1: %2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890

2: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

3: %\usepackage{lscape}

4: \eqnobysec

5: \usepackage{setstack}

6: \usepackage{iopams}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

8: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math

9: %\usepackage{epsf}

10: %\pagestyle{plain}

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title[Fluctuations and correlations in biological coevolution]{Fluctuations 

15: and correlations in an individual-based model of biological coevolution}

16: \author{R K P Zia\dag\ddag \; and Per Arne Rikvold\P}

17: \address{\dag\ Center for Stochastic Processes in Science and Engineering, 

18: Department

19: of Physics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,

20: Virginia 24061-0435, USA}

21: \address{\ddag\ Fachbereit Physik, Universit\"{a}t

22: Duisburg-Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany}

23: \address{\P\ School of Computational Science

24: and Information Technology, Center for Materials Research and Technology,

25: and Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

26: 32306-4120, USA}

27: 

28: \ead{rkpzia@vt.edu, rikvold@csit.fsu.edu}

29: 

30: \date{\today }

31: 

32: \begin{abstract}

33: We extend our study of a simple model of biological coevolution to its

34: statistical properties. Staring with a complete description in terms of a

35: master equation, we provide its relation to the deterministic evolution

36: equations used in previous investigations. The stationary states of the

37: mutationless model are generally well approximated by Gaussian

38: distributions, so that the fluctuations and correlations of the populations

39: can be computed analytically. Several specific cases are studied by Monte

40: Carlo simulations, and there is excellent agreement between the data and the

41: theoretical predictions.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: \submitto{JPA}

45: \pacs{

46: 05.40.-a %Fluctuation phenomena, random processes, noise, and Brownian motion

47: 87.23.Kg %Dynamics of evolution (In 80: Interdisciplinary physics.)

48: 05.65.+b %Self-organized systems 

49: }

50: 

51: \maketitle

52: 

53: 

54: 

55: \section{Introduction}

56: \label{sec:Int}

57: 

58: The dynamics of populations and species in the context of biological or

59: ecological systems have attracted considerable attention in the community of

60: statistical physicists in the last decade. Though there has been much

61: progress \cite{DROS01,LASS02}, it is rare that the behavior of macroscopic

62: populations can be predicted, even for ``simple models,'' from a set of 

63: {\em stochastic} rules for an {\em individual's} propensity to survive and/or

64: reproduce. The difficulties can be traced not only to the presence of many

65: degrees of freedom, with complex internal interactions (e.g., mutualistic or

66: predator-prey), but also to the non-trivial couplings to external reservoirs

67: (such as energy or food). As a result, even if we only focus on systems in

68: stationary states, we must recognize that these are {\em non-equilibrium

69: steady states}, so that the well-known methods of equilibrium thermodynamics

70: should not be blindly applied. At present, given the absence of a

71: universally applicable framework of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics,

72: progress is made through understanding ``one system at a time.'' Within this

73: context, we recently studied a model of coevolution \cite{RIKV03A,RIKZIA03},

74: based on the one (``tangled nature'') introduced by Hall, Christensen, and

75: collaborators \cite{HALL02,CHRI02,COLL03}. The motivations behind these

76: studies are varied. An early model for coevolution and speciation,

77: introduced by Bak and Sneppen \cite{BAK93}, consists of competing species,

78: according to a preassigned notion of ``fitness.'' Speciation arises by

79: imposing a crude version of ``mutation,'' i.e., letting the least fit

80: species (as well as some of their ``neighbors'') be replaced by new species

81: with different, randomly chosen fitness. Despite their simplicity, such models

82: appear to settle into a steady state which exhibits avalanches of

83: extinctions. Though they are hailed as showing a link between Darwin's

84: principle of ``survival of the fittest'' and Gould's notion of ``punctuated

85: equilibria" \cite{GOUL77,GOUL93,NEWM85}, these models are thought to be

86: too simplistic in at least two aspects. Firstly, mutation and selection act

87: on individuals of a populations, rather than on entire species at once.

88: Secondly, whether a species is ``fit'' is not a static notion, but rather

89: depends on what other species are present in the ecosystem.

90: 

91: To address both issues, Hall, {\em et.al.} \cite{HALL02,CHRI02,COLL03}

92: recently introduced an individual-based model with a dynamically evolving

93: ``fitness landscape.'' The ``ecosystem'' consists of individuals, each 

94: of which is

95: said to belong to a ``species'' identified by a ``genome'' 

96: represented by a string of bits. Mutations are built in through the random

97: flipping of bits, at a constant slow rate, in the genomes of newborn 

98: individuals.

99: In earlier models of speciation, an individual's fitness, i.e., its 

100: reproduction

101: probability, is purely a function of the bit string and fixed for all time.

102: Here, the reproduction probability 

103: depends on the relative abundance of all other species,

104: so that ``fitness'' becomes a dynamic concept. The ``interspecies

105: interactions'' are, by contrast, comparatively static in nature and, for

106: simplicity, are introduced via fixed quantities associated with {\em pairs\/}

107: of genotypes. Thus, the model accounts only for whether (an individual of) a

108: species is beneficial or detrimental for another species, regardless of the

109: presence of any other species. Again for simplicity, all species reproduce

110: asexually, with identical fecundities. Simulations reveal several

111: interesting behaviours, including the presence of long-lived states separated

112: by bursts of high activity -- ``punctuated equilibria.'' Unfortunately, this

113: model proved too complex for analytic understanding, and only

114: phenomenological descriptions have been advanced to date.

115: 

116: In an effort to gain some insight into how its remarkable properties arise,

117: we considered a variation of this model, with simpler interspecies

118: interactions, which enables us both to carry out much longer simulations and

119: to perform linear stability analysis~\cite{RIKV03A,RIKZIA03}. In addition to

120: observing a self-similar picture of intermittency or ``punctuated

121: equilibria'' over several decades of generations, we found that standard

122: measures of diversity display $1/f$ noise in their power spectral densities.

123: This property is quite consistent with another finding: The life-time

124: distribution of the long-lived states approximately 

125: follows a inverse-square power law \cite{Krug03}.

126: More detailed investigations of the very long-lived states, which typically

127: consist of a community of a 

128: handful of dominant species along with a ``cloud of mutants,''

129: reveal the reason behind their longevity. Essentially none of the closest

130: mutants of the main species in such a community are ``dangerous,'' in that

131: their interactions with the parent species inhibit their exponential growth.

132: In other words, the original community is (linearly) stable against invasion 

133: by its most closely related mutants. 

134: Only a small fraction of the next-closest mutants (with

135: genes differing from a dominant species by two bits) are dangerous, leading

136: to the eventual demise of the ``quasi-steady'' state. Despite the

137: discovery of these connections, full analytic understanding is still beyond

138: our grasp. In particular, since the theoretical analyses were based entirely

139: on a heuristic, deterministic (``mean-field'') equation of motion, it is

140: unlikely that they can account for the most intriguing behaviour stemming

141: from a {\em stochastic} dynamics.

142: 

143: In the present paper, we address some of the issues associated with a fully

144: stochastic description. Starting from a master equation which governs the

145: evolution of all the details (``microscopics'') of the model, we first

146: demonstrate that the deterministic equation in \cite{RIKZIA03} emerges,

147: provided all correlations are ignored. However, it is no easy task to find a

148: quantitative understanding describing the quasi-steady states (QSS),

149: in which the system appears to be stationary but 

150: actually has long, finite lifetimes.

151: One complication lies with the inherent metastability aspect of a QSS.

152: Another is that, due to mutations, the populations in a QSS consist of 

153: {\em two} components: a handful of dominant species (with at least 

154: several hundred 

155: individuals, in the specific simulations we ran) and a larger number of

156: minor species (with much less than one hundred individuals). 

157: Our approach to the solution is

158: a two-step process. First, for each QSS, we develop a full understanding of

159: a corresponding ``truly stationary state'' (TSS), i.e., one with only the

160: dominant species. Each TSS is associated with an ${\cal N}$-species fixed

161: point discussed in \cite{RIKZIA03} and can be accessed by setting 

162: the mutation rate, $\mu $, to zero. The second step is to account for 

163: $O\left(\mu \right) $ effects, by including a limited ``cloud of mutants.'' 

164: Needless

165: to say, a careful definition of such a community will be necessary before

166: any analytic progress is possible. Thus, we will only take the first step

167: here, deferring the more complex problem to a later publication. Beyond

168: that, our eventual goal is to predict the more fascinating phenomena, such

169: as power-law distribution of QSS lifetimes, ``punctuated equilibria'' (or

170: intermittency), and $1/f$ noise.

171: 

172: In the next section, for completeness and the readers' convenience, we

173: briefly review the specifications of the model. The following section is

174: devoted to the master equation and the derivation of the deterministic

175: evolution equation used in \cite{RIKZIA03}. Fluctuations and

176: correlations in a TSS, as well as comparisons to simulations in specific

177: cases, are the focus of sections~\ref{sec:TSS} and~\ref{sec:dyn}.

178: Conclusions and an outlook can be found in section~\ref{sec:Concl}. The

179: Appendix is devoted to some of the technical details.

180: 

181: \section{Model specification and algorithm}

182: 

183: \label{sec:Mod}

184: 

185: The model we considered \cite{RIKZIA03} is a simplified version of the one

186: introduced in \cite{HALL02,CHRI02,COLL03}. It consists of a population of

187: individuals, each of which is associated with a string $L$ of bits (0 or 1),

188: representing a ``genome'' of $L$ ``genes.'' The bit-strings, or genotypes,

189: are labeled by integers $I$ , which lie between $1$ and 

190: ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}=2^L$. 

191: For simplicity, we will use the term ``species'' to distinguish

192: individuals with different bit-strings or genotypes. The population evolves

193: asexually in discrete time steps ($t=0,1,...$), which may be thought of as

194: ``years'' or ``generations.'' In our model, all individuals of a generation

195: die when those of the next generation are ``born'' (as in, e.g., aphids).

196: Thus, for any particular run (or ``history''), the system is fully specified

197: by the set of integers $n_I(t)$ ($I=1,...,{\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$)

198: representing the number of individuals of genotype $I$ in generation $t$. In

199: cases where the explicit index $I$ is not necessary, we will use the

200: ``vector'' notation: 

201: \begin{equation}

202: \vec{n}(t)\equiv \{n_1(t),...,n_{{\cal N}_{{\rm max}}}(t)\}\,\,.

