Fixation Probability in a Two-Locus Model by the Ancestral Recombination–Selection Graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use the ancestral influence graph (AIG) for a two-locus, two-allele selection model in the limit of a large population size to obtain an analytic approximation for the probability of ultimate fixation of a single mutant allele A. We assume that this new mutant is introduced at a given locus into a finite population in which a previous mutant allele B is already segregating with a wild type at another linked locus. We deduce that the fixation probability increases as the recombination rate increases if allele A is either in positive epistatic interaction with B and allele B is beneficial or in no epistatic interaction with B and then allele A itself is beneficial. This holds at least as long as the recombination fraction and the selection intensity are small enough and the population size is large enough. In particular this confirms the Hill-Robertson effect, which predicts that recombination renders more likely the ultimate fixation of beneficial mutants at different loci in a population in the presence of random genetic drift even in the absence of epistasis. More importantly, we show that this is true from weak negative epistasis to positive epistasis, at least under weak selection. In the case of deleterious mutants, the fixation probability decreases as the recombination rate increases. This supports Muller's ratchet mechanism to explain the accumulation of deleterious mutants in a population lacking recombination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".