Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 78 references

Fixation probabilities in evolutionary dynamics under weak selection

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For any population structure, weak-selection fixation probability reduces to a linear system of polynomial size.

desk verdict A rigorous, general weak-selection expansion for fixation probabilities that unifies and extends prior results; deserves serious refereeing and likely acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03827 v3 pith:UE6HBHW6 submitted 2019-08-10 q-bio.PE

Alex McAvoy , Benjamin Allen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D1560J20
keywords fixationprobabilityweakselectionpopulationstructurereproductivevaluesojourntimecoalescentevolutionarygamesongraphsperturbationexpansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Evolutionary biologists ask whether a new mutant type is likely to take over a population, but the answer depends on spatial structure and on where the mutant first appears, and exact fixation probabilities are generally hard to compute. This paper proves that under weak selection—small mutant effect—the fixation probability from any initial configuration has a first-order expansion in the selection intensity $\delta$, built from neutral reproductive values, neutral sojourn times, and first-order selection effects on replacement probabilities. The sojourn times solve a linear system of size polynomial in the population size $N$ whenever the process has bounded degree $D$, so the exponential cost of exact computation disappears. The paper uses the expansion to recover and unify earlier results for constant fecundity and for the donation game on graphs, and to compare population structures by the magnitude, not just the sign, of selection's first-order effect.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked objects. An amended Markov chain that resets to the initial state $\xi$ with probability $u$ after absorption lets Proposition 1 identify neutral sojourn times with the $u$-derivative of the amended stationary distribution at $u=0$. The sojourn-time quantities $\eta^\xi_I$ are the unique solution of the linear system (35), and they measure, under neutral drift from $\xi$, the expected accumulation of $\hat{x}-x_I$ before absorption. The selection coefficient $c_{ji}^I$ comes from the pseudo-Boolean (multi-linear polynomial) representation of the first derivative of the transmission probabilities, and the degree $D$ is the largest $|I|$ that appears; only $\eta^\xi_I$ for $|I|\le D+1$ are needed. Uniqueness of $\eta^\xi$ follows from the set-valued coalescent chain, whose stationary distribution on singleton sets is exactly the reproductive-value vector $\pi$.

What would settle it

For a small smooth model (say a 4-cycle with death-Birth updating and the donation game), solve the exact $2^N$-state Markov chain for $\rho_A(\xi)$ at several small $\delta$, compute the right side of Eq. (34) by solving the $\eta$-system, and check that the difference is $O(\delta^2)$; a difference linear in $\delta$ would refute the expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: for any fixed initial configuration $\xi$ in the paper's modeling framework, the fixation probability of type $A$ satisfies $$\rho_A(\xi) = \hat{\xi} + \delta \sum_{i=1}^N \pi_i \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{\substack{I\subseteq\{1,\dots,N\}\\0\le |I|\le D_{ji}}} c_{ji}^I \left(\eta^\xi_{i\cup I} - \eta^\xi_{j\cup I}\right) + O(\$delta^{2}$),$$ where $\hat{\xi}$ is the reproductive-value-weighted frequency of $A$, $\pi_i$ are neutral reproductive values, $c_{ji}^I$ are the Fourier coefficients of the first derivative at $\delta=0$ of the marginal trait-transmission probabilities $e_{ji}$, and $\eta^\xi$ is the unique solution of the neutral sojourn-time system (35). The degree $D$ of the process is the largest set size appearing in those coefficients. If $D$ is fixed, computing the first-order effect requires solving only $O(N^{D+1})$ linear equations rather than the exponential number of states in the full Markov chain.