203: \label{eq:n^arrow}

204: \end{equation}

205: 

206: To model competition and interspecies interactions, we let an individual die

207: with some non-vanishing probability {\em before} it reproduces, e.g., salmon

208: that die in the oceans. All survivors then give birth to $F$ offspring,

209: which constitute the next generation. Competition for resources (e.g.,

210: space, energy, food) is often introduced via a Verhulst \cite{VERH1838}

211: factor, which also plays the role of preventing unlimited growth and enters

212: typically via a ratio $N_{{\rm tot}}(t)/N_0$. Here, $N_0$ is a parameter

213: representing the ``carrying capacity'' of the ``ecosystem,'' and 

214: \begin{equation}

215: N_{{\rm tot}}(t)\equiv \sum_In_I(t)  \label{eq:N_totDef}

216: \end{equation}

217: is the total population at time $t$. With a ``healthy'' fecundity ($F$), 

218: the population is unlikely to ``collapse'' ($N_{{\rm tot}}=0$). Instead, 

219: $N_{{\rm tot}}(t)$ is rarely far from $N_0$. Interspecies interactions are

220: modeled by a matrix ${\bf M}$, the element $M_I^J$ being the effect of the

221: species $J$ on species $I$. For reasons provided in \cite{RIKZIA03}, we set 

222: $M_I^I=0$ and choose random off-diagonal elements from a uniform distribution

223: over $[-1,1]$. In all our simulations, ${\bf M}$ is fixed at $t=0$ and does 

224: {\em not} evolve in time. If both $M_I^J$ and $M_J^I$ are positive, the

225: two species are said to be ``mutualistic,'' and if they are of opposite

226: signs, we have a predator-prey relationship. Not surprisingly, populations

227: with both elements being negative are extremely unstable. Finally, the

228: probability of an individual of species $I$ to survive to reproduction is

229: specified by \cite{RIKZIA03} 

230: \begin{equation}

231: P(I;\vec{n}(t))=\frac 1{1+\exp \left[ -M_I^Jn_J(t)/N_{{\rm tot}}(t)+

232: N_{{\rm tot}}(t)/N_0\right] }\;,  

233: \label{eq:P}

234: \end{equation}

235: which is often shortened to just $P(I)$. Here, as in the rest of the paper,

236: we use the Einstein summation convention, i.e., a repeated index (e.g., $J$

237: in $M_I^Jn_J$) is summed over (from $1$ to ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$, in

238: general). As will be clear below, where we deal with systems with large 

239: $N_0$ (``macroscopic,'' though not necessarily in the sense of typical

240: thermodynamic systems), quantities with a single subscripted index (e.g., 

241: $n_J$) are generally of order $N_0$; those with a single superscript, of

242: order $1/N_0$; those with both (e.g., $M_I^J$) or none (e.g., $P(I)$), of 

243: $O\left( 1\right) $; etc. Exceptions are noted with a caret (or ``hat''). 

244: For example, we denote the ``normalized'' covariance matrix for the

245: populations (i.e., $\left( \left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle -\left\langle

246: n_I\right\rangle \left\langle n_J\right\rangle \right) /N_0$) by 

247: $\hat{G}_{IJ}$, which is a quantity of $O\left( 1\right) $ rather than 

248: $O\left(N_0^2\right) $. Similarly, its inverse ($\hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}$) is 

249: also of $O\left( 1\right) $ , as opposed to of $O\left( 1/N_0^2\right) $. 

250: To avoid confusion, we will remind the readers of such exceptions at the 

251: appropriate points.

252: 

253: The last ingredient in our model is mutation. In the absence of mutations,

254: the diversity of the population never increases with time. Indeed, the only 

255: {\em rigorously} stationary state is the collapsed one, $n_I = 0$ for all $I$. 

256: Nevertheless,

257: non-trivial states (with extremely long life times and called TSS's here)

258: are typically reached, for all {\em relevant} time scales. 

259: While the rigorously stationary state is independent of the intitial 

260: condition $\vec{n}(0)$, the TSS 

261: states are entirely dependent on the initial population, 

262: and they display the dominant characteristics of the corresponding QSS's.

263: Identified by a fixed point (FP) of the deterministic evolution equation, 

264: \begin{equation}

265: n_I(t+1)=n_I(t)FP(I;\vec{n}(t)\})\;,  \label{eq:EOM-no mu}

266: \end{equation}

267: a TSS provides the basis for linear stability analysis and for future

268: investigations of the associated QSS.

269: 

270: Returning to mutations, they are important, not only to promote diversity

271: and to model ``speciation,'' but also to provide the main ingredient for the

272: interesting phenomenon of, say, intermittency (``punctuated equilibria'') 

273: \cite{RIKZIA03}. As in all bit-string models involving asexual reproduction,

274: we allow each offspring to carry the genes of its parent, except for a

275: probability of $\mu /L$ that each bit be changed. As a result, on the

276: average and for small $\mu $, a survivor produces $\mu F$ offspring with

277: different genetic material. To keep track of the ``biodiversity,'' we define

278: the species richness ${\cal N}(t)$ as the number of populated species at $t$

279: (i.e., only ${\cal N}$ $I$'s are present at $t$). Another common measure

280: which characterizes the relative abundance of the species better (but will

281: not be the focus here) is the Shannon-Wiener index, $\sum_J\rho (J)\ln \rho

282: (J)$, where 

283: \begin{equation}

284: \rho (J)\equiv n_J(t)/N_{{\rm tot}}(t)  \label{eq:rhoDef}

285: \end{equation}

286: is just the fraction of species $J$ in the system.

287: 

288: Let us briefly summarize the algorithm used to simulate this model,

289: referring to \cite{RIKZIA03} for the details. There are three layers of

290: nested loops: (1) over generations $t$, (2) over ${\cal N}(t)$, and (3) over 

291: $n_I(t)$. In the innermost (last) loop, each individual produces, with

292: probability $P(I)$, $F$ offspring, each of which is allowed to mutate before 

293: $\vec{n}(t+1)$ is recorded. In most of our studies, we chose $L=13$, 

294: $N_0=2000$, $F=4$, $\mu =10^{-3}$, and $N_{{\rm tot}}\left( 0\right) =100$,

295: with random initial $\vec{n}(0)$. Thus, ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}=8192$, though

296: far fewer species are typically present in the system at any given time,

297: i.e., ${\cal N}\ll {\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$.

298: 

299: \section{Master equation and mean-field theory}

300: 

301: \label{sec:MEMFT}

302: 

303: In our recent investigations, the Monte Carlo studies generate stochastic

304: sequences of configurations (i.e., non-negative integers, or just

305: ``points,'' in the ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$-dimensional space) but the

306: theoretical analysis was based on deterministic, heuristic equations of

307: motion for the averages of the populations (``mean-field'' theory). To

308: understand the full stochastic process, we need a complete description,

309: involving the probability that the system is found with a specific number of

310: individuals at time $t$, namely, ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $. Its

311: evolution is governed by the master equation, given in an appendix of \cite

312: {RIKZIA03}. Before turning to this equation, let us emphasize the difference

313: between ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $ here and the $\vec{n}(t)$ above.

314: In the former, $\vec{n}$ is a co-ordinate (in ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$-space)

315: and ${\cal P}$ an evolving {\em function} in this space. By contrast, 

316: $\vec{n}(t)$ is just the trajectory of a single point in this space. A 

317: single Monte Carlo run generates a particular trajectory (or ``history''): 

318: ${n}_I\left( t\right) $, and can be represented as a (Kronecker) delta 

319: function jumping from point to point: 

320: ${\cal P}_{\mathrm{a\;MC\;run}}\left( \vec{n},t \right) = 

321: \prod_I\delta \left( n_I,{n}_I\left( t\right) \right)$.

322: The full dynamics of ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $ is simulated by

323: averaging over many runs, and thus difficult to access. When we turn out

324: attention to the TSS's below, the process simplifies, since they are

325: characterized by {\em static } distributions: 

326: ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $. Then, it is sufficient to perform a 

327: single, long run during which the system rarely wanders far (say, 

328: $O\left( \sqrt{N_0}\right) $) from the neighborhood of a specific point 

329: (typically, fixed points of the mean-field evolution equations).

330: 

331: Returning to the issue at hand, finding an equation for 

332: ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $, 

333: we recapitulate the probability for an individual of species $I$ to survive: 

334: \begin{equation}

335: P\left( I\right) =\left\{ 1+\exp \left[ \frac{N_{{\rm tot}}}{N_0}

336: - M_I^J \frac{n_J}{N_{{\rm tot}}}\right] \right\} ^{-1} \; .  

337: \label{eq:B1}

338: \end{equation}

339: Again, note the different interpretation we give for this expression versus

340: equation

341: (\ref{eq:P}). Here, $P\left( I\right) =P\left( I;\vec{n}\right) $ denote 

342: ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$ functions defined in ${\cal N}_{{\rm max}}$-space,

343: independent of $t$. In contrast, for a particular MC run at a particular

344: time $t$, we need only ${\cal N}\left( t\right) $ functions (for a specific

345: point $\{n_J(t)\}$, in a much smaller, ${\cal N}$-space). Next, we must keep

346: track of {\em all} of the possible number of survivors. Since all of these

347: individuals reproduce, we will call them ``parents.'' Defining the symbol 

348: ${n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I}$

349: %${\QATOPD[ ] {n_I}{m_I}}$ 

350: as the rate for $m_I$ individuals to survive from

351: the original $n_I$, we simply write a binomial distribution: 

352: \begin{equation}

353: {n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I} 

354: %{\QATOPD[ ] {n_I}{m_I}}

355: =\frac{n_I!}{m_I!\left( n_I-m_I\right) !}\left[

356: P\left( I\right) \right] ^{m_I}\left[ 1-P\left( I\right) \right] ^{n_I-m_I}.

357: \label{eq:B2}

358: \end{equation}

359: Next, each parent gives rise to $F$ offspring, not every one of which is of

360: the same species.  In the simulations, it is possible to have a mutant

361: whose genome differs from the parent by two or more bits. However, this is

362: quite rare, being less than 

363: $O\left( \mu ^2N_{{\rm tot}}\right) =O\left( \mu^2N_0\right) \sim 10^{-3}$. 

364: Thus, we will keep our analysis simple by

365: restricting our analysis here to mutations which flip only a single bit.

366: Then, there can be only $L+1$ possible varieties of offspring for each

367: parent. To account for these, let us introduce the notation 

368: \begin{eqnarray*}

369: &&b_{J,0}\quad \mathrm{for\;the\;number\;of\;offspring\;from\;parent}\;J\;

370: \mathrm{with\;no\;mutations} \\

371: &&b_{J,\alpha }\quad \mathrm{for\;the\;number\;of\;offspring\;from\;parent 

372: \;}J \;\mathrm{with\;the\;}\alpha \mathrm{th\;bit\;flipped}

373: \end{eqnarray*}

374: and define the multinomial-like symbol 

375: \begin{equation}

376: {Fm_J \atopwithdelims[] b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}} 

377: %{\ {\QATOPD[ ] {Fm_J}{b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}}}}

378: =\frac{\left(Fm_J\right) !}{\left( b_{J,0}\right) !}

379: \left( 1-\mu \right)^{b_{J,0}}

380: \prod_{\alpha =1}^L\frac 1{\left( b_{J,\alpha }\right) !}

381: \left(\frac \mu L\right) ^{b_{J,\alpha }} \; .  

382: \label{eq:B3}

383: \end{equation}

384: This is the probability that the $Fm_J$ offspring are distributed into the

385: specific set $\left\{ b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}\right\} $. The last

386: ingredient needed is the connection matrix 

387: \begin{equation}

388: \Delta _K^{J,\alpha }=\left\{ 

389: \begin{array}{cc}

390: 1 & \mathrm{if\;genotype\;}K\;\mathrm{is\;}J\mathrm{\;with\;the\;}\alpha 

391: \mathrm{th\;bit\;flipped} \\ 

392: 0 & \mathrm{otherwise}

393: \end{array}

394: \right.  \label{eq:B4}

395: \end{equation}

396: so that the number of offspring born {\em into} species $K$ due to 

397: mutations is 

398: \begin{equation}

399: B_K\equiv \sum_{J,\alpha >0}\Delta _K^{J,\alpha }b_{J,\alpha }\;.

