Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 74 references

A functional law of large numbers for a spatial model of Muller's ratchet

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A functional law of large numbers converts the spatial Muller's ratchet into a unique infinite reaction-diffusion PDE system with explicit mutation-load bounds.

desk verdict A careful and likely correct hydrodynamic limit for the spatial Muller's ratchet, with the caveat that the load-bearing moment bound is imported from the companion paper and must be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.06478 v2 pith:WNDIXE5Z submitted 2026-03-06 math.PR math.APq-bio.PE

João Luiz de Oliveira Madeira , Marcel Ortgiese , Sarah Penington This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.APq-bio.PE MSC 60K3535K5760F1792D15
keywords Muller'sratchethydrodynamiclimitreaction-diffusionPDEinteractingparticlesystemsinfinite-typegenesurfingspreadingspeedtightnessinBochnerspaces
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

The paper establishes that, as the population-size parameter grows, the random spatial Muller's ratchet particle system—where individuals carry arbitrarily many deleterious mutations and reproduce and die at density-dependent rates—converges in distribution to the solution of an infinite system of reaction-diffusion PDEs. The limit is unique, and the convergence comes with quantitative control: under monostable or Fisher-KPP conditions, the ratio of the density of k-mutation carriers to wild-type carriers is bounded between two explicit sequences, and the population invades empty habitat at the explicit speed sqrt(2m((1-mu)q+(0)-q-(0))). This confirms earlier non-rigorous generator calculations and turns a stochastic many-species problem into a deterministic PDE problem. It also answers the motivating biological question: in the PDE limit, deleterious mutations do not surf the expansion wave; the mutant fraction at the front descends from the wild-type rather than from pre-existing mutants.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through three devices. (1) A Green's function representation writes the local density as a random-walk semigroup plus a martingale and a finite-variation term; this yields space-time equicontinuity estimates and control of large-type tails. (2) A new tightness criterion for interacting particle systems in Bochner L^p spaces (spaces of functions taking values in ℓ1, based on a compactness characterisation of Díaz–Mayoral) controls the entire sequence of densities in L^{4 deg q−}([0,T]×R, λ̂; ℓ1), giving almost-everywhere convergence of densities and hence passage through the nonlinearity. (3) A Feynman-Kac formula for the PDE system turns the ratio bounds into comparisons wi

What would settle it

Compute or simulate the local moment E[||u^N(t,x)||^p_{ℓ1}] for the same particle model but with birth-degree at least death-degree (deg q+ ≥ deg q−): if it is unbounded in N, the principal tightness input fails. Alternatively, simulate the PDE (2.11)–(2.12) with only mutants present initially and no wild-type: Theorem 2.9 predicts the total labelled density decays to zero uniformly, so a PDE simulation showing a persistent travelling wave would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 2.1: under space renormalization m_N/L_N^2 -> m, polynomial birth/death rates with deg q+ < deg q-, and initial data converging to f, the rescaled occupancy process converges in distribution on D([0,∞), M(R)^{N0}) with J1 topology to a unique continuous M(R)^{N0}-valued process whose densities form the unique non-negative mild solution of partial_t u_k = (m/2) Δ u_k + F_k(u), with F_k(u) = q+(||u||_ℓ1)(s_k(1−μ)u_k + 1_{k≥1} s_{k−1} μ u_{k−1}) − q−(||u||_ℓ1) u_k and u(0)=f. Corollaries: under monostability, u_k/u_0 is uniformly sandwiched between sequences converging to α_k(Qmin/Qmax)^k and α_k(Qmax/Qmin)^k; under Fisher-KPP dynamics, the spreading speed is the explicit formula above;

