INCLUSIVE FITNESS ANALYSIS ON MATHEMATICAL GROUPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on the evolution of behaviour is set in a structured population, providing a systematic way to describe gene flow and behavioural interactions. To obtain analytical results one needs a structure with considerable regularity. Our results apply to such "homogeneous" structures (e.g., lattices, cycles, and island models). This regularity has been formally described by a "node-transitivity" condition but in mathematics, such internal symmetry is powerfully described by the theory of mathematical groups. Here, this theory provides elegant direct arguments for a more general version of a number of existing results. Our main result is that in large "group-structured" populations, primary fitness effects on others play no role in the evolution of the behaviour. The competitive effects of such a trait cancel the primary effects, and the inclusive fitness effect is given by the direct effect of the actor on its own fitness. This result is conditional on a number of assumptions such as (1) whether generations overlap, (2) whether offspring dispersal is symmetric, (3) whether the trait affects fecundity or survival, and (4) whether the underlying group is abelian. We formulate a number of results of this type in finite and infinite populations for both Moran and Wright-Fisher demographies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".