Amplifiers for the Moran Process

The Moran process, as studied by Lieberman, Hauert, and Nowak, is a randomised algorithm modelling the spread of genetic mutations in populations. The algorithm runs on an underlying graph where individuals correspond to vertices. Initially, one vertex (chosen uniformly at random) possesses a mutation, with fitness r > 1. All other individuals have fitness 1. During each step of the algorithm, an individual is chosen with probability proportional to its fitness, and its state (mutant or nonmutant) is passed on to an out-neighbour which is chosen uniformly at random. If the underlying graph is strongly connected, then the algorithm will eventually reach fixation, in which all individuals are mutants, or extinction, in which no individuals are mutants. An infinite family of directed graphs is said to be strongly amplifying if, for every r > 1, the extinction probability tends to 0 as the number of vertices increases. A formal definition is provided in the article. Strong amplification is a rather surprising property—it means that in such graphs, the fixation probability of a uniformly placed initial mutant tends to 1 even though the initial mutant only has a fixed selective advantage of r > 1 (independently of n). The name “strongly amplifying” comes from the fact that this selective advantage is “amplified.” Strong amplifiers have received quite a bit of attention, and Lieberman et al. proposed two potentially strongly amplifying families—superstars and metafunnels. Heuristic arguments have been published, arguing that there are infinite families of superstars that are strongly amplifying. The same has been claimed for metafunnels. In this article, we give the first rigorous proof that there is an infinite family of directed graphs that is strongly amplifying. We call the graphs in the family “megastars.” When the algorithm is run on an n-vertex graph in this family, starting with a uniformly chosen mutant, the extinction probability is roughly n − 1/2 (up to logarithmic factors). We prove that all infinite families of superstars and metafunnels have larger extinction probabilities (as a function of n). Finally, we prove that our analysis of megastars is fairly tight—there is no infinite family of megastars such that the Moran algorithm gives a smaller extinction probability (up to logarithmic factors). Also, we provide a counterexample which clarifies the literature concerning the isothermal theorem of Lieberman et al.

[1]  B. Harshbarger An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Volume I , 1958 .

[2]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Maximizing the Spread of Influence through a Social Network , 2015, Theory Comput..

[3]  Svante Janson,et al.  Random graphs , 2000, Wiley-Interscience series in discrete mathematics and optimization.

[4]  References , 1971 .

[5]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[6]  Paulo Shakarian,et al.  A review of evolutionary graph theory with applications to game theory , 2012, Biosyst..

[7]  P. A. P. Moran,et al.  Random processes in genetics , 1958, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[8]  Maria J. Serna,et al.  Absorption time of the Moran process , 2016, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[9]  Frank E. Grubbs,et al.  An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , 1951 .

[10]  Eli Upfal,et al.  Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis , 2005 .

[11]  Rick Durrett,et al.  Some features of the spread of epidemics and information on a random graph , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Christoph Hauert,et al.  Fixation probabilities on superstars, revisited and revised. , 2013, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  Maria J. Serna,et al.  Absorption time of the Moran process , 2013, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[14]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Gossip Algorithms , 2009, Found. Trends Netw..

[15]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Natural models for evolution on networks , 2011, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Jeffrey E. Steif,et al.  Fixation Results for Threshold Voter Systems , 1993 .

[17]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  On the fixation probability of superstars , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[18]  Eli Berger Dynamic Monopolies of Constant Size , 2001, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[19]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Journal of the ACM , 2006 .

[20]  William Feller,et al.  An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , 1967 .

[21]  Sandip Roy,et al.  The influence model , 2001 .

[22]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Approximating Fixation Probabilities in the Generalized Moran Process , 2011, Algorithmica.

[23]  Herbert Gintis,et al.  Game Theory Evolving: A Problem-Centered Introduction to Modeling Strategic Interaction - Second Edition , 2009 .

[24]  R. Axelrod,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics , 2004 .

[25]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Amplifiers of selection , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Strong Bounds for Evolution in Networks , 2013, ICALP.

[27]  T. Liggett,et al.  Stochastic Interacting Systems: Contact, Voter and Exclusion Processes , 1999 .

[28]  G. Grimmett,et al.  The Critical Contact Process Dies Out , 1990 .

[29]  William Feller,et al.  An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , 1951 .

[30]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics on graphs , 2005, Nature.

[31]  M. Broom,et al.  An analysis of the fixation probability of a mutant on special classes of non-directed graphs , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.