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all high moments of the local rescaled population density are uniformly bounded as N grows—sup_N sup_{t,x} E[||u^N(t,x)||^p_{ℓ1}] < ∞—a bound imported from the authors' companion article; every tightness and equicontinuity estimate in the convergence proof invokes it, and if local ℓ1 moments blow up as N→∞, the law of large numbers collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, the stochastic spatial Muller's ratchet is asymptotically described by a deterministic infinite PDE, so questions about densities, mutation load, and speed can be posed and answered in the PDE rather than in the particle system.
  • Theorem 2.5 implies that at large times, the fraction of the population carrying k mutations stays within a compact interval, and when q+ is constant on [0,1] the ratio converges uniformly to the equilibrium profile α_k.
  • Under Fisher-KPP conditions, Theorem 2.7 gives the exact spreading speed and shows that every mutation class travels at the same speed as the wild-type class.
  • Theorem 2.8 transfers the PDE ratio bounds back to the finite-N particle system with high probability, for large enough N and after sufficiently long time.
  • Theorem 2.9 shows that in the PDE limit, descendants of the initially mutant subpopulation die out uniformly; deleterious mutations do not surf deterministic population waves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the L^p tightness criterion is not specific to this model and should apply to other spatial birth-death processes with infinitely many types or unbounded local density, as long as analogous local moment bounds are available.
  • Editorial: the no-surfing conclusion is established for the deterministic PDE; in the stochastic system there may be a noise-driven surfing mechanism at the wave edge that disappears in the N→∞ limit, and this could be tested with a sharp large-deviation analysis at the moving front.
  • Editorial: the ratio sandwich depends on q+ only through Qmin/Qmax on [0,1], suggesting some universality of the mutation-load profile across a wide class of density-dependent growth laws; a testable prediction is that the front spectrum matches the equilibrium profile when q+ is constant.
  • Editorial: the weak-selection, low-mutation limit of the equilibrium profile α_k approaches the Poisson distribution (μ/s)^k/k!, so forward-time simulations or barcode range-expansion data could look for this signature as a fingerprint of the PDE limit.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a functional law of large numbers for a spatial model of Muller's ratchet: an interacting particle system with infinitely many mutation types, random-walk migration, and density-dependent birth/death rates. Under Assumptions 1–4, the approximate density process is shown to converge in distribution, in the J1 topology on D([0,∞), M(R)^{N0}), to a unique continuous mild solution of the infinite reaction–diffusion system (2.11) with reaction term (2.12). Under monostable/Fisher–KPP assumptions, the authors also derive quantitative bounds on the ratios u_k(T,x)/u_0(T,x), the spreading speed into empty habitat, a high-probability analogue for the particle system (Theorem 2.8), and a tracer-dynamics result indicating that, in the deterministic PDE limit, deleterious mutations do not surf population waves. The proof introduces a tightness criterion for interacting particle systems in L^p([0,T]×R, λ̂; ℓ1) spaces and uses a Green's function representation plus Feynman–Kac estimates. The central convergence theorem is conditional on two results imported from the companion paper [56]: existence of the S_N-valued Markov process (Theorem 3.2) and, in particular, the uniform local ℓ1 moment bound (Theorem 3.3 / eq. (2.27)). The manuscript states that this moment bound is proved in [56] and does not reproduce the argument.

Significance. If the imported moment bound is correct, the paper is a significant contribution. It confirms non-rigorous conjectures of Foutel-Rodier and Etheridge, rigorously replaces a nonlinear interacting particle system with infinitely many types by a deterministic PDE description, and does so without a priori bounds on the local number of particles. The PDE results in Theorems 2.5–2.9 are quantitative and parameter-free in the sense that the constants α_k(Q_min/Q_max)^k, the spreading speed c*, and the Poisson-type limit (2.23)–(2.24) are derived from the model parameters rather than fitted. The new L^p tightness criterion (Lemma 6.4) is a methodological contribution that may be useful beyond this model. The authors are also appropriately careful in stating that the gene-surfing question is answered only for deterministic waves in the PDE limit, not for the stochastic particle system. However, the main convergence theorem cannot be assessed in isolation: its proof invokes a high-order uniform moment bound from a companion paper, and every tightness and characterization estimate in Sections 4–6 relies on it. The significance is therefore conditional on the validity and availability of that

