Algorithms, Games, and Evolution: SI Text
Algorithms, Games, and Evolution: SI Text
Algorithms, Games, and Evolution: SI Text
Contributed by Christos Papadimitriou, April 12, 2014 (sent for review November 16, 2013)
Even the most seasoned students of evolution, starting with Darwin theory, namely strategic individual behavior and conflict between
himself, have occasionally expressed amazement that the mecha- individuals, are extraneous to our analysis.
nism of natural selection has produced the whole of Life as we see We now state our assumptions and results. We consider an
it around us. There is a computational way to articulate the same infinite panmictic population of haplotypes involving several un-
amazement: “What algorithm could possibly achieve all this in linked (i.e., fully recombining) loci, where each locus has several
a mere three and a half billion years?” In this paper we propose alleles. These assumptions are rather standard in the literature.
an answer: We demonstrate that in the regime of weak selection, They are made here to simplify exposition and algebra, and there is
the standard equations of population genetics describing natural no a priori reason to believe that they are essential for the results,
selection in the presence of sex become identical to those of a re- beyond making them easily accessible. For example, Nagylaki’s
peated game between genes played according to multiplicative theorem (4), which is the main analytical ingredient of our results,
weight updates (MWUA), an algorithm known in computer science holds even in the presence of diploidy and partial recombination.
to be surprisingly powerful and versatile. MWUA maximizes a Nagylaki’s theorem states that weak selection in the presence
tradeoff between cumulative performance and entropy, which of sex proceeds near the Wright manifold, where the population
suggests a new view on the maintenance of diversity in evolution. genetic dynamics becomes (SI Text)
A B
C D
EVOLUTION
Fig. 1. Equations of population genetics formulated in the 1930s constitute the standard mathematical way of understanding evolution of a species by
tracking the frequencies of various genotypes in a large population. In the simple example shown here, a haploid organism with two genetic loci A and B has
three alleles in each of its two loci named A1, A2, A3 and B1, B2, B3 for a total of nine genotypes. In A we show the fitness of each genotype, that is, its
expected number of offspring. The fitness numbers shown in A are all close to each other, reflecting weak selection, where the individual alleles’ con-
COMPUTER SCIENCES
tributions to fitness are typically minuscule. Initially, each genotype occurs in the population with some frequency; in this particular example these numbers
are initially equal (B); naturally, their sum over all nine genotypes is 1 (frequencies are truncated to the fourth decimal digit). C shows how the genotype
frequencies evolve in the next generation: each individual of a given genotype produces a number of offspring that is proportional to its fitness shown in A,
and the resulting offspring inherits the alleles of its parents with equal probability (because we are assuming, crucially, sexual reproduction). The genotype
frequencies in the next generation are shown in C, calculated through the standard recurrence equations of population genetics. We also show in the margins
of the table the allele frequencies, obtained by adding the genotype frequencies along the corresponding row or column. Ten generations later, the fre-
quencies are as shown in D.
Chastain et al. PNAS | July 22, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 29 | 10621
A B
C D
Fig. 2. A simple coordination game is played by two players: the row player, who chooses a row, and the column player, who chooses a column. After the
two players make a choice, they both receive (or both pay, in case of a negative entry) the same amount of money, equal to the number at the chosen row
and column (A). Coordination games are the simplest possible kind of a game, one in which the strategic interests of all players are completely aligned—that
is to say, there is no conflict at all. They are of interest when it is difficult for the players to know these numbers, or to communicate and agree on a mutually
beneficial combination (in this example, third row and second column). Notice that this particular coordination game is closely related to the fitness landscape
shown in Fig. 1A: If P is a payoff in this game, the corresponding entry of Fig. 1A is equal to 1 + « · P, where « is a small parameter here taken to be 0.01.
Suppose that each of the two players chooses each of the three options with some probability, initially 1=3 for all (B); in game theory such probabilistic play is
called a mixed action. How do we expect these probabilities to change over repeated play? One famous recipe is the MWUA, in which a player “boosts” the
probability of each option by multiplying it by 1 + «G, where G is the expected amount of money this option is going to win the player in the current round of
play, and « is the same small parameter as above. For example, the second action of the row player has G equal to 2 (the average of 3, −1, and 4), and so the
probability of playing the second row will be multiplied by 1.02. Then these weights are “renormalized” so they add up to 1, yielding the marginal prob-
abilities shown in C. The probabilities after 10 such rounds of play are shown in D. Comparing now the numbers in the margins of Figs. 1D and 2D, we notice
that they are essentially the same. This is what we establish mathematically in this paper: the two processes—repeated coordination games played through
multiplicative updates, and evolution under weak selection—are essentially identical. This conclusion is of interest because the MWUA is known in computer
science to be surprisingly powerful.