400: \label{eq:B5}

401: \end{equation}

402: With these ingredients, we arrive at the master equation

403: \footnote{

404: Many master equations are written for continuous time, in the form of 

405: $\partial _t{\cal P}(C,t)=\sum_{C^{\prime }}L\left( C,C^{\prime }\right) 

406: {\cal P}(C^{\prime },t)$. For discrete-time processes, we find it more

407: convenient to express the evolution in the form used here.}: 

408: \begin{equation}

409: \fl

410: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1\right) 

411: =\sum_{ \vec{n},\vec{m},\left\{b\right\} }

412: \prod_K 

413: \delta \left( n_K^{\prime },b_{K,0}+B_K \right) 

414: \prod_J

415: {Fm_J \atopwithdelims[] b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}} 

416: %\ {\QATOPD[ ] {Fm_J}{b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}}}}

417: \prod_I 

418: {n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I} 

419: %\QATOPD[ ]{n_I}{m_I}}}

420: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t \right) \;,  

421: \label{eq:B6}

422: \end{equation}

423: where $\delta \left( n^{\prime },n\right) $ is the Kronecker delta. 

424: Given a particular initial configuration $\vec{n}_0$, 

425: ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $ can be found, in principle, by recursion 

426: with ${\cal P}\left(\vec{n},0\right)=\delta \left( \vec{n},\vec{n}_0\right)$. 

427: In that sense, we note that the more precise notation is 

428: ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t|\vec{n}_0,0\right) $, 

429: explicitly showing that it is the probability to find our

430: system in state $\vec{n}$ at time $t$, {\em conditioned} on a specific

431: initial condition. However, this notation seems unnecessarily cumbersome, so

432: that we will just use ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $ in its place.

433: 

434: Note that equation (\ref{eq:B6}) is just a special example of the general

435: evolution of conditional probabilities in a Markov process, i.e., 

436: \begin{equation}

437: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1\right) =\sum_{\vec{n}}R\left( 

438: \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) \;,

439: \label{eq:MEgen}

440: \end{equation}

441: where $R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) $ is the conditional

442: probability for finding the system in $\vec{n}^{\prime }$ given that it was

443: in $\vec{n}$, also known as the transition rate. For our case, $R$ is

444: explicitly 

445: \begin{equation}

446: R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) =\sum_{\vec{m},\left\{ b\right\}}

447: \prod_K \delta \left( n_K' , b_K+B_K \right) \prod_J  

448: {Fm_J \atopwithdelims[] b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}} 

449: %{\QATOPD[ ]{Fm_J}{b_{J,0},b_{J,1},...,b_{J,L}}}}

450: \prod_I 

451: {n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I} 

452: %{\QATOPD[ ] {n_I}{m_I}}} 

453: \;.

454: \label{eq:R}

455: \end{equation}

456: 

457: Once ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $ is found, the time dependence of the

458: expectation value of any quantity can be obtained via 

459: \begin{equation}

460: \left\langle \bullet \right\rangle _t\equiv \sum_{\vec{n}}\bullet {\cal P}

461: \left( \vec{n},t\right) \,\,,  

462: \label{eq:B7}

463: \end{equation}

464: in principle. Specifically, our main interest here will be $\left\langle

465: n_I\right\rangle _t$, the average number of individuals of species $I$ at

466: time $t$, as well as quantities quadratic in $n$ (e.g., covariances 

467: and correlations). For

468: example, to see how $\left\langle n_K\right\rangle _t$ evolves in time, we

469: multiply equation (\ref{eq:MEgen}) by $n_K^{\prime }$, and sum over 

470: $\vec{n}^{\prime }$

471: \begin{equation}

472: \left\langle n_K\right\rangle _{t+1}=\left\langle f_K\left( \vec{n}\right)

473: \right\rangle _t\,\,,  

474: \label{eq:nEvolve}

475: \end{equation}

476: where 

477: \begin{equation}

478: f_K\left( \vec{n}\right) \equiv \sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime }}n_K^{\prime }R\left( 

479: \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) \,\,.  

480: \label{eq:fDef}

481: \end{equation}

482: Exploiting the explicit form of $R$ above and 

483: \begin{equation}

484: \sum_mm\frac{n!}{m!\left( n-m\right) !}q^m\left( 1-q\right) ^{n-m}=mq\,\,,

485: \end{equation}

486: it is straightforward to find $f$. Reminding the readers of the $\vec{n}$

487: dependence in $P$, we write explicitly 

488: \begin{equation}

489: f_K\left( \vec{n}\right) =F\left[ \left( 1-\mu \right) n_KP\left( K;\vec{n}

490: \right) +\left( \mu /L\right) \sum_J\sum_{\alpha =1}^L\Delta _K^{J,\alpha

491: }n_JP\left( J;\vec{n}\right) \right] \,\,.  \label{eq:f}

492: \end{equation}

493: The interpretation of various terms in this expression is clear: $F$ offspring

494: are born to $n_JP\left( J\right) $ survivors of species $J$, with

495: rearrangements into the new generations due to mutations. Inserting it into

496: equation (\ref{eq:nEvolve}), we arrive at an {\em exact} equation 

497: \begin{equation}

498: \left\langle n_K\right\rangle _{t+1}=F\left[ \left( 1-\mu \right)

499: \left\langle n_KP\left( K\right) \right\rangle _t+\left( \mu /L\right)

500: \sum_J\sum_{\alpha =1}^L\Delta _K^{J,\alpha }\left\langle n_JP\left(

501: J\right) \right\rangle _t\right] \,\,.  \label{eq:nExact}

502: \end{equation}

503: Its simplicity is deceptive, since the $P$'s are, from equation (\ref{eq:B1}),

504: non-trivial functions of $\vec{n}$. If a formal expansion in powers of 

505: $\vec{n}$ were inserted for these functions, then averages of all powers, 

506: $\left\langle n_Jn_K...\right\rangle _t$, will appear on the right-hand side.

507: Of course, equations for these new averages can be written formally, but the

508: result would be more complex than the BBGKY hierarchy \cite{BBGKY}. Needless

509: to say, good approximation schemes are crucial for further progress.

510: 

511: One such scheme, also known as the ``mean-field'' approximation, is to

512: ignore all correlations in order to produce a closed equation for 

513: $\left\langle n_K\right\rangle $. Thus, we replace all averages of the

514: products by products of the averages: 

515: \begin{equation}

516: \left\langle n_J n_K... \right\rangle \rightarrow \left\langle

517: n_J\right\rangle \left\langle n_K\right\rangle ... 

518: \end{equation}

519: so that, e.g., 

520: \begin{equation}

521: \left\langle n_KP \left( K ; \vec{n} \right) \right\rangle \rightarrow

522: \left\langle n_K\right\rangle P\left( K;\left\langle \vec{n}\right\rangle

523: \right) \;. 

524: \end{equation}

525: In terms of the less cumbersome notation $n_K\left( t\right) \equiv

526: \left\langle n_K\right\rangle _t$, equation (\ref{eq:nEvolve}) reduces to 

527: \begin{equation}

528: n_K(t+1)=f_K\left( \{n_J\left( t\right) \}\right) \,\,.  

529: \label{eq:MFT}

530: \end{equation}

531: Apart from the change of notation ($P_K(\{n_J(t)\})$ 

532: $\rightarrow P(K;\vec{n}(t))$), 

533: this equation is precisely the starting point of our earlier

534: analysis, equation~(2) in \cite{RIKZIA03}: 

535: \begin{equation}

536: \fl

537: n_K(t+1)=n_K(t)FP_K(\{n_J(t)\})[1-\mu ]

538: +

539: (\mu/L)F\sum_{I(K)}n_{I(K)}(t)P_{I(K)}(\{n_J(t)\})\;,  

540: \label{eq:EOM}

541: \end{equation}

542: where $I\left( K\right) $ runs over all values of $I$ that differ from $K$

543: by one bit.

544: 

545: In the low-mutation-rate ($\mu \ll 1$) regime, much of the behaviour of a

546: QSS is well approximated by a TSS ($\mu =0$), which can be understood in

547: terms of the fixed points of the mutationless version of this mean-field

548: theory. Here, let us briefly summarize the predictions of this theory. With 

549: $\mu =0$, the number of populated species in the system, ${\cal N}$, never

550: increases. Therefore, we can restrict our attention to a small subspace 

551: (${\cal N}$-dimensional, with ${\cal N}<5$ in typical simulation runs) of 

552: the full $2^L$-dimensional space. In our previous work \cite{RIKZIA03}, we 

553: use tildes (e.g., ${\bf \tilde{M}}$) to emphasize this aspect. To keep the

554: notation simple, we will drop the tildes here and keep in mind that, for

555: example, ${\bf M}$ is an ${\cal N}\times {\cal N}$ matrix. Also, with 

556: ${\cal N}$ being an $O\left( 1\right) $ quantity (i.e., small compared to 

557: $N_0$), the population of every species is generically $O\left( N_0\right)$.

558: 

559: Next, $f_I$ simplifies to 

560: \begin{equation}

561: f_I\left( \vec{n}\right)  

562: {\underset {\mu =0} \rightarrow } 

563: Fn_IP\left( I;\vec{%

564: n}\right) \,\,.  

565: \label{eq:f(n)}

566: \end{equation}

567: Since the fixed point, $\vec{n}^{*}$, obeys 

568: \begin{equation}

569: \vec{n}^{*}=\vec{f}\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) \,\,,  

570: \label{eq:n*eqn}

571: \end{equation}

572: we have $FP\left( I;\vec{n}^{*}\right) =1$ for all $I$. Defining the inverse

573: of ${\bf M}$ by 

574: \begin{equation}

575: {\bf W}\equiv {\bf M}^{-1}\,\,,  

576: \label{eq:W}

577: \end{equation}

578: (with elements $W_I^J$) and the sum 

579: \begin{equation}

580: \sigma \equiv \sum_{IJ}W_I^J\,\,,  \label{eq:Sigma}

581: \end{equation}

582: we found that the fractions of each species are given by 

583: \begin{equation}

584: \rho ^{*}\left( I\right) \equiv n_I^{*}/N_{{\rm tot}}^{*}=\sum_JW_I^J/\sigma

585: \,\,,  \label{eq:fix3}

586: \end{equation}

587: and the total $N_{{\rm tot}}^{*}$, by 

588: \begin{equation}

589: N_{{\rm tot}}^{*}/N_0=\ln (F-1)+1/\sigma \;.  \label{eq:fix4}

590: \end{equation}

591: Finally, the elements of ${\bf S}$, the stability matrix, is 

592: \begin{equation}

593: S_I^J\equiv f_I{}^J\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) \equiv \left. \partial

594: f_I/\partial n_J\right| _{\vec{n}^{*}}=\delta _I^J+\Lambda _I^J\,\,,

595: \label{eq:S}

596: \end{equation}

597: where $\delta _I^J$ is the unit matrix. Here, 

598: \begin{equation}

599: \Lambda _I^J=\left( 1-\frac 1F\right) \left( M_I^J-\ln (F-1)-2/\sigma

600: \right) \rho ^{*}\left( I\right) \;.  

601: \label{eq:A2}

602: \end{equation}

603: (denoted by $\tilde{\Lambda}_{IJ}$ in \cite{RIKZIA03} and referred to as the

604: community matrix in biological literature) plays the role of a ``restoring''

605: force, driving the population back towards the (stable) fixed point.

