Sunkalp Chandra

Rikhil Tanugula, Dheeraj Chintapalli, Sunkalp Chandra

We present Lark, a biologically inspired decision-making framework that couples LLM-driven reasoning with an evolutionary, stakeholder-aware Multi-Agent System (MAS). To address verbosity and stakeholder trade-offs, we integrate four mechanisms: (i) plasticity, which applies concise adjustments to candidate solutions; (ii) duplication and maturation, which copy high-performing candidates and specialize them into new modules; (iii) ranked-choice stakeholder aggregation using influence-weighted Borda scoring; and (iv) compute awareness via token-based penalties that reward brevity. The system iteratively proposes diverse strategies, applies plasticity tweaks, simulates stakeholder evaluations, aggregates preferences, selects top candidates, and performs duplication/maturation while factoring compute cost into final scores. In a controlled evaluation over 30 rounds comparing 14 systems, Lark Full achieves a mean rank of 2.55 (95% CI [2.17, 2.93]) and a mean composite score of 29.4/50 (95% CI [26.34, 32.46]), finishing Top-3 in 80% of rounds while remaining cost competitive with leading commercial models ($0.016 per task). Paired Wilcoxon tests confirm that all four mechanisms contribute significantly as ablating duplication/maturation yields the largest deficit (ΔScore = 3.5, Cohen's d_z = 2.53, p < 0.001), followed by plasticity (ΔScore = 3.4, d_z = 1.86), ranked-choice voting (ΔScore = 2.4, d_z = 1.20), and token penalties (ΔScore = 2.2, d_z = 1.63). Rather than a formal Markov Decision Process with constrained optimization, Lark is a practical, compute-aware neuroevolutionary loop that scales stakeholder-aligned strategy generation and makes trade-offs transparent through per-step metrics. Our work presents proof-of-concept findings and invites community feedback as we expand toward real-world validation studies.

Sunkalp Chandra

This study evaluates the performance of several machine learning models for predicting hazardous near-Earth objects (NEOs) through a binary classification framework, including data scaling, power transformation, and cross-validation. Six classifiers were compared, namely Random Forest Classifier (RFC), Gradient Boosting Classifier (GBC), Support Vector Classifier (SVC), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), Logistic Regression (LR), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN). RFC and GBC performed the best, both with an impressive F2-score of 0.987 and 0.986, respectively, with very small variability. SVC followed, with a lower but reasonable score of 0.896. LDA and LR had a moderate performance with scores of around 0.749 and 0.748, respectively, while KNN had a poor performance with a score of 0.691 due to difficulty in handling complex data patterns. RFC and GBC also presented great confusion matrices with a negligible number of false positives and false negatives, which resulted in outstanding accuracy rates of 99.7% and 99.6%, respectively. These findings highlight the power of ensemble methods for high precision and recall and further point out the importance of tailored model selection with regard to dataset characteristics and chosen evaluation metrics. Future research could focus on the optimization of hyperparameters with advanced features engineering to further the accuracy and robustness of the model on NEO hazard predictions.