Recent Posts
- Principles of biological computation: from circadian clock to evolution
- The science and engineering of biological computation: from process to software to DNA-based neural networks
- Elements of biological computation & stochastic thermodynamics of life
- Rationality, the Bayesian mind and their limits
- Web of C-lief: conjectures vs. model assumptions vs. scientific beliefs
- Idealization vs abstraction for mathematical models of evolution
- Allegory of the replication crisis in algorithmic trading
- 668,212 views
Join 2,752 other subscribers
Contributing authors
- Abel Molina
- Alexandru Strimbu
- Alexander Yartsev
- Eric Bolo
- David Robert Grimes
- Forrest Barnum
- Jill Gallaher
- Julian Xue
- Artem Kaznatcheev
- Keven Poulin
- Marcel Montrey
- Matthew Wicker
- Dan Nichol
- Philip Gerlee
- Piotr MigdaĆ
- Robert Vander Velde
- Rob Noble
- Sergio Graziosi
- Max Hartshorn
- Thomas Shultz
- Vincent Cannataro
- Yunjun Yang
Fitness distributions versus fitness as a summary statistic: algorithmic Darwinism and supply-driven evolution
March 2, 2019 by Artem Kaznatcheev 4 Comments
For simplicity, especially in the fitness landscape literature, fitness is often treated as a scalar — usually a real number. If our fitness landscape is on genotypes then each genotype has an associated scalar value of fitness. If our fitness landscape is on phenotypes then each phenotype has an associated scalar value of fitness.
But this is a little strange. After all, two organisms with the same genotype or phenotype don’t necessarily have the same number of offspring or other life outcomes. As such, we’re usually meant to interpret the value of fitness as the mean of some random variable like number of children. But is the mean the right summary statistic to use? And if it is then which mean: arithmetic or geometric or some other?
One way around this is to simply not use a summary statistic, and instead treat fitness as a random variable with a corresponding distribution. For many developmental biologists, this would still be a simplification since it ignores many other aspects of life-histories — especially related to reproductive timing. But it is certainly an interesting starting point. And one that I don’t see pursued enough in the fitness landscape literature.
The downside is that it makes an already pretty vague and unwieldy model — i.e. the fitness landscape — even less precise and even more unwieldy. As such, we should pursue this generalization only if it brings us something concrete and useful. In this post I want to discuss two aspects of this: better integration of evolution with computational learning theory and thinking about supply driven evolution (i.e. arrival of the fittest). In the process, I’ll be drawing heavily on the thoughts of Leslie Valiant and Julian Z. Xue.
Read more of this post
Filed under Commentary, Models, Preliminary Tagged with evolution, fitness landscapes, fitness ontology, Leslie Valiant, machine learning