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.6 / Theorem 3.3 / eq. (2.27)] The proof of Theorem 2.1 is not self-contained at its most load-bearing point. Estimate (2.27) — stated here as Theorem 3.3 and imported from the companion paper [56, Thm 2.3] — is invoked in Lemma 4.4, Lemma 4.6, Lemma 4.7, Lemma 6.4(i), Lemma 6.6, and Lemma 6.8. In particular, Lemma 6.4 requires uniform bounds on E[||u^N(t,x)||^{8 deg q-}_{ℓ1}], and Lemma 4.6 needs higher moments of the local ℓ1 density. The manuscript explicitly says the proof is in [56] and does not reproduce it. If this uniform local moment bound fails for the required powers as N→∞, the tightness in L^{4 deg q-}([0,T]×R, λ̂; ℓ1) and hence the characterization of the limiting density in Proposition 6.2 and Theorem 2.1 collapse. This is not an internal inconsistency, and the bound is plausible under Assumption 3 (deg q+ < deg q-), but as submitted the central claim is conditional on an unverified import. I request ei
  2. [§3.1, Theorem 3.2] The existence and martingale properties of the S_N-valued process (η^N(t))_{t≥0} are also imported from the companion paper [56, Theorem 2.2] and stated as Theorem 3.2. This is a second external premise of Theorem 2.1, since the generator calculation and all subsequent martingale arguments require the process to exist as a strong Markov process in the weighted ℓ1-type state space S_N. The manuscript states the result clearly, but does not prove it. I regard this as less concerning than the moment bound, because the existence construction is described in outline and is presumably contained in [56]; nevertheless, the submitted paper alone does not establish that the process used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 is well defined. The authors should state explicitly the status of [56] (published, accepted, or preprint under review) and, if necessary, include the relevant existence proof or a detai
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.6, eq. (2.27)] The displayed bound contains a redundant supremum over x∈L^{-1}Z of a quantity independent of x: it should read sup_{x∈L^{-1}N Z} E[||u^N(t,x)||^p_{ℓ1}] ≲_{p,T} ||f||^p_{L∞(R;ℓ1)} + 1. As written, the right-hand side has the same value for every x.
  2. [Lemma 8.5, eq. (8.14)] The proof of the summability/finiteness of Φ(T) uses the strict inequality 0 < s_k < c for all k≥J. Assumption 2 only gives s_k ≥ 0 and lim s_k = 0; if some s_k = 0, the displayed inequality is not strictly positive on the left. This is easily patched by replacing '0 < s_k' with 's_k ≤ c' and treating zero separately, but the current statement is formally not implied by the assumptions.
  3. [General presentation] The paper is long and the notation is heavy; a table of notation for the many constants (C_T, C_{q+,q-,f}, C^{(i)}_T, etc.) would improve readability. The frequent reuse of C^{(i)} names with different meanings across lemmas is occasionally confusing, though not mathematically harmful.
  4. [§2.4 / Theorem 2.9] The title question 'Can deleterious mutations surf deterministic population waves?' is answered only in the PDE limit, and the authors are explicit about this in the text. It may be worth adding a sentence in the abstract or introduction emphasizing that the stochastic surfing question remains open, so that readers do not over-interpret the title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: main theorems are derived from stated model assumptions; companion-paper results are independent support.

full rationale

The proof of Theorem 2.1 depends on two results imported from the companion paper [56]: existence of the S_N-valued Markov process (Theorem 3.2) and the uniform local moment bound (Theorem 3.3 / eq. (2.27)). These are load-bearing for tightness, but they are separate parameter-free statements about the particle system under Assumptions 2-4 and do not assume the target PDE limit or its uniqueness; citing them is therefore a normal division of labour, not a circular reduction. The limit is then characterized independently in Sections 6-7 via Green's-function martingale estimates and a self-contained uniqueness proof for mild solutions. The ratio bounds in Theorem 2.5 are proved from the Feynman-Kac representation (Lemma 8.2) and induction (Lemmas 8.4-8.6), with the constants alpha_k, Q_min and Q_max defined directly from model parameters; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The spreading speed in Theorem 2.7 is a theorem proved under the explicit Fisher-KPP condition (2.14), not an assumption smuggled in as a conclusion. The no-surfing result in Theorem 2.9 follows from the tracer PDE. The main caveat is that the paper is not fully self-contained: the companion moment bound is not reproved here, so if that bound were false the tightness argument would fail. That is a verification/dependency risk, not circularity. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction, ansatz-smuggling, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is the derivation of the PDE limit and its consequences from the model assumptions. It imports from the companion [56] the existence of the process and the load-bearing uniform moment bound — the only imported results, but they underlie every tightness estimate. The remaining axioms are explicit model assumptions (Assumptions 1-6) and standard analytic tools (Bochner compactness, Feynman-Kac, parabolic regularity, comparison, local CLT). No fitted constants appear anywhere: the asymptotic ratios, the spreading speed, and the Poisson profile are functions of the stated parameters mu, s_k, q±, m. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated; the tracer labels of §2.4 are a known construction borrowed from [39] and [35].