606: 

607: \section{Fluctuations and correlations of populations}

608: \label{sec:TSS}

609: 

610: It is clear that all stochastic aspects of the system are lost in the

611: mean-field approximation. In this section, we study the simplest aspect,

612: namely, an approximate description of the long-lived, quasi-steady

613: states (QSS). Now, as we have seen in simulations \cite{RIKZIA03}, these

614: states are dominated by a few mutually supportive species, along with a few

615: individuals of closely related ``benign mutants.'' Thus, we restrict

616: ourselves in this paper to systems {\em without mutation}, so that several

617: simplifications apply. First, there is the obvious reduction of $R$ from

618: equation (\ref{eq:R}) to 

619: \begin{equation}

620: R \left( \vec{n}^{\prime } | \vec{n} \right) 

621: {\underset {\mu =0} \rightarrow } 

622: %{\rightarrow }_{\mu =0}

623: \sum_{\vec{m}} \prod_K \delta \left( n_K^{\prime },Fm_K\right) 

624: \prod_I 

625: {n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I} 

626: %{\QATOPD[ ] {n_I}{m_I}

627: \,\,.

628: \label{eq:R0}

629: \end{equation}

630: Next, since there can be no new species, we can focus on populations with 

631: ${\cal N}\sim O\left( 1\right) $ species, each of which having $O\left(

632: N_0\right) $ individuals. Finally, though it is possible for a fluctuation

633: to collapse the entire population (which is, rigorously, {\em the unique}

634: stationary state associated with equations~(\ref{eq:MEgen},\ref{eq:R0})), such

635: events are so extreme that the life times of a typical non-trivial state

636: should be $O\left( \rme^{N_0}\right) $. So, for all practical purposes, we may

637: regard such states as ``truly'' stationary (the TSS's).

638: \footnote{

639: It is possible to force such states to be rigorously stationary, by slight

640: modifications of the rates. The simplest is to let the survival

641: probabilities $P\left( I\right) $ be unity when $n_I=1$.}

642: 

643: A complete description of a TSS is provided by a stationary 

644: {\em distribution} ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $, which satisfies 

645: \begin{equation}

646: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }\right) =\sum_{\vec{n}}R\left( \vec{n}

647: ^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.

648: \label{eq:P*}

649: \end{equation}

650: Given ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $, we can find stationary averages

651: of any quantity: 

652: \begin{equation}

653: \left\langle \bullet \right\rangle ^{*}\equiv \sum_{\vec{n}}\left( \bullet

654: \right) {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.  \label{eq:<dot>}

655: \end{equation}

656: Here, our main interest will be mean populations and their correlations: 

657: \begin{equation}

658: \left\langle n_I\right\rangle ^{*}\quad \mathrm{and}\quad \left\langle

659: n_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}-\left\langle n_I\right\rangle ^{*}\left\langle

660: n_J\right\rangle ^{*}\,\,.  

661: \label{eq:n+C}

662: \end{equation}

663: 

664: Even in the absence of mutations and with simplified $R$'s, there are

665: substantial non-linearities (through $P\left( \vec{n}\right) $) in the

666: problem that prevent us from finding solutions to equation (\ref{eq:P*}) in

667: general. On the other hand, observations in simulations (and lessons learned

668: from the central limit theorem) show that our distributions are well

669: approximated by Gaussians. Indeed, a systematic expansion for 

670: ${\cal P}^{*}$ can be formulated, starting from the Gaussian form: 

671: \begin{equation}

672: \fl

673: {\cal P}_{\rm G} \left( \vec{n}\right) 

674: =

675: \left( 2\pi N_0\right) ^{-{\cal N}/2}\left(

676: \det {\bf \hat{\Gamma}}\right) ^{1/2}\exp \left[ -\frac 1{2N_0}\left( n_I-

677: \bar{n}_I\right) \hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}\left( n_J-\bar{n}_J\right) \right] \,\,.

678: \label{eq:PG}

679: \end{equation}

680: where $\bar{n}_I$ and $\hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}$ are parameters to be determined.

681: Of course, the first of these is of $O\left( N_0\right) $. As for the

682: latter, we expect the fluctuations in our problem to be 

683: $O\left( \sqrt{N_0}\right) $, i.e., covariances of $O\left( N_0\right) $. 

684: To incorporate this

685: expectation, we have chosen to write ${\cal P}_{\rm G}$ in a form such that 

686: the matrix ${\bf \hat{\Gamma}}$ has elements of $O\left( 1\right) $: 

687: \begin{equation}

688: \hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}\sim O\left( 1\right) \,\,,  \label{eq:Gam}

689: \end{equation}

690: {\em despite} the presence of two superscripts.

691: 

692: Within the context of such a scheme, it is possible to compute these

693: quantities from the microscopic rates. Before proceeding to this

694: computation, we remark that this approximation for ${\cal P}^{*}$ will lead

695: to the predictions 

696: \begin{equation}

697: \left\langle n_I\right\rangle ^{*}=\bar{n}_I\quad \mathrm{and}\quad

698: \left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}-\left\langle n_I\right\rangle

699: ^{*}\left\langle n_J\right\rangle ^{*}=N_0\hat{G}_{IJ}\,,  

700: \label{eq:nAv+cov}

701: \end{equation}

702: where ${\bf \hat{G}}$ is the inverse of ${\bf \hat{\Gamma}}$, i.e., 

703: \begin{equation}

704: \quad \hat{G}_{IJ}\hat{\Gamma}^{JK}=\delta _I^K\,\,.  

705: \label{eq:GGam=1}

706: \end{equation}

707: Of course, we expect 

708: \begin{equation}

709: \hat{G}_{IJ}\sim O\left( 1\right) \,\,,  

710: \label{eq:G}

711: \end{equation}

712: despite its two subscripts.

713: 

714: Though such approaches are well known \cite{vanKampen}, we provide a few

715: details in the Appendix, both for the sake of completeness and for the

716: convenience of readers unfamiliar with these methods. Here, we present only

717: the highlights of the analysis and how they apply to our case. As shown

718: below, the agreement between our predictions and simulation data in 

719: three specific

720: cases are excellent and validates this entire approach.

721: 

722: Turning to the computation of $\bar{n}_I$ and ${\bf \hat{\Gamma}}$ (or 

723: ${\bf \hat{G}}$), we may expect the former to be simply related to the 

724: $n_I^{*}$ of mean-field theory (equation (\ref{eq:n*eqn})). As shown in the 

725: appendix, we have 

726: \begin{equation}

727: \bar{n}_I=n_I^{*}\left[ 1+O\left( 1/N_0\right) \right]  

728: \label{eq:nbar=n*}

729: \end{equation}

730: (provided none of the eigenvalues of ${\bf S}$ are close to unity). Indeed,

731: the first correction can be computed explicitly. Since these corrections are

732: not necessary for finding the fluctuations and correlations, we will not

733: quote the results here, but refer the reader to equation (\ref{eq:n-G}) in the

734: Appendix. To find ${\bf \hat{G}}$, we need not only 

735: $f_I\left( \vec{n}\right) $ and the stability matrix ${\bf S}$ 

736: (given by equations (\ref{eq:f(n)},\ref{eq:S},\ref{eq:A2})), but also 

737: \begin{equation}

738: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) \equiv \sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime }}n_I^{\prime

739: }n_J^{\prime }R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) \,\,.

740: \end{equation}

741: In the limit $\mu \rightarrow 0$, $R$ reduces to equation (\ref{eq:R0}), 

742: so that 

743: \begin{eqnarray}

744: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) &\rightarrow &\sum_{\vec{m}}\left( Fm_I\right)

745: \left( Fm_J\right) \prod_I

746: {n_I \atopwithdelims[] m_I} 

747: %{\QATOPD[ ] {n_I}{m_I}}} 

748: \\

749: &=&F^2\left[ n_In_JP\left( I\right) P\left( J\right) 

750: + \delta_I^J n_IP\left( I\right) \left( 1-P\left( I\right) \right) \right]

751: \,\,,  

752: \label{eq:H(n)}

753: \end{eqnarray}

754: which is indeed of the form in equation (\ref{eq:h_IJ}): 

755: $H_{IJ}=f_If_J+N_0\hat{H}_{IJ}$. Thus, we readily identify $\hat{H}_{IJ}$ 

756: of equation (\ref{eq:Htilde}): 

757: \begin{equation}

758: \hat{H}_{IJ}=\delta_I^J F^2n_I^{*}P\left( I;\vec{n}^{*}\right)

759: \left[ 1-P\left( I;\vec{n}^{*}\right) \right] /N_0\,\,.

760: \label{eq:Htilde-here}

761: \end{equation}

762: But, $FP\left( I;\vec{n}^{*}\right) =1$ for all $I$, so that 

763: \begin{equation}

764: \hat{H}_{IJ}=\delta_I^J \left( F-1\right) n_I^{*}/N_0\,\,.

765: \end{equation}

766: Referring to the Appendix again for the details, ${\bf \hat{G}}$ can be

767: obtained from ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf \hat{H}}$ via the linear relationship 

768: \begin{equation}

769: {\bf \hat{G}-S\hat{G}S}^T={\bf \hat{H}\,\,.}  \label{eq:GSH}

770: \end{equation}

771: Inserting the explicit form for ${\bf \hat{H}}$ into 

772: equations (\ref{eq:Hab}, \ref{eq:explicit}), 

773: we arrive at a complete solution for the covariance matrix

774: in terms of $\lambda _a,u_a^K$, and $v_I^a$ (respectively, the eigenvalues

775: and the left and right eigenvectors of $S_K^I$, normalized by $%

776: u_a^Iv_I^b=\delta _a^b$) : 

777: \begin{equation}

778: \hat{G}_{IJ}=\left( F-1\right) \sum_{a,b,K}v_I^av_J^bu_a^Ku_b^K

779: \frac{n_K^{*}/N_0}{1-\lambda _a\lambda _b}+O\left( 1/N_0\right) \,\,.

780: \label{eq:explicitG}

781: \end{equation}

782: 

783: \begin{figure}[t]

784: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.47\textwidth]{n1n2hist.eps}

785: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.53\textwidth]{pops_hist.eps}

786: \caption[]{

787: Theoretical Gaussian (thick, grey curves in the background) and simulated 

788: (thin, black curves in the foreground) 

789: TSS probability densities for ${\cal N} = 2$, $F=4$, and

790: $N_0 = 2000$, corresponding to the second column in table~\ref{tab:I}. 

791: The Monte Carlo

792: simulation was performed over 524,290 generations with zero probability

793: of mutations. 

794: ({\it a})

795: Contour plot of the 

796: joint distribution for $n_1$ and $n_2$, 

797: equation (\protect\ref{eq:PG}). 

798: The negative slope of the long

799: axis indicates that $n_1$ and $n_2$ are negatively correlated. 

800: ({\it b})

801: Marginal distributions for $n_1$ (right) and $n_2$ (left),

802: equation (\protect\ref{eq:Pproj}). 

803: }

804: \label{fig:pops}

805: \end{figure}

806: 

807: Before comparing these predictions to simulations, we provide an intuitive

808: picture for these fluctuations and correlations. Since we are concerned with

809: distributions well approximated by Gaussians, the underlying process is just

810: an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck one \cite{vanKampen}. 

811: Such a process can be described by a Langevin

812: equation: 

813: \begin{equation}

814: \vec{\varepsilon}\left( t+1\right) -\vec{\varepsilon}\left( t\right) =

815: {\bf \Lambda }\vec{\varepsilon}\left( t\right) +\vec{\eta}\left( t\right) \;,

816: \label{eq:Langevin}

817: \end{equation}

818: where ${\bf \Lambda }$ plays the role of restoring forces which drive 

819: $\vec{\varepsilon}$ towards zero, and $\vec{\eta}$ is a Gaussian noise with 

820: \begin{equation}

821: \left\langle \vec{\eta}\left( t\right) \right\rangle =0;\,\,\left\langle 

822: \vec{\eta}\left( t\right) \vec{\eta}\left( t^{\prime }\right) \right\rangle 

823: = {\bf \hat{H}}\delta \left( t,t^{\prime }\right) \,\,.