Load-bearing premise

The expansion rests on the assumption that every replacement-event probability is a smooth function of the selection intensity in a neighborhood of $\delta=0$; if a model has a kink or threshold at zero, the first-order coefficients $c_{ji}^I$ do not exist and the formula cannot be applied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For fixed degree $D$, the first-order weak-selection expansion is computable in $O(N^{3(D+1)})$ time (or $O(N^{2.373(D+1)})$ with fast matrix multiplication), eliminating exponential state enumeration for this class of models.
  • Proposition 4 gives the donation-game fixation probability from any initial configuration on any weighted connected graph, unifying previous regular-graph and uniform-initialization formulas from the literature.
  • Because the magnitude of the first-order coefficient is available, population structures can be compared by how much they boost cooperation at a given benefit-to-cost ratio, not only by the critical ratio; the paper shows these two rankings can disagree.
  • For uniform mutant appearance, the quantities $\eta^{\mu_A}_I$ equal $1/N$ times the expected coalescence time of the set $I$, connecting the expansion to standard coalescent branch lengths.
  • The framework also covers stochastic mutant-appearance distributions and relative fixation conditions for $A$ versus $B$, so the expansion applies beyond a fixed initial configuration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The polynomial-size formulation suggests a practical screening strategy for large structured populations: for any fixed-degree update rule, solve Eq. (35) once and rank structures by the size of the first-order effect; the paper demonstrates such a comparison but stops short of proposing it as a general search over structures.
  • If the smoothness premise fails only mildly—say a kink at $\delta=0$ with one-sided derivatives—one could still obtain a formal expansion using one-sided coefficients, but the paper's uniqueness and $O(\delta^2)$ error bounds would need re-examination; this is an extension, not a claim of the paper.
  • The paper notes that the $N\to\infty$ and $\delta\to0$ limits do not commute; an inference is that Eq. (34) is best suited to finite-$N$ analyses, and a large-population diffusion analogue would require either bounding $D$ as $N$ grows or a new averaging argument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a first-order weak-selection expansion for fixation probabilities in a broad class of finite-population evolutionary models with arbitrary spatial structure and frequency-dependent selection. The main result, Theorem 2 (Eq. 34), expresses the first derivative of the fixation probability ρ_A(ξ) at δ=0 in terms of reproductive values π_i, Fourier coefficients c_{ji}^I of the first-order effects of selection on replacement probabilities, and neutral sojourn times η^ξ_I that solve an explicit linear system (Eq. 35) on subsets of size at most D+1, where D is the degree of the process. This reduces the computation from exponential to polynomial complexity in N for fixed D. The paper also derives extensions to stochastic mutant appearance (Section 5), compares fixation probabilities of two types (Section 6), and applies the framework to constant-fecundity models on graphs with death-Birth and Birth-death updating (Section 7) and to the donation game on weighted and regular graphs (Section 8), recovering and generalizing several known results. The proof strategy uses a sojourn-time/stationary-distribution identity for an amended Markov chain (Proposition 1), a coalescent representation, and prior results from the authors' modeling framework.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant contribution to the mathematical theory of evolutionary dynamics. The central formula is explicit and computable: for any fixed degree D, the first-order weak-selection coefficient is obtained by solving a linear system of size O(N^{D+1}), rather than by analyzing the exponentially large state space. The applications are also valuable: they provide new weak-selection expansions for arbitrary initial configurations on weighted graphs and unify results of Chen et al. (2016), Allen et al. (2017), and others. The proofs of the central theorem are coherent and the paper is careful to state its assumptions, particularly the smoothness of the replacement rule in δ (Section 2.1). The main limitations—the smoothness requirement and the fixed-degree condition for polynomial complexity—are explicitly acknowledged. The paper does not supply machine-checked proofs or code, but the derivations are standard and reproducible from the stated equations. Overall, this is a solid and useful mathematical contribution that deserves publication after minor revisions.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5, Examples 1–3 (Eqs. 39–40, 54)] The definitions of the type-B mutant-appearance distribution use the same state notation as for type A, writing μ_B(1_i)=...; since μ_B is an initial distribution for B mutants in an all-A population, the paper's own subsequent identity E_{μ_B}[ξ_i]=1−μ_i shows that the intended support is the complementary state \bar{1_i}. Please correct the notation consistently, as the literal reading contradicts the equations that follow.