evolutionary theory, game theory, and the theory of algorithms– distribution; see SI Text.] Subtracting this equation from its ho-
machine learning. molog with t replaced by t + 1, and applying the approxima-
So far we have presented the MWUA by “how it works” (in- tion expðeuti ð jÞÞ ≈ ð1 + euti ð jÞÞ, we obtain the precise Eq. 2 (the
formally, it boosts alleles proportionally to how well they do in normalization Zt is obtained from μt and μt+1; see SI Text for the
the current mix). There is an alternative way of understanding more detailed derivation).
the MWUA in terms of “what it is optimizing.” That is, we Thus, because Eqs. 1 and 2 are identical, we conclude that, in
imagine that the allele frequencies of each locus in each gener- the weak selection regime, natural selection is tantamount to
each locus choosing at each generation its allele frequencies in
ation are the result of a deliberate optimization by the locus of
the population so as to maximize the sum of the expected cumu-
some quantity, and we wish to determine that quantity. P lative differential fitness over the alleles, plus the distribution’s
Returning to the game formulation, define Uit ð jÞ = tτ=0 uτi ð jÞ
entropy. Note that quantity 3 is maximized by genes, not by
to be the cumulative utility obtained by player i by playing strategy j individuals, and that, interestingly, it is maximized with respect
over all t first repetitions of the game, and consider the quantity to current frequencies while being dependent (through Ut) on
X all past frequencies, and although there is some precedent to
1X t the use of “historical fitness” (9), its importance in this context
xti ð jÞUit ð jÞ − x ð jÞln xti ð jÞ: [3]
j
e j i is unexpected.
This alternative view of selection provides a new insight into
The first term is the current (at time t) expected cumulative an important question in evolutionary biology, namely: How is
utility. The second term of 3 is the entropy (expected negative genetic diversity maintained in the presence of natural selection
logarithm) of the probability distribution {xi( j), j = 1, . . . jAi j}, (10)? That the MWUA process enhances the entropy of the
multiplied by a large constant 1=e. Suppose now that player i alleles’ distribution (while at the same time optimizes expected
wished to choose the probabilities of actions xti ðjÞs with the sole cumulative utility) hints at such a mechanism. In fact, entropy is
goal of maximizing the quantity 3. This is a relatively easy opti- enhanced inversely proportional to s (the quantity corresponding
mization problem, because the quantity 3 to be maximized is strictly in the population genetics domain to the parameter «), the se-
concave, and therefore it has a unique maximum, obtained through lection strength: The weaker the selection, the more it favors
the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions of optimality (8) (SI Text, high entropy. Naturally, entropy will eventually vanish when the
section 4): process quiesces at equilibrium: One allele per locus will even-
tually be fixed, and in fact this equilibrium may be a local, as
1 opposed to global, fitness maximum. However, we believe that it
Uit ð jÞ − 1 + ln xti ð jÞ + μt = 0: is interesting and significant that the entropy of the allele dis-
e
tribution is favored by selection in the transient; in any event,
t
[Here μP is the Lagrange multiplier associated with the con- mutations, environmental changes, and finite population effects
t t
straint j xi ð jÞ = 1 seeking to keep the xi ð jÞs a probability are likely to change the process before equilibrium is reached.
1. Bürger R (2000) The Mathematical Theory of Selection, Recombination, and Mutation 9. Leibler S, Kussell E (2010) Individual histories and selection in heterogeneous pop-
(Wiley, Chichester). ulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(29):13183–13188.
2. Nagylaki T (1993) The evolution of multilocus systems under weak selection. Genetics 10. Lewontin RC, Hubby JL (1966) A molecular approach to the study of genic hetero-
134(2):627–647. zygosity in natural populations. II. Amount of variation and degree of heterozygosity
3. Nei M (2005) Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol 22(12): in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54(2):595–609.
2318–2342. 11. Dobzhansky T (1955) A Review of Some Fundamental Concepts and Problems of
4. Nagylaki T, Hofbauer J, Brunovský P (1999) Convergence of multilocus systems under Population Genetics (Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY), Vol 20,
weak epistasis or weak selection. J Math Biol 38(2):103–133. pp 1–15.
5. Arora S, Hazan E, Kale S (2012) The multiplicative weights update method: A meta- 12. Kimura M (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217(5129):
algorithm and applications. Theory Comput 8:121–164. 624–626.
6. Maynard-Smith J (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cambridge Univ Press, 13. Bell G (1982) The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality
Cambridge, UK). (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
7. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary Game Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). 14. Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1998) Why sex and recombination? Science 281(5385):
8. Boyd SP, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex Optimization (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986–1990.
Cambridge, UK). 15. Otto SP (2009) The evolutionary enigma of sex. Am Nat 174(Suppl 1):S1–S14.
EVOLUTION
COMPUTER SCIENCES
Chastain et al. PNAS | July 22, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 29 | 10623