824: \end{equation}

825: The notation for the two matrices (${\bf \Lambda }$, ${\bf \hat{H}}$) is

826: chosen deliberately. For this problem, they are precisely those given above:

827: equations (\ref{eq:A2},\ref{eq:Htilde-here}), while 

828: $\vec{\varepsilon}\left( t\right) $ is just the deviation from the average: 

829: \begin{equation}

830: \vec{\varepsilon}\left( t\right) =\vec{n}\left( t\right) -\bar{n}\,\,.

831: \label{eq:epsilon}

832: \end{equation}

833: The deterministic part of equation (\ref{eq:Langevin}) is intuitively clear,

834: being the same as in the mean-field evolution equation, linearized about the

835: fixed point. Now, $\vec{\eta}$ can be seen as the (microscopic) noise in the

836: stochastic process. In our case, this is clearly due to the uncertainties

837: associated with survival. Since we have a simple two-state (dying or

838: surviving) random process, we can hardly be surprised by the presence of the

839: factors $nP\left( 1-P\right) $. Also, since this randomness is imposed on

840: each individual, the diagonal form of ${\bf \hat{H}}$ can be anticipated.

841: Perhaps only the factor $F^2$ cannot be easily surmised.

842: 

843: \Table{

844: %\fulltable{

845: \label{tab:I}

846: Theoretical results

847: for two TSS communities with ${\cal N} = 2$ and~3, respectively, compared

848: with corresponding quantities from Monte Carlo simulations with $N_0 = 2000$ 

849: over 524,290 generations. The communities are defined by the interaction

850: matrices $\bf M$. 

851: The quantities shown are the normalized fixed-point population vector, 

852: $\vec{n}^*/N_0$ [equations (\ref{eq:fix3}) and~(\ref{eq:fix4})] 

853: and the corresponding Monte Carlo average 

854: $\langle \vec{n} \rangle_{\rm MC} /N_0$, 

855: the normalized population covariance matrix $\bf \hat{G}$ 

856: [defined by equation (\ref{eq:nAv+cov}) and calculated from equation

857: (\protect\ref{eq:recrel}) with 20 iterations for ${\cal N} =2$ and 30

858: iterations for ${\cal N} =3$] 

859: and ${\bf \hat{G}}_{\rm MC}$,

860: the step-covariance matrix $\bf \hat{g} $ [equation (\ref{eq:g})] and 

861: ${\bf \hat{g}}_{\rm MC}$,

862: and the normalized 

863: correlation matrix between steps $\vec{s}(t)$ and the deviation from the 

864: average population $\vec{\varepsilon}(t) = \vec{n}(t) - \vec{n}^*$, 

865: $\bf \hat{C}$ [equation (\ref{eq:se})] and ${\bf \hat{C}}_{\rm MC}$. 

866: All numbers are given to four significant digits. 

867: Results for ${\cal N} = 4$ are shown in table~\protect\ref{tab:II}. 

868: }

869: \\

870: \br

871: %\hline

872: %\begin{footnotesize}

873: %\begin{tabular}{cccc}

874: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

875: ${\cal N}$ & 2 & 3 

876: %& 4 

877: \\

878: \mr

879: %\hline

880: \ms

881: $\bf M$ 

882: & 

883: $\left(

884: \begin{array}{cc}

885: 0 & 0.9448 \\

886: 0.8563 & 0

887: \end{array}

888: \right) $

889: & 

890: $\left(

891: \begin{array}{ccc}

892: 0      & 0.7497 & 0.9450 \\

893: 0.8935 & 0      & 0.6212 \\

894: 0.6474 & 0.9881 & 0

895: \end{array}

896: \right) $

897: %& 

898: \\

899: \ms

900: \hline 

901: \ms

902: $\vec{n}^*/N_0$ 

903: & 

904: $\left(

905: \begin{array}{c}

906: 0.8119 \\

907: 0.7359

908: \end{array}

909: \right) $

910: & 

911: $\left(

912: \begin{array}{c}

913: 0.6062 \\

914: 0.4897 \\

915: 0.5388

916: \end{array}

917: \right) $

918: %& 

919: \\

920: \ms

921: \hline

922: \ms

923: $\langle \vec{n} \rangle_{\rm MC} /N_0$ 

924: & 

925: $\left(

926: \begin{array}{c}

927: 0.8112 \\

928: 0.7350

929: \end{array}

930: \right) $

931: & 

932: $\left(

933: \begin{array}{c}

934: 0.6055 \\

935: 0.4892 \\

936: 0.5378

937: \end{array}

938: \right) $

939: %& 

940: \\

941: \ms

942: \hline

943: \ms

944: $\bf \hat{G}$ 

945: & 

946: $\left(

947: \begin{array}{cc}

948: 3.294& -0.8722 \\

949: -0.8722 & 3.224

950: \end{array}

951: \right) $

952: & 

953: $\left(

954: \begin{array}{ccc}

955: 3.667   & -0.9323 & -0.9558 \\

956: -0.9323 & 3.551   & -0.9249 \\

957: -0.9558 & -0.9249 & 3.590

958: \end{array}

959: \right) $

960: %& 

961: \\

962: \ms

963: \hline

964: \ms

965: ${\bf \hat{G}}_{\rm MC}$ 

966: & 

967: $\left(

968: \begin{array}{cc}

969: 3.295& -0.8784 \\

970: -0.8784 & 3.227

971: \end{array}

972: \right) $

973: & 

974: $\left(

975: \begin{array}{ccc}

976: 3.690   & -0.9440 & -0.9584 \\

977: -0.9440 & 3.573   & -0.9289 \\

978: -0.9584 & -0.9289 & 3.592

979: \end{array}

980: \right) $

981: %& 

982: \\

983: \ms

984: \hline

985: \ms

986: $\bf \hat{g} $ 

987: & 

988: $\left(

989: \begin{array}{cc}

990: 4.455 & 1.368 \\

991: 1.368 & 3.882

992: \end{array}

993: \right) $

994: & 

995: $\left(

996: \begin{array}{ccc}

997: 3.039 & 0.7902 & 0.8768 \\

998: 0.7902 & 2.285 & 0.7152 \\

999: 0.8768 & 0.7152 & 2.592

1000: \end{array}

1001: \right) $

1002: %& 

1003: \\

1004: \ms

1005: \hline

1006: \ms

1007: ${\bf \hat{g}}_{\rm MC}$ 

1008: & 

1009: $\left(

1010: \begin{array}{cc}

1011: 4.442 & 1.352 \\

1012: 1.352 & 3.865

1013: \end{array}

1014: \right) $

1015: & 

1016: $\left(

1017: \begin{array}{ccc}

1018: 3.050 & 0.7865 & 0.8716 \\

1019: 0.7865 & 2.287 & 0.7098 \\

1020: 0.8716 & 0.7098 & 2.586

1021: \end{array}

1022: \right) $

1023: %& 

1024: \\

1025: \ms

1026: \hline

1027: \ms

1028: $\bf \hat{C}$ 

1029: & 

1030: $\left(

1031: \begin{array}{cc}

1032: -2.227 & -0.6494 \\

1033: -0.7189 & -1.941

1034: \end{array}

1035: \right) $

1036: & 

1037: $\left(

1038: \begin{array}{ccc}

1039: -1.520  & -0.5253 & -0.2812\\

1040: -0.2649 & -1.143  & -0.5244\\

1041: -0.5956 & -0.1908 & -1.296

1042: \end{array}

1043: \right) $

1044: %& 

1045: \\

1046: \ms

1047: \hline

1048: \ms

1049: ${\bf \hat{C}}_{\rm MC}$ 

1050: & 

1051: $\left(

1052: \begin{array}{cc}

1053: -2.221 & -0.6385 \\

1054: -0.7139 & -1.933

1055: \end{array}

1056: \right) $

1057: & 

1058: $\left(

1059: \begin{array}{ccc}

1060: -1.524  & -0.5221 & -0.2814\\

1061: -0.2643 & -1.143  & -0.5224\\

1062: -0.5902 & -0.1873 & -1.293

1063: \end{array}

1064: \right) $

1065: %& 

1066: \\

1067: \ms

1068: \br

1069: %\hline

1070: \end{tabular}

1071: %\end{footnotesize}

1072: %\endfulltable

1073: \endTable

1074: 

1075: \Table{

1076: %\fulltable{

1077: \label{tab:II}

1078: Theoretical results

1079: for a TSS community with ${\cal N} = 4$, compared

1080: with corresponding quantities from a Monte Carlo simulation with 

1081: $N_0 = 10,000$ over 524,290 generations. 

1082: The quantities shown are the same as in table~\protect\ref{tab:I}. 

1083: The eigenvalues of $\bf S$ are relatively close to unity,

1084: so evaluation of $\bf G$ from equation (\protect\ref{eq:recrel}) required

1085: 180 iterations. 

