Optimal Control and the Dynamics of Ancestral Lineages
LaMont, C.
Show abstract
In resource-constrained populations, the growth rate of an allele is coupled to the frequency of its competitors. Since these frequencies are unobserved, exact inference of evolutionary parameters demands integrating over the full ensemble of possible frequency histories. This high-dimensional path integral is computationally prohibitive, and standard phylogenetic approaches avoid its evaluation by treating lineages as unconstrained birth-death processes. However, ignoring the carrying capacity comes at a cost: it necessitates an abundance of free parameters to describe simple allelic replicator dynamics and implicitly assumes an incorrect drift model. We propose a new approach by defining the fitness potential ({Psi})-- a dynamical quantity formally equivalent to the logarithm of reproductive value. By exploiting a duality between evolutionary dynamics and stochastic optimal control, we show that {Psi} allows for the analytic marginalization of the unknown population history. This transformation yields a tractable likelihood function that strictly enforces competitive constraints while accounting for the information loss due to genetic drift in finite populations. We demonstrate that this framework enables parsimonious, site-specific inference of selection coefficients from phylogenetic trees. This dual-control framework shows ancestral lineages behave as optimal agents: they do not simply climb local fitness gradients, but "anticipate" future selection by navigating a global landscape of reproductive value.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The components of directional and disruptive selection in heterogeneous group-structured populations 97%
- The ancestral population size conditioned on the reconstructed phylogenetic tree with occurrence data 97%
- From Bayes to Darwin: evolutionary search as an exaptation from sampling-based Bayesian inference 97%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.