  2. [Section 7, Eqs. (57)–(60)] The duality ρ_A(r;ξ)=1−ρ_A(r^{−1};ξ) and the averaging identity in Eq. (58) appear to omit the complement of the initial configuration on the right-hand side; restoring \bar ξ makes Eq. (60) coherent, since ξ_I+\bar ξ_I is then 1 when all individuals in I have the same type. The missing overbars should be added throughout this subsection.
  3. [Section 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, Propositions 2 and 3] The derivations of Propositions 2 and 3 are summarized only as 'a series of simplifications' of Eq. (59). Because these are advertised as new results for arbitrary initial states on weighted graphs, the intermediate algebra should be supplied, at least in an appendix or supplement, so that readers can verify the reduction from the general linear system (35).
  4. [Section 8, proof of Proposition 4] The passage from Theorem 2's general η-system to the pair-level system (93) is compressed; in particular, the factors N/2 in Eq. (93a) and N in Eq. (93b) follow from the death-Birth coalescent recurrences but are not shown. A short derivation of (93a)–(93b) from Eq. (35) would make the application verifiable.
  5. [Section 2.1, third modeling assumption] The smoothness assumption on the replacement rule in δ is an explicit scope restriction: models with hard-threshold or sign-type selection rules, for which d/dδ e_{ij}(x) at δ=0 need not exist, are excluded. This is stated clearly and all applications use smooth fecundity maps, so I regard it as a limitation rather than a defect.
  6. [Section 8.3 and Figure 3] The caption states that Γ2 is 'unequivocally better' for cooperation, but this comparison is made for a specific parameter choice (b=10, c=1) and depends on the magnitude of the first-order effect; the caption should state this parameter dependence explicitly to avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2 follows from an explicit perturbation identity plus a self-contained linear-system reduction; self-citations are auxiliary and not equivalent to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here. Theorem 1 is proved from the exact identity rho_A(xi) = xi_hat + <Delta_hat_sel>_xi (Eq. 31), which is obtained in the paper from the amended-chain construction, Proposition 1's sojourn-time identity (Eq. 18), and Corollary 1; no part of that chain assumes the first-order expansion being derived. Theorem 2 then expands Delta_hat_sel in the pseudo-Boolean basis of Eq. (6), defines eta^xi_I by Eq. (36), and shows that these quantities satisfy the linear system (35); the proof of uniqueness uses only the spectral structure of the neutral coalescent chain C. The cited results from Allen and Tarnita (2014), Allen and McAvoy (2019), and McAvoy et al. (2020) provide the general modeling framework, the neutral reproductive-value martingale, and a simplification in the game-theory application; these are auxiliary facts that do not presuppose the fixation expansion, and the martingale property is independently checkable from the linear system (12) stated in the paper. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the polynomial-complexity claim is explicitly qualified by fixed degree D (Remark 1). The weakest premise, smoothness of the replacement rule in delta, is stated as an explicit assumption and is a genuine scope restriction rather than a hidden circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and postulates no new physical entities. The central derivation depends on the stated smoothness and irreducibility assumptions on the replacement rule, on standard Markov chain theory, and on a small number of cited prior results from the authors' own framework.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fixation Axiom: there exists an individual and a sequence of replacement events, each with positive probability in every state, such that the lineage of that individual can take over the whole population.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to ensure the Markov chain has exactly two absorbing states (all-A and all-B) and all other states are transient, so fixation probabilities ρ_A(ξ) are well-defined.
  • domain assumption Neutral drift state-independence: at δ=0 the replacement rule is independent of the population state x.
    Section 2.1, second assumption; needed so that neutral sojourn times and reproductive values are well-defined and independent of selection.
  • domain assumption Smoothness of the replacement rule in the selection intensity δ near δ=0.
    Section 2.1, third assumption; required for the first-order Taylor expansion in Theorems 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption Differentiability of mutant-appearance distributions at δ=0.
    Section 5, assumption on μ_A and μ_B; needed for Corollary 3 and the comparison condition in Section 6.
  • standard math Fudenberg-Imhof low-mutation limit theorem (Fudenberg and Imhof, 2006, Theorem 2).
    Used in Section 3 (Eq. 17) and Section 6 (Eq. 48) to relate stationary distributions of regenerated chains to fixation probabilities in the limit u→0.
  • domain assumption Deterministic state-to-fecundity mapping under weak selection (McAvoy et al., 2020).
    Invoked in Section 8 to justify expressing the derivative of e_{ij}(x) in terms of payoff functions; without it, the game-theoretic applications would need additional stochasticity arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixation probabilities in evolutionary dynamics under weak selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UE6HBHW6

