optimized belief distribution.
Abstract
Current LLM aggregation methods struggle with correlated errors and lack a mechanism for long-term consensus. I propose a unified architecture composed of three layers: 1) The Conductor, which uses Mahalanobis distance and Physarum dynamics to filter information per query; 2) Logic Darwinism, which introduces "Ego" penalties to evolutionary agent selection; and 3) The Blockchain Mind, a Bayesian framework where a global "Overmind" emerges as an asymptotic fixed point of distributed belief updates.
1. The Conductor: Covariance-Aware Aggregation
For a query x, standard ensembles fail when models Mj share training biases. We define answer embeddings vj and a covariance matrix ∑.
The Pairwise Mahalanobis distance penalizes correlated hallucinations:
djl=√(vj−vl)TΣ−1(vj−vl)
Answers are weighted by their information density relative to this metric, prioritizing unique but grounded insights over "echo chamber" consensus2.
2. Physarum Dynamics: Structural Filtering
To reconstruct a coherent answer from the best parts of multiple models, we decompose answers into chunks and form a semantic graph. We apply Physarum polycephalum (slime mold) dynamics to extract the logical backbone3:
ddtDmn(t)=α|Qmn(t)|−μDmn(t)
Reconstruction: The final answer y∗C is generated by a decoder conditioned only on the surviving, high-flow chunks4.
3. Logic Darwinism & The "Heretic" Problem
When computational costs allow for massive agent instantiation (N avatars), we apply an evolutionary tournament.
Ego Filtering: To prevent "confident but wrong" agents from dominating, we penalize agents based on a Big Five personality vector θBFk. The fitness function is5:
Fr(k)=Lr(k)−αe⋅Ego(θBFk)
where Ego is high for agents with low Agreeableness or high Neuroticism.
Handling Outliers: Using the Mahalanobis threshold, we identify "Extreme Outliers" (Cout). From these, we selectively retain "Heretics" (Hout)—chunks that are statistically distant but possess high logical scores—ensuring the system does not discard genius-level insights that defy the majority6.
4. The Overmind: Asymptotic Bayesian Convergence
Extending this to a continuous system, each user $u$ possesses a persistent Avatar with belief Pu(θ).
The global belief PBCM is the geometric mean of local beliefs7. The update rule combines local data Du with the global prior:
Pt+1u(θ)∝[Ptu(θ)]1−αu[Pt+1BCM(θ)]αuL(Dtu|θ)
Mathematically, the "Overmind" is defined as the asymptotic fixed point of this dynamic system8:
PΩ(θ)=limT→∞PTBCM(θ)
This guarantees that as individual Avatars learn and filter "Ego," the global system converges to a self-consistent, optimized belief distribution.