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Companion results: existence of the S_N-valued càdlàg strong Markov process with generator (2.6)-(2.7); uniform moment bound (2.27)/(Theorem 3.3).
    Stated as Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 from [56]; (2.27) is invoked throughout Sections 4-6 to control all local moments; not reproven in this article.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1-2: L_N = Θ(N), m_N/L_N^2 → m ∈ (0,∞); fitness sequence s_k decreasing with s_0 = 1 and s_k → 0.
    Regime restrictions stated in Section 2; Assumption 2(iv) drives the tail estimate in Lemma 4.7 and the ℓ1-summability of α_k.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: q_+, q_- non-negative polynomials with 0 ≤ deg q_+ < deg q_- (or the generalized growth conditions in Remark 2.2).
    Secures density-dependent regulation (death outpaces birth at high density); used for the moment bound, reaction-term integrability (4.32), Lemmas 7.3-7.4, and the exponent 4·deg q_- defining the L^p spaces.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: initial condition f: R → ℓ1+ continuous λ-a.e., in L∞(R;ℓ1), with uniform tail decay in mutation number.
    Ensures initial configurations lie in S_N^0 (2.2) and that k→∞ tails vanish uniformly (Lemma 4.7).
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: ||f||_{L∞(R;ℓ1)} ≤ 1, λ({f_0 > 0}) > 0, and f_k ≤ π̂_k f_0 for a summable sequence (π̂_k).
    Necessary for the ratio bounds (2.18) of Theorem 2.5 and hence for Theorems 2.7-2.9; without the f_0-profile control, u_k/u_0 need not be bounded.
  • ad hoc to paper Definition 2.3: monostable / Fisher-KPP conditions on F, including q_+(U) ≥ q_-(U) on [0,1], q_+(1) > 0, (1-mu)q_+(0) - q_-(0) > 0, and inequality (2.14).
    The paper notes q_+(1) > 0 is a technical assumption not implied by scalar monostability; it restricts the biological regime covered by Theorems 2.5 and 2.7 (excludes e.g. the strong Allee effect, §2.3).
  • standard math Standard analytic toolbox: Bochner-Lebesgue theory, Díaz-Mayoral compactness (Theorem A.8), Kolmogorov-Riesz-Fréchet compactness (A.9), BDG inequality, Feynman-Kac formula (Prop 8.1), parabolic regularity (Ladyzhenskaya [52, Thm 8.10.1]), comparison principle for (7.22) ([5, Prop 2.1]), local CLT fo
    Invoked as black boxes throughout Sections 4-8 and the appendix; standard results with cited sources.
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted measure λ̂(dtdx) = 1_{t∈[0,T]} (1+|x|^2)^{-1} dtdx and the shift exponents l_1 = 1/4, l_2 = 1/2 in Lemma 6.4.
    The weight makes the L^r space finite-measure and the tightness criterion (Lemmas 6.3-6.4) applicable; the exponents are dictated by the Green's-function estimates (4.27), not by data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A functional law of large numbers for a spatial model of Muller's ratchet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNDIXE5Z

@misc{pith2026260306478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A functional law of large numbers for a spatial model of Muller's ratchet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNDIXE5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.06478}
}
read the original abstract

The spatial Muller's ratchet is a model introduced by Foutel-Rodier and Etheridge to study the impact of cooperation and competition on the fitness of an expanding asexual population. The model is an interacting particle system consisting of particles performing symmetric random walks that reproduce and die with rates that depend on the local number of particles. For each particle, we keep track of the number of deleterious mutations that it carries, and after each birth event, with some positive probability, the offspring particle can acquire an additional mutation that gives it a lower reproduction rate than its parent. We show that, under an appropriate scaling, the process converges weakly to the solution of an infinite system of partial differential equations (PDEs), confirming non-rigorous computations of Foutel-Rodier and Etheridge. Combining the weak convergence with analytical results for the limiting PDE system, we derive quantitative lower and upper bounds on the proportion of particles with mutations that hold with high probability for the particle system. A key obstacle is the absence of uniform bounds on the number of particles per site, together with the presence of infinitely many types of particle and the nonlinear interactions. To address this, we establish a new tightness criterion for interacting particle systems in general Lp spaces based only on local properties of the dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06478 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical simulation of the system of PDEs (2.11) with Fisher–KPP type dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical simulation of a population with Fisher–KPP type dynamics, governed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [56]

    J. L. O. Madeira, M. Ortgiese, and S. Penington. Existence, Uniqueness and Moment Bounds for a Spatial Model of Muller’s Ratchet.Preprint, 2026+

    2026

  2. [1]

