MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214207290 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009611

Intriguing effects of selection intensity on the evolution of prosocial behaviors

2021· article· en· W3214207290 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex McAvoy, Andrew Rao, Christoph Hauert

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of PennsylvaniaSimons Foundation
KeywordsNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary dynamicsProsocial behaviorEvolutionary biologyStabilizing selectionAltruism (biology)Genetic driftCompetition (biology)BiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEcologyPsychologyPopulationSocial psychologyGeneticsGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many models of evolving populations, genetic drift has an outsized role relative to natural selection, or vice versa. While there are many scenarios in which one of these two assumptions is reasonable, intermediate balances between these forces are also biologically relevant. In this study, we consider some natural axioms for modeling intermediate selection intensities, and we explore how to quantify the long-term evolutionary dynamics of such a process. To illustrate the sensitivity of evolutionary dynamics to drift and selection, we show that there can be a "sweet spot" for the balance of these two forces, with sufficient noise for rare mutants to become established and sufficient selection to spread. This balance allows prosocial traits to evolve in evolutionary models that were previously thought to be unconducive to the emergence and spread of altruistic behaviors. Furthermore, the effects of selection intensity on long-run evolutionary outcomes in these settings, such as when there is global competition for reproduction, can be highly non-monotonic. Although intermediate selection intensities (neither weak nor strong) are notoriously difficult to study analytically, they are often biologically relevant; and the results we report suggest that they can elicit novel and rich dynamics in the evolution of prosocial behaviors.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207