@misc{pith2026190803827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixation probabilities in evolutionary dynamics under weak selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UE6HBHW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03827}
}
read the original abstract

In evolutionary dynamics, a key measure of a mutant trait's success is the probability that it takes over the population given some initial mutant-appearance distribution. This "fixation probability" is difficult to compute in general, as it depends on the mutation's effect on the organism as well as the population's spatial structure, mating patterns, and other factors. In this study, we consider weak selection, which means that the mutation's effect on the organism is small. We obtain a weak-selection perturbation expansion of a mutant's fixation probability, from an arbitrary initial configuration of mutant and resident types. Our results apply to a broad class of stochastic evolutionary models, in which the size and spatial structure are arbitrary (but fixed). The problem of whether selection favors a given trait is thereby reduced from exponential to polynomial complexity in the population size, when selection is weak. We conclude by applying these methods to obtain new results for evolutionary dynamics on graphs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transitions into a fixed transient state, ξ, following absorption. When starting from a non-monomorphic state, the process will eventually reach one of the two absorbing states (all-A or all-B) by the Fixation Axiom. From each absorbing state, the process transitions to ξ with probability u > 0. This “artificial” mutation allows one to focus on the fixation probabilities when the process is started in a fixed initia… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mutant appearance and fixation in a structured population. In the all-B state, mutants of type A appear based on the mutant-appearance distribution µA. In the all-A state, mutants of type B appear based on µB. Once the process transitions into a non-monomorphic state, it will eventually reach one of the two monomorphic states. The overall weak-selection expansion of a trait’s fixation probability, in the case of uni… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two heterogeneous population structures of size N = 50 evolving based on death-Birth updating. The population structure depicted in B is unequivocally better for the evolution of cooperation than that of A when b = 10 and c = 1 because selection results in a greater improvement to a rare cooperator’s fixation probability. This result holds despite the fact that the critical benefit-to-cost ratio of B is greater than… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adlam, K

    B. Adlam, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak. Amplifiers of selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 471 0 (2181): 0 20150114, 2015. doi:10.1098/rspa.2015.0114

    work page arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. McAvoy. A mathematical formalism for natural selection with arbitrary spatial and genetic structure. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 78 0 (4): 0 1147--1210, 2019. doi:10.1007/s00285-018-1305-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-018-1305-z 2019

  3. [3]

    Allen and M

    B. Allen and M. A. Nowak. Games on graphs. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences , 1 0 (1): 0 113--151, 2014. doi:10.4171/emss/3

    work page doi:10.4171/emss/3 2014

  4. [4]

    Allen and C

    B. Allen and C. E. Tarnita. Measures of success in a class of evolutionary models with fixed population size and structure. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 68 0 (1-2): 0 109--143, 2014. doi:10.1007/s00285-012-0622-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-012-0622-x 2014

  5. [5]

    Allen, C

    B. Allen, C. Sample, Y. Dementieva, R. C. Medeiros, C. Paoletti, and M. A. Nowak. The Molecular Clock of Neutral Evolution Can Be Accelerated or Slowed by Asymmetric Spatial Structure . PLOS Computational Biology , 11 0 (2): 0 e1004108, 2015. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004108

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004108 2015

  6. [6]

    Allen, G

    B. Allen, G. Lippner, Y.-T. Chen, B. Fotouhi, N. Momeni, S.-T. Yau, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure. Nature, 544 0 (7649): 0 227--230, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature21723

    doi:10.1038/nature21723 2017

  7. [7]

    Allen, G

    B. Allen, G. Lippner, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary games on isothermal graphs. Nature Communications, 10 0 (1): 0 5107, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13006-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13006-7 2019

  8. [8]

    Allen, C

    B. Allen, C. Sample, R. Jencks, J. Withers, P. Steinhagen, L. Brizuela, J. Kolodny, D. Parke, G. Lippner, and Y. A. Dementieva. Transient amplifiers of selection and reducers of fixation for death-Birth updating on graphs . PLOS Computational Biology, 16 0 (1): 0 e1007529, 2020. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007529

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007529 2020

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Antal, S

    T. Antal, S. Redner, and V. Sood. Evolutionary Dynamics on Degree-Heterogeneous Graphs . Physical Review Letters, 96 0 (18), 2006. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.188104

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    L. E. Blume. The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction . Games and Economic Behavior, 5 0 (3): 0 387--424, 1993. doi:10.1006/game.1993.1023

    1993

  3. [11]

    Boros and P

    E. Boros and P. L. Hammer. Pseudo-Boolean optimization . Discrete Applied Mathematics, 123 0 (1-3): 0 155--225, 2002. doi:10.1016/s0166-218x(01)00341-9

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    Broom and J

    M. Broom and J. Rycht \' a r . An analysis of the fixation probability of a mutant on special classes of non-directed graphs. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 464 0 (2098): 0 2609--2627, 2008. doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0058

