Dynamical mean-field theory: from ecosystems to reaction networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Both natural ecosystems and biochemical reaction networks involve populations of heterogeneous agents whose cooperative and competitive interactions lead to a rich dynamics of species’ abundances, albeit at vastly different scales. The maintenance of diversity in large ecosystems is a longstanding puzzle, towards which recent progress has been made by the derivation of dynamical mean-field theories of random models. In particular, it has recently been shown that these random models have a chaotic phase in which abundances display wild fluctuations. When modest spatial structure is included, these fluctuations are stabilized and diversity is maintained. If and how these phenomena have parallels in biochemical reaction networks is currently unknown. Making this connection is of interest since life requires cooperation among a large number of molecular species. In this work, we find a reaction network whose large-scale behavior recovers the random Lotka–Volterra model recently considered in theoretical ecology. We clarify the assumptions necessary to derive its large-scale description, and reveal the underlying assumptions made on the noise to recover previous dynamical mean-field theories. Then, we show how local detailed balance and the positivity of reaction rates, which are key physical requirements of chemical reaction networks, provide obstructions towards the construction of an associated dynamical mean-field theory of biochemical reaction networks. Finally, we outline prospects and challenges for the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".