    D. Aldous. Stopping times and tightness.The Annals of Probability, 2:335–340, 1978

    1978

  3. [2]

    D. I. Andersson and D. Hughes. Muller’s ratchet decreases fitness of a DNA-based microbe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(2):906–907, 1996

    1996

  4. [3]

    L. Arnold. On the consistency of the mathematical models of chemical reactions. InDy- namics of Synergetic Systems: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Synergetics, Bielefeld, pages 107–118. Springer, 1980

    1980

  5. [4]

    Arnold and M

    L. Arnold and M. Theodosopulu. Deterministic limit of the stochastic model of chemical reactions with diffusion.Advances in Applied Probability, 12(2):367–379, 1980

    1980

  6. [5]

    D. G. Aronson and H. F. Weinberger. Nonlinear diffusion in population genetics, combus- tion, and nerve pulse propagation. InPartial Differential Equations and Related Topics, pages 5–49. Springer, 1975

    1975

  7. [6]

    K. Bao, R. H. Melde, and N. P. Sharp. Are mutations usually deleterious? A perspective on the fitness effects of mutation accumulation.Evolutionary ecology, 36(5):753–766, 2022

    2022

  8. [7]

    Barbour and M

    A. Barbour and M. Luczak. A law of large numbers approximation for Markov population processes with countably many types.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 153(3-4):727– 757, 2012

    2012

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Barbour and M

    A. Barbour and M. Luczak. Central limit approximations for Markov population processes with countably many types.Eletronic Journal of Probability, 17:1–16, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    A. D. Barbour and M. J. Luczak. Laws of large numbers for epidemic models with countably many types.The Annals of Applied Probability, 18(6):2208–2238, 2008

    2008

  3. [10]

    Berestycki, É

    J. Berestycki, É. Brunet, and S. Penington. Global existence for a free boundary problem of Fisher–KPP type.Nonlinearity, 32(10):3912, 2019. 125

    2019

  4. [11]

    D. Blount. Comparison of stochastic and deterministic models of a linear chemical reaction with diffusion.The Annals of Probability, 19(4):1440–1462, 1991

    1991

  5. [12]

    D. Blount. Law of large numbers in the supremum norm for a chemical reaction with diffusion.The Annals of Applied Probability, 2(1):131–141, 1992

    1992

  6. [13]

    D. Blount. Limit theorems for a sequence of nonlinear reaction-diffusion systems.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 45(2):193–207, 1993

    1993

  7. [14]

    D. Blount. Density-dependent limits for a nonlinear reaction-diffusion model.The Annals of Probability, 22:2040–2070, 1994

  8. [15]

    Boldrighini, A

    C. Boldrighini, A. De Masi, A. Pellegrinotti, and E. Presutti. Collective phenomena in interacting particle systems.Stochastic processes and their applications, 25:137–152, 1987

    1987

  9. [16]

    Bourbaki.Elements of Mathematics: Integration I

    N. Bourbaki.Elements of Mathematics: Integration I. Springer, 2004

    2004

  10. [17]

    Bramson.Convergence of solutions of the Kolmogorov equation to travelling waves, volume 285 ofMemoirs of the AMS

    M. Bramson.Convergence of solutions of the Kolmogorov equation to travelling waves, volume 285 ofMemoirs of the AMS. American Mathematical Society, 1983

    1983

  11. [18]

    Brezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, volume 2

    H. Brezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, volume 2. Springer, 2011

    2011

  12. [19]

    Brézis and M

    H. Brézis and M. G. Crandall. Uniqueness of Solutions of the initial-value problem for ut−△φ(u) = 0.J. Math. Pures Appl., 58, 1979

    1979

  13. [20]

    J. A. Carrillo, T. Dębiec, P. Gwiazda, and A. Świerczewska-Gwiazda. Dissipative measure- valued solutions to the Euler–Poisson equation.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 56(1):304–335, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    De Masi and E

    A. De Masi and E. Presutti.Mathematical methods for hydrodynamic limits. Springer, 1991

    1991

  15. [22]

    Díaz and F

    S. Díaz and F. Mayoral. On compactness in spaces of Bochner integrable functions.Acta Mathematica Hungarica, 83(3):231–239, 1999

    1999

  16. [23]

    Diestel.Sequences and series in Banach spaces, volume 92

    J. Diestel.Sequences and series in Banach spaces, volume 92. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  17. [24]