    2008

  5. [13]

    Broom, J

    M. Broom, J. Rycht \' a r , and B. T. Stadler. Evolutionary Dynamics on Graphs - the Effect of Graph Structure and Initial Placement on Mutant Spread . Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 5 0 (3): 0 369--381, 2011. doi:10.1080/15598608.2011.10412035

    2011

  6. [14]

    Y.-T. Chen. Sharp benefit-to-cost rules for the evolution of cooperation on regular graphs. The Annals of Applied Probability, 23 0 (2): 0 637--664, 2013. doi:10.1214/12-aap849

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Y.-T. Chen. Wright-fisher diffusions in stochastic spatial evolutionary games with death--birth updating. The Annals of Applied Probability, 28 0 (6): 0 3418--3490, 2018. doi:10.1214/18-aap1390

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Y.-T. Chen, A. McAvoy, and M. A. Nowak. Fixation Probabilities for Any Configuration of Two Strategies on Regular Graphs . Scientific Reports, 6 0 (1), 2016. doi:10.1038/srep39181

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    J. T. Cox. Coalescing random walks and voter model consensus times on the torus in Z^d . Annals of Probability, 17 0 (4): 0 1333--1366, 1989. doi:10.1214/aop/1176991158

    1989

  10. [18]

    J. T. Cox and R. Durrett. Evolutionary games on the torus with weak selection. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 126 0 (8): 0 2388--2409, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.spa.2016.02.004

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    F. A. Cuesta, P. G. Sequeiros, and \'A . L. Rojo. Suppressors of selection. PLOS One, 12 0 (7): 0 e0180549, 2017. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180549

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    F. A. Cuesta, P. G. Sequeiros, and \'A . L. Rojo. Evolutionary regime transitions in structured populations. PLOS One, 13 0 (11): 0 e0200670, 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200670

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    D \' e barre, C

    F. D \' e barre, C. Hauert, and M. Doebeli. Social evolution in structured populations. Nature Communications, 5, 2014. doi:10.1038/ncomms4409

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    R. Der, C. L. Epstein, and J. B. Plotkin. Generalized population models and the nature of genetic drift. Theoretical Population Biology, 80 0 (2): 0 80--99, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2011.06.004

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    W. J. Ewens. Mathematical Population Genetics. Springer New York, 2004. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21822-9

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    R. A. Fisher. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection . Clarendon Press, 1930. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468

    1930 doi

  17. [25]

    Fotouhi, N

    B. Fotouhi, N. Momeni, B. Allen, and M. A. Nowak. Conjoining uncooperative societies facilitates evolution of cooperation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2 0 (7): 0 492--499, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0368-6

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Fudenberg and L

    D. Fudenberg and L. A. Imhof. Imitation processes with small mutations. Journal of Economic Theory, 131 0 (1): 0 251--262, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2005.04.006

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    Grabisch, J.-L

    M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, and M. Roubens. Equivalent Representations of Set Functions . Mathematics of Operations Research, 25 0 (2): 0 157--178, 2000. doi:10.1287/moor.25.2.157.12225

    doi

  20. [28]

    J. B. S. Haldane. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection, part V: Selection and mutation . In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 23, pages 838--844. Cambridge University Press, 1927. doi:10.1017/S0305004100015644

    1927 doi

  21. [29]

    P. L. Hammer and S. Rudeanu. Boolean Methods in Operations Research and Related Areas. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1968. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85823-9

    1968 doi

  22. [30]

    Hauert and M

    C. Hauert and M. Doebeli. Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature, 428 0 (6983): 0 643--646, 2004. doi:10.1038/nature02360

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    Hindersin and A

    L. Hindersin and A. Traulsen. Counterintuitive properties of the fixation time in network-structured populations. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 11 0 (99), 2014. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0606

    2014

  24. [32]

    Hindersin and A

    L. Hindersin and A. Traulsen. Most Undirected Random Graphs Are Amplifiers of Selection for Birth-Death Dynamics, but Suppressors of Selection for Death-Birth Dynamics . PLOS Computational Biology , 11 0 (11): 0 e1004437, 2015. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004437

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Hindersin, M

    L. Hindersin, M. M\" o ller, A. Traulsen, and B. Bauer. Exact numerical calculation of fixation probability and time on graphs. Biosystems, 150: 0 87--91, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2016.08.010