1086: }

1087: \\

1088: \br

1089: \ms

1090: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1091: ${\cal N}$ & 4 

1092: \\

1093: \ms

1094: \mr

1095: \ms

1096: $\bf M$ 

1097: & 

1098: $\left(

1099: \begin{array}{cccc}

1100: 0 & 0.5507 & 0.5101 & 0.9847 \\

1101: 0.9543 & 0 & 0.8437 & 0.9508 \\

1102: 0.4724 & 0.6190 & 0 & 0.7371 \\

1103: 0.9734 & 0.6808 & 0.1862 & 0

1104: \end{array}

1105: \right) $

1106: \\

1107: \ms

1108: \hline 

1109: \ms

1110: $\vec{n}^*/N_0$ 

1111: & 

1112: $\left(

1113: \begin{array}{c}

1114: 0.3355 \\

1115: 0.7034 \\

1116: 0.2366 \\

1117: 0.3468

1118: \end{array}

1119: \right) $

1120: %& 

1121: \\

1122: \ms

1123: \hline

1124: \ms

1125: $\langle \vec{n} \rangle_{\rm MC} /N_0$ 

1126: & 

1127: $\left(

1128: \begin{array}{c}

1129: 0.3356 \\

1130: 0.7035 \\

1131: 0.2354 \\

1132: 0.3472

1133: \end{array}

1134: \right) $

1135: \\

1136: \ms

1137: \hline

1138: \ms

1139: $\bf \hat{G}$ 

1140: & 

1141: $\left(

1142: \begin{array}{cccc}

1143: 4.215  & -1.043 & -2.583 & 1.132 \\

1144: -1.043 & 3.882 & -0.1463 & -1.006 \\

1145: -2.583 & -0.1463 & 6.509 & -3.791 \\

1146: 1.132 & -1.006 & -3.791 & 5.653 

1147: \end{array}

1148: \right) $

1149: \\

1150: \ms

1151: \hline

1152: \ms

1153: ${\bf \hat{G}}_{\rm MC}$ 

1154: & 

1155: $\left(

1156: \begin{array}{cccc}

1157: 4.252  & -1.055 & -2.620 & 1.152 \\

1158: -1.055 & 3.870 & -0.1366 & -1.003 \\

1159: -2.620 & -0.1366 & 6.612 & -3.879 \\

1160: 1.151 & -1.003 & -3.879 & 5.718 

1161: \end{array}

1162: \right) $

1163: \\

1164: \ms

1165: \hline

1166: \ms

1167: $\bf \hat{g} $ 

1168: & 

1169: $\left(

1170: \begin{array}{cccc}

1171: 1.387 & 0.6468 & 0.2384 & 0.3094 \\

1172: 0.6468 & 3.704 & 0.4482 & 0.6518 \\

1173: 0.2384 & 0.4482 & 0.8927 & 0.2414 \\

1174: 0.3094 & 0.6518& 0.2414 & 1.461

1175: \end{array}

1176: \right) $

1177: \\

1178: \ms

1179: \hline

1180: \ms

1181: ${\bf \hat{g}}_{\rm MC}$ 

1182: & 

1183: $\left(

1184: \begin{array}{cccc}

1185: 1.388 & 0.6417 & 0.2368 & 0.3090 \\

1186: 0.6417 & 3.694 & 0.4440 & 0.6501 \\

1187: 0.2368 & 0.4440 & 0.8870 & 0.2381 \\

1188: 0.3090 & 0.6501& 0.2381 & 1.462

1189: \end{array}

1190: \right) $

1191: \\

1192: \ms

1193: \hline

1194: \ms

1195: $\bf \hat{C}$ 

1196: & 

1197: $\left(

1198: \begin{array}{cccc}

1199: -0.6934 & -0.3951 & -0.07285 & -0.1841 \\

1200: -0.2517 & -1.852 & -0.1801 & -0.3281 \\

1201: -0.1655 & -0.2681 & -0.4464 & -0.02048 \\

1202: -0.1253 & -0.3237 & -0.2209 & -0.7304

1203: \end{array}

1204: \right) $

1205: \\

1206: \ms

1207: \hline

1208: \ms

1209: ${\bf \hat{C}}_{\rm MC}$ 

1210: & 

1211: $\left(

1212: \begin{array}{cccc}

1213: -0.6942 & -0.3907 & -0.07252 & -0.1851 \\

1214: -0.2510 & -1.847 & -0.1779 & -0.3259 \\

1215: -0.1642 & -0.2661 & -0.4435 & -0.01783 \\

1216: -0.1239 & -0.3242 & -0.2202 & -0.7310

1217: \end{array}

1218: \right) $

1219: \\

1220: \ms

1221: \br

1222: \end{tabular}

1223: \endTable

1224: 

1225: We have carried out simulations for ten cases, with ${\cal N}=2,3$, and 

1226: $4$. For simplicity, in each case we chose a set of species which served 

1227: as the dominant ones in one of the ten QSS communities 

1228: included in Table~I of \cite{RIKZIA03}. Of

1229: course, since $\mu $ was set to zero in the simulations reported here, 

1230: the communities are TSS's.

1231: The runs were carried out for 524,290 generations each. From the recorded 

1232: $n_I\left( t\right) $, we computed the averages 

1233: $\left\langle n_I\right\rangle_{\rm MC}$ and the covariance matrix 

1234: ${\bf \hat{G}}_{\rm MC}$. For the ${\cal N}=2$ case, we can easily display a 

1235: histogram of all the populations

1236: (figure~\ref{fig:pops}(a)). 

1237: In addition, in figure~\ref{fig:pops}(b), we show how good the Gaussian

1238: approximation is by plotting the projections of both this histogram (onto

1239: one or the other axis) and the theoretical predictions, e.g., 

1240: \begin{eqnarray}

1241: {\cal P}_{\rm proj}\left( n_1\right) &=&\int \rmd n_2{\cal P}_{\rm G}

1242: \left( n_1,n_2\right)

1243: \\

1244: &=&\left( \frac{\det {\bf \hat{\Gamma}}}{2\pi N_0\hat{\Gamma}_{22}}\right)

1245: ^{1/2}\exp \left[ -\frac{\det {\bf \hat{\Gamma}}}{2N_0\hat{\Gamma}_{22}} 

1246: \left( n_1-\bar{n}_1\right) ^2\right] \,\,.

1247: \label{eq:Pproj}

1248: \end{eqnarray}

1249: We emphasize that the theoretical curves are produced with {\em no} fitting

1250: parameters -- all quantities were computed from the model specifications

1251: (i.e., $N_0$, $F$, and ${\bf M}$). For the ${\cal N}>2$ cases, it is difficult

1252: to display full histograms. Instead, we only provide the comparison for the

1253: averages and covariance matrices for three particular TSS's 

1254: in tables~\ref{tab:I} and~\ref{tab:II}. 

1255: As we see, the agreement is

1256: excellent, well within the expected accuracy of the approximation, $O\left(

1257: 1/N_0\right) $, and the statistical errors, 

1258: $O\left( 1/\sqrt{524,290}\right) $.

1259: 

1260: \section{Distributions containing dynamical information}

1261: \label{sec:dyn}

1262: 

1263: In the previous section, we focused on the static distribution of the

1264: populations in a TSS. In other words, we can compute (within the Gaussian

1265: approximation) correlation functions that involve {\em any number} of

1266: species, all ``at the same time.'' Here, we investigate the information

1267: contained in the dynamics of the stochastic process, i.e., time-dependent

1268: correlations. For an {\em evolving} population, a natural question is how

1269: the system changes from one generation to the next. To probe this issue at a

1270: quantitative level, let us consider two examples, the statistics of

1271: ``steps,'' 

1272: \begin{equation}

1273: \vec{s}\left( t\right) \equiv \vec{n}\left( t+1\right) -\vec{n}\left(

1274: t\right) \;,

1275: \label{eq:stepdef}

1276: \end{equation}

1277: and the correlation of these steps with the deviations from the average: 

1278: $\vec{\varepsilon}\left( t\right) $.

1279: 

1280: In a stationary state, the mean-field prediction for the step size is

1281: clearly zero ($\vec{s}^{\,{\rm MF}}\equiv 0$), as must also be the case for

1282: the average $\left\langle \vec{s} \, \right\rangle ^{*}$. Nevertheless, we

1283: expect a typical step size to be $O\left( \sqrt{N_0}\right) $. For a more

1284: detailed picture, we may seek the step-size distribution (SSD) in the steady

1285: state: ${\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s} \, \right) $. A precise definition is 

1286: \begin{equation}

1287: {\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s} \, \right) \equiv 

1288: {\underset {t \rightarrow \infty } \lim }

1289: \sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime },\vec{n}}\delta \left( \vec{s},\vec{n}^{\prime

1290: }-\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1;\vec{n},t\right) \,\,,

1291: \label{eq:PsDef}

1292: \end{equation}

1293: where ${\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1;\vec{n},t\right) $ is the 

1294: {\em joint } probability for finding the system with population $\vec{n}$ 

1295: at time $t$ {\em and} with $\vec{n}^{\prime }$ in the next step. From the 

1296: master equation (\ref{eq:MEgen}), it is clear that this is just 

1297: $R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) $, 

1298: so that 

1299: \begin{equation}

1300: {\underset {t \rightarrow \infty } \lim }

1301: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1;

1302: \vec{n},t\right) =R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) 

1303: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.

1304: \end{equation}

1305: Thus, once the steady-state distribution ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $

1306: is known, the SSD can be obtained from: 

1307: \begin{equation}

1308: {\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s} \, \right) =\sum_{\vec{n}}R\left(\vec{n}

1309: +\vec{s}| \vec{n}\right) {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.  

1310: \label{eq:Ps*}

1311: \end{equation}

1312: 

1313: Applying this formalism to our case of coevolving species {\em without}

1314: mutations, we can exploit all the approximations detailed in the previous

1315: section, namely, a Gaussian for the stationary state 

1316: (${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \cong {\cal P}_{\rm G}

1317: \left( \vec{n}\right) $ 

1318: of equation (\ref{eq:PG})), continuous variables for $\vec{n}$, and integrals 

1319: instead of sums. Given equation (\ref{eq:P*}), the success of that scheme is 

1320: implicitly dependent on the fact that 

1321: $R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) $ is also well approximated by 

1322: a Gaussian 

1323: \footnote{

1324: In the same manner as for the stationary distributions, this property can be

1325: derived from the definition of $R$ using straightforward, but tedious,

1326: manipulations with the binomials. Here, we can treat this as an assumption,

1327: the justification of which will be the agreement with simulation data.}. 

1328: As a result, we need not carry out another lengthy analysis to conclude that 

1329: ${\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s}\right) $ should also be of the form 

1330: \begin{equation}

1331: {\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s} \, \right) \cong \left( 2\pi N_0\right) 

1332: ^{-{\cal N}/2}\left( \det {\bf \hat{\gamma}}\right) ^{1/2}\exp \left[ 

1333: -\frac 1{2N_0}

1334: %\sum_{I,J}

1335: s_I\hat{\gamma}^{IJ}s_J\right] \,\,.  

1336: \label{eq:PsG}

1337: \end{equation}

1338: However, it is clear that the matrix ${\bf \hat{\gamma}}$ is distinct from 

1339: ${\bf \hat{\Gamma}}$, since the former must contain some ``dynamic''

1340: information. (Note that the caret is to remind us that, despite the presence

1341: of two superscripts, $\hat{\gamma}^{IJ}$ is of $O\left( 1\right) $.) Now,

1342: within the context of simple Gaussians, ${\bf \hat{\gamma}}$ can be found by

1343: computing its inverse 

1344: \begin{equation}

1345: {\bf \hat{g}\equiv \hat{\gamma}}^{-1} 

1346: \end{equation}

1347: which is just the second moment 

1348: \begin{equation}

1349: \left\langle s_Is_J\right\rangle _s\equiv \sum_{\vec{s}}s_Is_J{\cal P}%

1350: _s^{*}\left( \vec{s}\right) \,\,.

1351: \end{equation}

1352: Let us first derive an exact formula for this quantity in terms of 

1353: $\left\langle \bullet \right\rangle ^{*}$. Starting with 

1354: \begin{eqnarray}

1355: \left\langle s_Is_J\right\rangle _s &=&\sum_{\vec{s},\vec{n}}s_Is_JR\left( 

1356: \vec{n}+\vec{s}|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right)

1357: \label{eq:ss-def} \\

1358: &=&\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime },\vec{n}}\left( n_I^{\prime }-n_I\right) \left(

1359: n_J^{\prime }-n_J\right) R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) 

1360: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,,

1361: \end{eqnarray}

1362: we use equations (\ref{eq:P*}) and (\ref{eq:fDef}) and arrive at the 

1363: {\em exact} relation: 

1364: \begin{equation}

1365: \left\langle s_Is_J\right\rangle _s=2\left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle

1366: ^{*}-\left\langle f_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}-\left\langle n_If_J\right\rangle

1367: ^{*}\,\,.  \label{eq:ss-exact}

1368: \end{equation}

1369: 

1370: Next, we exploit 

1371: ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \cong {\cal P}_{\rm G}

1372: \left( \vec{n}\right) $ 

1373: for computing $\left\langle \bullet \right\rangle ^{*}$ and

1374: apply equation (\ref{eq:Q*}). Thus, 

1375: \begin{equation}

1376: \left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}\cong \bar{n}_I\bar{n}_J+N_0\hat{G}%

1377: _{IJ} 

1378: \label{eq:scov}

1379: \end{equation}

1380: and 

1381: \begin{equation}

1382: \left\langle f_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}\cong f_I\left(\bar{n}\right)\bar{n}_J

1383: +N_0f_I^K\left( \bar{n}\right) \hat{G}_{KJ}

1384: + \frac{N_0}2f_I^{KM}\left( \bar{n}\right) \bar{n}_J\hat{G}_{KM}\,\,.  