    Durrett and W.-T

    R. Durrett and W.-T. L. Fan. Genealogies in expanding populations.The Annals of Applied Probability, 26(6):3456–3490, 2016

    2016

  18. [25]

    Particlesystemsandreaction-diffusionequations.The Annals of Probability, 22(1):289–333, 1994

    R.DurrettandC.Neuhauser. Particlesystemsandreaction-diffusionequations.The Annals of Probability, 22(1):289–333, 1994

    1994

  19. [26]

    C. A. Edmonds, A. S. Lillie, and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. Mutations arising in the wave front of an expanding population.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(4):975–979, 2004

    2004

  20. [27]

    Etheridge, P

    A. Etheridge, P. Pfaffelhuber, and A. Wakolbinger. How often does the ratchet click? Facts, heuristics, asymptotics.Trends in stochastic analysis, 353:365–390, 2009

    2009

  21. [28]

    A. M. Etheridge, I. Letter, T. G. Kurtz, P. L. Ralph, and T. T. H. Lung. Looking forwards and backwards: dynamics and genealogies of locally regulated populations.Electronic Journal of Probability, 29:1–85, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz.Markov processes: characterization and convergence, volume

  23. [30]

    L. C. Evans.Partial differential equations, volume 19. American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  24. [31]

    J. Feng. The hydrodynamic limit for the reaction diffusion equation—An approach in terms of the GPV method.Journal of Theoretical Probability, 9:285–299, 1996

    1996

  25. [32]

    Flandoli and R

    F. Flandoli and R. Huang. The KPP equation as a scaling limit of locally interacting Brownian particles.Journal of Differential Equations, 303:608–644, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    G. B. Folland.Real analysis: modern techniques and their applications, volume 40. John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  27. [34]

    Foutel-Rodier and A

    F. Foutel-Rodier and A. M. Etheridge. The spatial Muller’s ratchet: surfing of deleterious mutations during range expansion.Theoretical Population Biology, 135:19–31, 2020. 126

    2020

  28. [35]

    Garnier, T

    J. Garnier, T. Giletti, F. Hamel, and L. Roques. Inside dynamics of pulled and pushed fronts.Journal de mathématiques pures et appliquées, 98(4):428–449, 2012

    2012

  29. [36]

    González Casanova, C

    A. González Casanova, C. Smadi, and A. Wakolbinger. Quasi-equilibria and click times for a variant of Muller’s ratchet.Electronic Journal of Probability, 28:1–37, 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    P.-A. Gros, H. Le Nagard, and O. Tenaillon. The evolution of epistasis and its links with genetic robustness, complexity and drift in a phenotypic model of adaptation.Genetics, 182(1):277–293, 2009

    2009

  31. [38]

    J. Haigh. The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population—Muller’s ratchet.Theo- retical population biology, 14(2):251–267, 1978

    1978

  32. [39]

    Hallatschek and D

    O. Hallatschek and D. R. Nelson. Gene surfing in expanding populations.Theoretical population biology, 73(1):158–170, 2008

    2008

  33. [40]

    Hammond and F

    A. Hammond and F. Rezakhanlou. Kinetic limit for a system of coagulating planar Brow- nian particles.Journal of statistical physics, 124:997–1040, 2006

    2006

  34. [41]

    Hammond and F

    A. Hammond and F. Rezakhanlou. The kinetic limit of a system of coagulating Brownian particles.Archive for rational mechanics and analysis, 185(1):1–67, 2007

    2007

  35. [42]

    D. K. Howe and D. R. Denver. Muller’s Ratchet and compensatory mutation in Caenorhab- ditis briggsae mitochondrial genome evolution.BMC evolutionary biology, 8:1–13, 2008

    2008

  36. [43]

    Hytönen, J

    T. Hytönen, J. Van Neerven, M. Veraar, and L. Weis.Analysis in Banach spaces, volume 12. Springer, 2016

    2016

  37. [44]

    Jakubowski

    A. Jakubowski. On the Skorokhod topology.Annales de l’IHP Probabilités et statistiques, 22(3):263–285, 1986

    1986

  38. [45]

    Jara and O

    M. Jara and O. Menezes. Non-equilibrium fluctuations for a reaction-diffusion model via relative entropy.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03418, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    V. B. Kaiser and B. Charlesworth. Muller’s ratchet and the degeneration of the Drosophila miranda neo-Y chromosome.Genetics, 185(1):339–348, 2010

