MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085058011 · doi:10.1103/physreve.102.052403

Fitness value of information with delayed phenotype switching: Optimal performance with imperfect sensing

2020· article· en· W3085058011 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander S. Moffett, Nigel Wallbridge, Carrol Plummer, Andrew W. Eckford

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)ImperfectSensory systemOrganismPerfect informationPopulationComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)BiologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical economicsNeuroscienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of organisms to accurately sense their environment and respond accordingly is critical for evolutionary success. However, exactly how the sensory ability influences fitness is a topic of active research, while the necessity of a time delay between when unreliable environmental cues are sensed and when organisms can mount a response has yet to be explored at any length. Accounting for this delay in phenotype response in models of population growth, we find that a critical error probability can exist under certain environmental conditions: An organism with a sensory system with any error probability less than the critical value can achieve the same long-term growth rate as an organism with a perfect sensing system. We also observe a tradeoff between the evolutionary value of sensory information and robustness to error, mediated by the rate at which the phenotype distribution relaxes to steady state. The existence of the critical error probability could have several important evolutionary consequences, primarily that sensory systems operating at the nonzero critical error probability may be evolutionarily optimal.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207