1385: \label{eq:mess}

1386: \end{equation}

1387: Thanks to equation (\ref{eq:nbar}), the first and the last terms in 

1388: equation (\ref{eq:mess}) combine, so that 

1389: \begin{equation}

1390: \left\langle f_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}\cong \bar{n}_I\bar{n}_J

1391: + N_0f_I^K\left( \bar{n}\right) \hat{G}_{KJ}\,\,.  

1392: \label{eq:<fn>}

1393: \end{equation}

1394: To the order kept here, $f_I^K\left( \bar{n}\right) $ is just 

1395: $f_I^K\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) =S_I^K$. So, collecting various items 

1396: and using equation (\ref{eq:S}), we arrive at 

1397: \begin{eqnarray}

1398: \left\langle s_Is_J\right\rangle _s &\cong &N_0\left( 2\hat{G}_{IJ}

1399: - S_I^K\hat{G}_{KJ}-\hat{G}_{IK}S_J^K\right) \\

1400: &=&\,-N_0\left( \Lambda _I^K\hat{G}_{KJ}+\hat{G}_{IK}\Lambda _J^K\right) \,.

1401: \end{eqnarray}

1402: Finally, we relate this result to the Gaussian approximation 

1403: equation (\ref{eq:PsG}) intended for the SSD, which provides 

1404: \begin{equation}

1405: \left\langle s_Is_J\right\rangle _s\cong N_0\hat{g}_{IJ}\,\,, 

1406: \end{equation}

1407: and obtain a simple equation for ${\bf \hat{g}}$: 

1408: \begin{equation}

1409: {\bf \hat{g}}=-\left( {\bf \Lambda \hat{G}+\hat{G}\Lambda }^T\right) \,\,.

1410: \label{eq:g}

1411: \end{equation}

1412: As in the previous section, these predictions are well borne out in

1413: simulations. For the same ${\cal N}=2$ case as above, 

1414: we display a two-dimensional 

1415: histogram of the step sizes in figure~\ref{fig:diffs}.

1416: %as well as its projection onto one of the axes (figure~2b). 

1417: Note that this distribution is indeed quite different from

1418: that for the populations (figure~\ref{fig:pops}). 

1419: For the ${\cal N}>2$ cases, full

1420: histograms are difficult to display and we only show the correlation

1421: matrices ${\bf \hat{g}}$ and their Monte Carlo counterparts 

1422: ${\bf \hat{g}}_{\rm MC}$ in tables~\ref{tab:I} and~\ref{tab:II}.

1423: \begin{figure}[t]

1424: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.47\textwidth]{s1s2hist.eps}

1425: \caption[]{

1426: Contour plot of the 

1427: theoretical Gaussian and simulated joint probability densities for the

1428: steps, $s_1$ and $s_2$, equation (\protect\ref{eq:PsG}). 

1429: The line types and parameters are the same as in

1430: figure~\protect\ref{fig:pops}, 

1431: and the simulated histogram was obtained from the same

1432: simulation run as in that figure. 

1433: The positive slope of the long axis indicates that the steps are

1434: positively correlated.

1435: }

1436: \label{fig:diffs}

1437: \end{figure}

1438: 

1439: 

1440: Although the SSD probes the underlying dynamics, it does not contain {\em all} 

1441: information of the stochastic (Ornstein-Uhlenbeck) process. In particular,

1442: equation 

1443: (\ref{eq:g}) shows that the antisymmetric part of ${\bf \Lambda \hat{G}}$

1444: is ``missing.'' To remedy this shortcoming, we turn to another question

1445: which naturally comes to mind: How are the steps ($\vec{s} \,$) correlated with

1446: the deviations from the average ($\vec{\varepsilon}\equiv \vec{n}-\bar{n}$)?

1447: Note that, since two quantities are involved ($\vec{s}$ and 

1448: $\vec{\varepsilon}$), a full distribution associated with this question is 

1449: slightly more involved than ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $ or 

1450: ${\cal P}_s^{*}\left( \vec{s}\right) $. Nevertheless, within the 

1451: approximation scheme we use, it would be a (generalized) Gaussian in the 

1452: steady state. For simplicity, let us focus on, instead of the full 

1453: distribution, 

1454: only the normalized correlation of $\vec{s}$ with $\vec{\varepsilon}$: 

1455: \begin{equation}

1456: \hat{C}_{IJ}\equiv \left\langle s_I\varepsilon _J\right\rangle /N_0\,\,.

1457: \end{equation}

1458: 

1459: By using this notation, we are displaying again our expectation that 

1460: $\left\langle s_I\varepsilon _J\right\rangle $ is also of 

1461: $O\left( N_0\right)$. Starting at the same point as equation (\ref{eq:ss-def}), 

1462: we write 

1463: \begin{eqnarray}

1464: \left\langle s_I\varepsilon _J\right\rangle  &=&\sum_{\vec{s},\vec{n}}

1465: s_I\varepsilon _JR\left( \vec{n}+\vec{s}|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}^{*}\left( 

1466: \vec{n}\right)   

1467: \label{eq:se-def} \\

1468: &=&\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime },\vec{n}}\left( n_I^{\prime }-n_I\right) \left(

1469: n_J-\bar{n}_J\right) R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) {\cal P}^{*}

1470: \left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.

1471: \end{eqnarray}

1472: Since 

1473: $\left\langle \vec{n}^{\prime }\right\rangle ^{*}

1474: =\left\langle \vec{n}\right\rangle ^{*}$, this reduces to 

1475: \begin{equation}

1476: \left\langle s_I\varepsilon _J\right\rangle =\left\langle

1477: f_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}-\left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}\,\,,

1478: \label{eq:se-exact}

1479: \end{equation}

1480: which is again an {\em exact} relationship. Repeating the analysis in the

1481: previous paragraph, we find, in the Gaussian approximation, a simple result: 

1482: $\left\langle s_I\varepsilon _J\right\rangle =\,N_0\Lambda _I^K\hat{G}_{KJ}$%

1483: , or 

1484: \begin{equation}

1485: \,{\bf \hat{C}=\Lambda \hat{G}}\,.  \label{eq:se}

1486: \end{equation}

1487: Unlike the step-size covariance, this matrix is not symmetric in general and

1488: contains the full information of the dynamics (to this order of our

1489: approximation). Note also that, since ${\bf \Lambda }$ is negative and 

1490: ${\bf \hat{G}}$ is positive, this correlation is typically negative. This 

1491: simply reflects a restoring dynamics: steps and deviations from the mean 

1492: tend to be opposite. In tables~\ref{tab:I} and~\ref{tab:II}, 

1493: we see that there is excellent agreement 

1494: between the predicted ${\bf \hat{C}}$'s and their counterparts from 

1495: simulations.

1496: 

1497: Another commonly studied correlation is the connected two-time function,

1498: $\left( \langle n_I(t+\tau) n_J(t) \rangle 

1499: - \langle n_I \rangle \langle n_J \rangle \right) / N_0$, 

1500: which, in the stationary state, is just 

1501: \begin{equation}

1502: \hat{\Xi}_{IJ}(\tau)  

1503: = \langle \varepsilon_I(t+\tau) \varepsilon_I(t) \rangle  / N_0

1504: \;.

1505: \label{eq:xi1}

1506: \end{equation}

1507: Within the Gaussian approximation, equation (\ref{eq:Langevin}) 

1508: can be used repeatedly to 

1509: express $\varepsilon (t+\tau)$ in terms of $\varepsilon(t)$ and the noise, 

1510: $\eta_I(t+t')$ at each time step. 

1511: Since $\langle \eta_I(t+t') \varepsilon(t) \rangle 

1512: = \langle \eta_I(t+t') \rangle \langle \varepsilon(t) \rangle = 0$ 

1513: for all $t'$, we find 

1514: \begin{equation}

1515: {\bf \hat{\Xi}}(\tau) = {\bf {S}}^\tau {\bf \hat{G}}

1516: \;.

1517: \label{eq:xi2}

1518: \end{equation}

1519: 

1520: 

1521: \section{Concluding remarks}

1522: 

1523: \label{sec:Concl}

1524: 

1525: Since we have presented a considerable amount of mathematical details above,

1526: it is worthwhile to provide a short summary. In the model presented in 

1527: \cite {RIKZIA03}, the entire evolution depends only on the parameters, 

1528: %\begin{equation}

1529: $\mu$, $F$ , $N_0$ , and $M_{IJ}$.  

1530: %\label{eq:parameters}

1531: %\end{equation}

1532: Strictly speaking, the only stationary state corresponds to total extinction 

1533: ($\vec{n}=0$). But, if mutation is suppressed ($\mu =0$), then, not only does

1534: the configuration space break up into many sectors, but there will also be

1535: non-trivial long-lived ($O\left( \rme^{N_0}\right) $ generations) states.

1536: Referred to as ``truly stationary states,'' these communities consist of a

1537: fixed number (${\cal N}$ $\geq 1$) of species. Typically, the population of

1538: each species is $O\left( N_0\right) $. Provided we are not near a ``critical

1539: point,'' the full distribution of these populations can be studied by a

1540: systematic approximation scheme, starting with a multivariate Gaussian, 

1541: parametrized by its mean and covariance matrix. For each TSS, our theory

1542: predicts these parameters and thus, the full distribution. Specifically,

1543: from the set of parameters, 

1544: $\mu$, $F$ , $N_0$ , and $M_{IJ}$,  

1545: %the set given above (\ref{eq:parameters}), 

1546: we can compute $\vec{n}^{*}$, 

1547: ${\bf \hat{H}}$, and ${\bf S=1-\Lambda }$ 

1548: (equations \ref{eq:fix3}-\ref{eq:A2}).

1549: Then, at the lowest order in our approximation scheme, the mean $\bar{n}$

1550: and the covariance matrix ${\bf \hat{G}}$ are given explicitly 

1551: (equations \ref{eq:nbar=n*} and \ref{eq:GSH}-\ref{eq:explicitG}). 

1552: In addition to 

1553: this ``static'' aspect of the steady state, we also presented two ways of

1554: characterizing the ``dynamic'' aspect. One is the full distribution of sizes

1555: of steps (changes in the populations in a single time step, denoted by 

1556: $\vec{s} \, $). Well approximated by a Gaussian also, this distribution 

1557: has zero mean and covariance ${\bf \hat{g}}$ , which is given explicitly by 

1558: equation (\ref{eq:g}). The other is the correlation of the steps with the 

1559: populations just before the step (specified by the deviations from the 

1560: average, $\vec{\varepsilon} \, $). Denoted by ${\bf \hat{C}}$, this correlation 

1561: is given explicitly by equation (\ref{eq:se}). Finally, we have shown that 

1562: there is excellent 

1563: agreement between these analytical predictions and Monte Carlo simulations 

1564: in ten typical TSS communities (data for three of which are shown in 

1565: tables~\ref{tab:I} and~\ref{tab:II} 

1566: and figures~\ref{fig:pops} and~\ref{fig:diffs}).

1567: 

1568: With a solid understanding of the steady-state properties of stable

1569: communities in the absence of mutations, our next goal is a study of

1570: quasi-steady states of populations with low mutation rates. To carry out

1571: a serious analysis with $\mu >0$, we must define the restrictions on $R$

1572: carefully. Otherwise, it would be impossible to find a satisfactory solution

1573: to the equation 

1574: \begin{equation}

1575: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }\right) = \sum 

1576: R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) 

1577: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \;. 