    2010

  40. [47]

    Kallenberg.Random measures, theory and applications, volume 1

    O. Kallenberg.Random measures, theory and applications, volume 1. Springer, 2017

    2017

  41. [48]

    Kipnis and C

    C. Kipnis and C. Landim.Scaling limits of interacting particle systems, volume 320. Springer Science & Business Media, 1998

    1998

  42. [49]

    Kolokoltsov.Differential equations on measures and functional spaces

    V. Kolokoltsov.Differential equations on measures and functional spaces. Springer, 2019

    2019

  43. [50]

    Kotelenez

    P. Kotelenez. Law of large numbers and central limit theorem for linear chemical reactions with diffusion.The Annals of Probability, 14(1):173–193, 1986

    1986

  44. [51]

    Kotelenez

    P. Kotelenez. High density limit theorems for nonlinear chemical reactions with diffusion. Probability theory and related fields, 78(1):11–37, 1988

    1988

  45. [52]

    N. V. Krylov.Lectures on elliptic and parabolic equations in Hölder spaces, volume 12. American Mathematical Soc., 1996

    1996

  46. [53]

    T. G. Kurtz and J. Xiong. Particle representations for a class of nonlinear spdes.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 83(1):103–126, 1999

    1999

  47. [54]

    Lang and N

    R. Lang and N. X. Xanh. Smoluchowski’s theory of coagulation in colloids holds rigorously in the Boltzmann-Grad-limit.Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 54(3):227–280, 1980

    1980

  48. [55]

    G. F. Lawler and V. Limic.Random walk: a modern introduction, volume 123. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    Mariani, E

    M. Mariani, E. Pardoux, and A. Velleret. Metastability between the clicks of Muller’s ratchet.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 192(3):1–82, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Mörters and Y

    P. Mörters and Y. Peres.Brownian motion, volume 30. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Mourragui

    M. Mourragui. Comportement hydrodynamique et entropie relative des processus de sauts, de naissances et de morts.Annales de l’IHP Probabilités et statistiques, 32(3):361–385, 1996. 127

    1996

  52. [60]

    Mueller and R

    C. Mueller and R. Tribe. Stochastic pde’s arising from the long range contact and long range voter processes.Probability theory and related fields, 102(4):519–545, 1995

    1995

  53. [61]

    H. J. Muller. The relation of recombination to mutational advance.Mutation Re- search/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 1(1):2–9, 1964

    1964

  54. [62]

    J. R. Munkres.Topology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2 edition, 2000

    2000

  55. [63]

    Pazy.Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations, volume 44

    A. Pazy.Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations, volume 44. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  56. [64]

    Penington

    S. Penington. The spreading speed of solutions of the non-local Fisher–KPP equation. Journal of Functional Analysis, 275(12):3259–3302, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    A. Perrut. Hydrodynamic limits for a two-species reaction-diffusion process.The Annals of Applied Probability, 10(1):163–191, 2000

    2000

  58. [66]

    Pfaffelhuber, P

    P. Pfaffelhuber, P. R. Staab, and A. Wakolbinger. Muller’s ratchet with compensatory mutations.The Annals of Applied Probability, 22(5):2108–2132, 2012

    2012

  59. [67]

    Prüss and G

    J. Prüss and G. Simonett.Moving interfaces and quasilinear parabolic evolution equations, volume 105 ofMonographs in Mathematics. Springer, 2016

    2016

  60. [68]

    B. Ráth. Mean field frozen percolation.Journal of Statistical Physics, 137:459–499, 2009

    2009

  61. [69]

    M. Roberts. Fine asymptotics for the consistent maximal displacement of branching Brow- nian motion.Electronic Journal of Probability, 20:1–16, 2015

    2015

  62. [70]

    Alleeeffectpromotesdiversityintraveling waves of colonization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23):8828–8833, 2012

    L.Roques, J.Garnier, F.Hamel, andE.K.Klein. Alleeeffectpromotesdiversityintraveling waves of colonization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23):8828–8833, 2012

    2012

  63. [71]

    T. Tendron. Non-equilibrium fluctuations for a spatial logistic branching process with weak competition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05269, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    van Neerven

    J. van Neerven. Compactness in the Lebesgue–Bochner spaces Lp(µ;X).Indagationes Mathematicae, 25(2):389–394, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    D. Yeo. Frozen percolation on inhomogeneous random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02750, 2018. 128

    2018 arXiv

  66. [282]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.