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    L. A. Imhof and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary game dynamics in a Wright-Fisher process . Journal of Mathematical Biology, 52 0 (5): 0 667--681, 2006. doi:10.1007/s00285-005-0369-8

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    Kaveh, N

    K. Kaveh, N. L. Komarova, and M. Kohandel. The duality of spatial death-birth and birth-death processes and limitations of the isothermal theorem. Royal Society Open Science, 2 0 (4): 0 140465--140465, 2015. doi:10.1098/rsos.140465

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    M. Kimura. On the Probability of Fixation of Mutant Genes in a Population . Genetics, 47 0 (6): 0 713--719, 1962

    1962

  29. [37]

    J. F. C. Kingman. The coalescent. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 13 0 (3): 0 235--248, 1982. doi:10.1016/0304-4149(82)90011-4

    1982 doi

  30. [38]

    F. Le Gall. Faster Algorithms for Rectangular Matrix Multiplication . In 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science . IEEE , 2012. doi:10.1109/focs.2012.80

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Lessard and V

    S. Lessard and V. Ladret. The probability of fixation of a single mutant in an exchangeable selection model. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 54 0 (5): 0 721--744, 2007. doi:10.1007/s00285-007-0069-7

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    Lieberman, C

    E. Lieberman, C. Hauert, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature, 433 0 (7023): 0 312--316, 2005. doi:10.1038/nature03204

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    T. M. Liggett. Interacting Particle Systems. Springer New York, 1985. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8542-4

    1985 doi

  34. [42]

    Maciejewski

    W. Maciejewski. Reproductive value in graph-structured populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 340: 0 285--293, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.09.032

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Maciejewski, F

    W. Maciejewski, F. Fu, and C. Hauert. Evolutionary game dynamics in populations with heterogenous structures. PLoS Computational Biology, 10 0 (4): 0 e1003567, 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003567

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    McAvoy and C

    A. McAvoy and C. Hauert. Structure coefficients and strategy selection in multiplayer games. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 72 0 (1): 0 203--238, 2016. doi:10.1007/s00285-015-0882-3

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    McAvoy, B

    A. McAvoy, B. Allen, and M. A. Nowak. Social goods dilemmas in heterogeneous societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 0 (8): 0 819--831, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0881-2

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    D. M. McCandlish, C. L. Epstein, and J. B. Plotkin. Formal properties of the probability of fixation: Identities, inequalities and approximations . Theoretical Population Biology, 99: 0 98--113, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2014.11.004

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    M \"o ller, L

    M. M \"o ller, L. Hindersin, and A. Traulsen. Exploring and mapping the universe of evolutionary graphs identifies structural properties affecting fixation probability and time. Communications Biology, 2 0 (1): 0 137, 2019. doi:10.1038/s42003-019-0374-x

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    T. Monk, P. Green, and M. Paulin. Martingales and fixation probabilities of evolutionary graphs. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 470 0 (2165): 0 20130730--20130730, 2014. doi:10.1098/rspa.2013.0730

    2014

  41. [49]

    P. A. P. Moran. Random processes in genetics. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 54 0 (01): 0 60, 1958. doi:10.1017/s0305004100033193

    1958 doi

  42. [50]

    C. G. Nathanson, C. E. Tarnita, and M. A. Nowak. Calculating Evolutionary Dynamics in Structured Populations . PLoS Computational Biology , 5 0 (12): 0 e1000615, 2009. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000615

    2009 doi

  43. [51]

    M. A. Nowak and R. M. May. Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature, 359 0 (6398): 0 826--829, 1992. doi:10.1038/359826a0

    1992 doi

  44. [52]

    M. A. Nowak, A. Sasaki, C. Taylor, and D. Fudenberg. Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature, 428 0 (6983): 0 646--650, 2004. doi:10.1038/nature02414

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    M. A. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita, and T. Antal. Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 0 (1537): 0 19--30, 2009. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0215

    2009

  46. [54]

    H. Ohtsuki. Evolutionary dynamics of n -player games played by relatives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369 0 (1642): 0 20130359--20130359, 2014. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0359

    2014

  47. [55]

    Ohtsuki, C

    H. Ohtsuki, C. Hauert, E. Lieberman, and M. A. Nowak. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441 0 (7092): 0 502--505, 2006. doi:10.1038/nature04605

