A null model for the distribution of fitness effects of mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of new mutations is key to our understanding of many evolutionary processes. Theoreticians have developed several models to help understand the patterns seen in empirical DFEs. Many such models reproduce the broad patterns seen in empirical DFEs but these models often rely on structural assumptions that cannot be tested empirically. Here, we investigate how much of the underlying "microscopic" biological processes involved in the mapping of new mutations to fitness can be inferred from "macroscopic" observations of the DFE. We develop a null model by generating random genotype-to-fitness maps and show that the null DFE is that with the largest possible information entropy. We further show that, subject to one simple constraint, this null DFE is a Gompertz distribution. Finally, we illustrate how the predictions of this null DFE match empirically measured DFEs from several datasets, as well as DFEs simulated from Fisher's geometric model. This suggests that a match between models and empirical data is often not a very strong indication of the mechanisms underlying the mapping of mutation to fitness.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".