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    Patwa and L

    Z. Patwa and L. M. Wahl. The fixation probability of beneficial mutations. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 5 0 (28): 0 1279--1289, 2008. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0248

    2008

  49. [57]

    Pavlogiannis, J

    A. Pavlogiannis, J. Tkadlec, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak. Construction of arbitrarily strong amplifiers of natural selection using evolutionary graph theory. Communications Biology, 1 0 (1), 2018. doi:10.1038/s42003-018-0078-7

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Pe \ n a, B

    J. Pe \ n a, B. Wu, and A. Traulsen. Ordering structured populations in multiplayer cooperation games. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 13 0 (114): 0 20150881, 2016. doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0881

    2016

  51. [59]

    F. Rousset. A Minimal Derivation of Convergence Stability Measures . Journal of Theoretical Biology, 221 0 (4): 0 665--668, 2003. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2003.3210

    2003

  52. [60]

    Roze and F

    D. Roze and F. Rousset. Selection and drift in subdivided populations: a straightforward method for deriving diffusion approximations and applications involving dominance, selfing and local extinctions. Genetics, 165 0 (4): 0 2153--2166, 2003

    2003

  53. [61]

    Sample and B

    C. Sample and B. Allen. The limits of weak selection and large population size in evolutionary game theory. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 75 0 (5): 0 1285--1317, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00285-017-1119-4

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco. Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical Review Letters, 95 0 (9): 0 098104, 2005. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.098104

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    F. C. Santos, M. D. Santos, and J. M. Pacheco. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454 0 (7201): 0 213--216, 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06940

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    K. Sigmund. The calculus of selfishness. Princeton University Press, 2010. doi:10.1515/9781400832255

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    Szab\' o and G

    G. Szab\' o and G. F\' a th. Evolutionary games on graphs. Physics Reports, 446 0 (4-6): 0 97--216, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    C. E. Tarnita and P. D. Taylor. Measures of Relative Fitness of Social Behaviors in Finite Structured Population Models . The American Naturalist, 184 0 (4): 0 477--488, 2014. doi:10.1086/677924

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    C. E. Tarnita, H. Ohtsuki, T. Antal, F. Fu, and M. A. Nowak. Strategy selection in structured populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 259 0 (3): 0 570--581, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.03.035

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    Taylor, D

    C. Taylor, D. Fudenberg, A. Sasaki, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 66 0 (6): 0 1621--1644, 2004. doi:10.1016/j.bulm.2004.03.004

    2004 doi

  61. [69]

    P. D. Taylor. Allele-Frequency Change in a Class-Structured Population . The American Naturalist, 135 0 (1): 0 95--106, 1990. doi:10.1086/285034

    1990 doi

  62. [70]

    P. D. Taylor, T. Day, and G. Wild. Evolution of cooperation in a finite homogeneous graph. Nature, 447 0 (7143): 0 469--472, 2007. doi:10.1038/nature05784

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    Tkadlec, A

    J. Tkadlec, A. Pavlogiannis, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak. Population structure determines the tradeoff between fixation probability and fixation time. Communications Biology, 2, 2019. doi:10.1038/s42003-019-0373-y

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Tkadlec, A

    J. Tkadlec, A. Pavlogiannis, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak. Limits on amplifiers of natural selection under death-birth updating. PLOS Computational Biology, 16 0 (1): 0 e1007494, 2020. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007494

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Traulsen and C

    A. Traulsen and C. Hauert. Stochastic Evolutionary Game Dynamics . In Reviews of Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity , pages 25--61. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. doi:10.1002/9783527628001.ch2

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    Traulsen, J

    A. Traulsen, J. M. Pacheco, and L. A. Imhof. Stochasticity and evolutionary stability. Physical Review E, 74 0 (2): 0 021905, 2006. doi:10.1103/physreve.74.021905

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    Van Cleve

    J. Van Cleve. Social evolution and genetic interactions in the short and long term. Theoretical Population Biology, 103: 0 2--26, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2015.05.002

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Voorhees

    B. Voorhees. Birth-death fixation probabilities for structured populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 469 0 (2153): 0 20120248, 2013. doi:10.1098/rspa.2012.0248

    2013

  69. [77]

    J. Wakeley. Coalescent Theory: An Introduction. Macmillan Learning, 2016

    2016

  70. [78]

    S. Wright. Evolution in M endelian populations. Genetics, 16: 0 97--159, 1931

    1931

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.