1578: \end{equation}

1579: As in the case for $\mu =0$, we may seek an approximate solution, in the

1580: form of a product of a Gaussian distribution for the dominant species and

1581: exponential distributions for the minority mutants \cite{ZIA04}. Provided

1582: this program is successful, the next step would be to study the probability

1583: of this type of QSS having ``dangerous'' mutants at the higher order of 

1584: $\mu$, which hopefully will lead to some understanding of the distribution of

1585: QSS lifetimes \cite{Krug03} 

1586: and the presence of $1/f$ noise in power spectral densities.

1587: Beyond this step, perhaps sophisticated renormalization-group techniques can

1588: be marshalled to account for the self-similar patterns displayed, as well as

1589: to identify universality classes for such behaviour. Needless to say, even

1590: for such a simple model of coevolution, much remains to be explored.

1591: 

1592: \ack

1593: %\section{Acknowledgements}

1594: 

1595: We acknowledge enlightening discussions with many colleagues, in particular,

1596: HW Diehl, BU Felderhof, K~Jain, J~Krug, AJ McKane, and L~Sch\"{a}fer. 

1597: One of us (RKPZ) thanks HW Diehl for his hospitality at the

1598: University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany) where some of this work was carried

1599: out. This research is supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt

1600: Foundation (Germany), Florida State University through the Center for

1601: Materials Research and Technology and the School of Computational Science

1602: and Information Technology, and grants from the US National Science

1603: Foundation (DMR-0088451, DMR-0120310, and DMR-0240078).

1604: 

1605: 

1606: \appendix

1607: \section{Mathematical Detail}

1608: 

1609: Starting from the general expression for a discrete-time Markov process, 

1610: \begin{equation}

1611: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime },t+1\right) =\sum_{\vec{n}}

1612: R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) 

1613: {\cal P}\left( \vec{n},t\right) \;,  

1614: \label{eq:A1}

1615: \end{equation}

1616: we write the mean-field approximation for the evolution equation as 

1617: \begin{equation}

1618: \vec{n}^{{\rm MF}}\left( t+1\right) =

1619: \vec{f}\left( \vec{n}^{{\rm MF}}\left(t\right) \right) \;,  

1620: \label{eq:A2'}

1621: \end{equation}

1622: where the {\em functional form} of $\vec{f}$ is given by 

1623: \begin{equation}

1624: \vec{f}\left( \vec{n}\right) =\sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime }}\vec{n}^{\prime}

1625: R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) \;.  

1626: \label{eq:A3}

1627: \end{equation}

1628: Note that the components of $\vec{n}$ play the role of coordinates in equation 

1629: (\ref{eq:A1}) and

1630: take only non-negative integer values in models of population dynamics.

1631: However, there is no guarantee that $\vec{f}$ will be an integer in 

1632: equation (\ref{eq:A2'}), 

1633: so that we must allow $\vec{n}^{{\rm MF}}$ to be 

1634: continuous variables (functions of $t$). As we will see below, our analysis 

1635: is much simplified if we also assume $\vec{n}$ to be continuous.

1636: 

1637: Focusing only on simple fixed points (as opposed to fixed cycles involving

1638: two or more points) of the mean-field theory, we denote a FP by $\vec{n}^{*}$. 

1639: (To keep the notation from being too cumbersome, we suppress the superscript 

1640: $^{{\rm MF}}$ and only keep in mind that $\vec{n}^{*}$ represents just 

1641: ${\cal N}$ real numbers.) The equation for determining $\vec{n}^{*}$ is 

1642: \begin{equation}

1643: \vec{n}^{*}=\vec{f}\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) \,\,.  

1644: \label{eq:n*}

1645: \end{equation}

1646: Anticipating the need for the associated stability matrix, we write it as 

1647: \begin{equation}

1648: {\bf S\equiv }\left. \vec{\nabla}\vec{f} \, \right| _{\vec{n}^{*}}\,\,,

1649: \label{eq:Sdef}

1650: \end{equation}

1651: where $\vec{\nabla}$ stands for derivatives with respect to $\vec{n}$ .

1652: Explicitly, the matrix elements of ${\bf S}$ are 

1653: \begin{equation}

1654: S_I^J=\left. \partial f_I/\partial n_J\right| _{\vec{n}^{*}}  \label{eq:S'}

1655: \;,

1656: \end{equation}

1657: clearly asymmetric in general. As in our earlier study, we restrict

1658: ourselves to stable fixed points, so that the real parts of the eigenvalues

1659: of ${\bf S}$ (denoted by ${\bf 1}+{\bf \hat{\Lambda}}$ in \cite{RIKZIA03})

1660: should lie in the interval $(-1,1)$. Indeed, we restrict our attention

1661: here to isolated FP's far from others, so that no (real part of any)

1662: eigenvalue is close to unity.

1663: 

1664: Turning to the full stochastic problem, we consider a stationary

1665: distribution ${\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) $, which satisfies 

1666: \begin{equation}

1667: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }\right) =

1668: \sum_{\vec{n}} R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) 

1669: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,.

1670: \label{eq:P*ap}

1671: \end{equation}

1672: Therefore, it is a right eigenvector of the matrix 

1673: $R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime}|\vec{n}\right) $ with unit eigenvalue. Its 

1674: existence is guaranteed (though not necessarily its uniqueness, in general) 

1675: by the presence of a left eigenvector of unit eigenvalue 

1676: (i.e., $u\left( \vec{n}\right) =1 \,\, \forall \vec{n}$), 

1677: thanks to having probability conserving rates. If ${\cal P}^{*}$

1678: is known, then we can compute the stationary averages of all quantities via

1679: equation (\ref{eq:<dot>}). A different approach is to study the equations

1680: satisfied by these averages. Multiplying equation (\ref{eq:P*ap}) by a quantity

1681: and summing, we find, in general, no closed equation. Instead, a tangle of

1682: infinitely many coupled equations appear. Examples are 

1683: \begin{equation}

1684: \left\langle n_I\right\rangle ^{*}

1685: =\left\langle f_I\left( \vec{n}\right)\right\rangle ^{*}

1686: \quad \mathrm{and}\quad 

1687: \left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle^{*}

1688: =\left\langle H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) \right\rangle ^{*}\,\,,

1689: \label{eq:f+H}

1690: \end{equation}

1691: where $f_I$ is an element of $\vec{f}$, given by equation (\ref{eq:A3}), and 

1692: \begin{equation}

1693: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) \equiv \sum_{\vec{n}^{\prime }}

1694: n_I^{\prime}n_J^{\prime }R\left( \vec{n}^{\prime }|\vec{n}\right) \,\,.  

1695: \label{eq:Hdef}

1696: \end{equation}

1697: In both cases, the right-hand sides contain expectation values of all powers of 

1698: $\vec{n}$, so that infinitely many equations are needed to close the set.

1699: 

1700: In practice, for generic situations such as those described in the main

1701: text, we may approximate ${\cal P}^{*}$ by a Gaussian: 

1702: \begin{equation}

1703: \fl

1704: {\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \cong {\cal P}_{\rm G}

1705: \left( \vec{n}\right)

1706: =\left( 2\pi N_0\right)^{-{\cal N}/2}

1707: \left( \det {\bf \hat{\Gamma}}\right)^{1/2}

1708: \exp \left[ -\frac 1{2N_0}\left( n_I-\bar{n}_I\right) \hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}

1709: \left( n_J-\bar{n}_J\right) \right] \,\,,  

1710: \label{eq:PGap}

1711: \end{equation}

1712: where the unknowns $\bar{n}_I$ and $\hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}$ are to be determined.

1713: Naturally, we expect that the center of the 

1714: Gaussian lies close to the mean-field FP, 

1715: $\vec{n}^{*}$. This scenario is corroborated by our case studies

1716: above and our analysis below. Indeed, this approximation can be used as the

1717: starting point of a systematic expansion, which relies on having a large

1718: parameter ($N_0$) controlling the fluctuations to 

1719: $O\left( \sqrt{N_0}\right)$. In this context, $\bar{n}$ and 

1720: ${\bf \hat{\Gamma}}$ are assumed to be $O\left( N_0\right) $ and 

1721: $O\left( 1\right) $, respectively. In addition to playing the role of 

1722: ordering a systematic expansion, a large $N_0$ (and so, large $\vec{n}^{*}$) 

1723: provides two further simplifications: (i) $\vec{n}$ may be promoted to 

1724: continuous variables so that sums can be replaced by integrals, and 

1725: (ii) integration can be extended to $\left[ -\infty ,\infty\right] $ 

1726: while only incurring errors of $O\left( \rme^{-\sqrt{N_0}}\right) $.

1727: 

1728: Once $\bar{n}_I$ and $\hat{\Gamma}^{IJ}$ are determined, then we can set up

1729: expansions for the averages of any quantity $Q$: 

1730: \begin{equation}

1731: \left\langle Q(\vec{n})\right\rangle ^{*}\equiv 

1732: \sum_{\vec{n}} Q(\vec{n}){\cal P}^{*}\left( \vec{n}\right) \,\,,  

1733: \label{eq:Q1}

1734: \end{equation}

1735: starting with 

1736: \begin{equation}

1737: \int Q(\vec{n}){\cal P}_{\rm G}

1738: \left( \vec{n}\right) {\rm d} \vec{n} \,\,.  

1739: \label{eq:Q2}

1740: \end{equation}

1741: Given that $n_I$ does not deviate far from $\bar{n}_I$, such integrals can

1742: be handled by first expanding $Q$ around $\bar{n}_I$: 

1743: \begin{equation}

1744: Q(\vec{n}) = \bar{Q} + 

1745: Q^I\left( n_I-\bar{n}_I\right) +

1746: \frac{1}{2} Q^{IJ}\left( n_I-\bar{n}_I\right) \left( n_J-\bar{n}_J\right) 

1747: + \ldots \;,  

1748: \label{eq:Qexpand}

1749: \end{equation}

1750: where the summation convention is used and 

1751: \begin{eqnarray}

1752: \bar{Q} &\equiv &\left. Q\left(\vec{n}\right) \right| _{\vec{n}=\bar{n}}\;,

1753: \label{eq:Q3a} \\

1754: Q^I &\equiv &\left. \frac{\partial Q\left( \vec{n}\right) }{\partial n_I}

1755: \right| _{\vec{n}=\bar{n}} \;,  

1756: \label{eq:Q3b} \\

1757: Q^{IJ} &\equiv &\left. \frac{\partial ^2 Q\left( \vec{n}\right) }

1758: {\partial n_I\partial n_J}\right| _{\vec{n}=\bar{n}} \;.  

1759: \label{eq:Q3c}

1760: \end{eqnarray}

1761: The integral can now be performed, so that 

1762: \begin{equation}

1763: \left\langle Q(\vec{n})\right\rangle ^{*}\cong \int Q(\vec{n})

1764: {\cal P}_{\rm G}\left( \vec{n}\right) {\rm d} \vec{n}

1765: =\bar{Q}\,+\frac{N_0}2Q^{IJ}\hat{G}_{IJ}+\ldots \;,

1766: \label{eq:Q*}

1767: \end{equation}

1768: where ${\bf \hat{G}}={\bf \hat{\Gamma}}^{-1}$. There is no need to be

1769: alarmed at the factor $N_0$ in the second term. Since $Q^{IJ}$ involves two

1770: derivatives with respect to $\vec{n}$, 

1771: it is typically of the order of $1/N_0^2$

1772: compared to $\bar{Q}$. Thus, the second term in this expansion is 

1773: $O\left(1/N_0\right) $ compared to the first.

1774: 

1775: With this machinery, we seek equations to fix $\bar{n}_I$ and ${\bf \hat{G}}$. 

1776: From equation (\ref{eq:n+C}), we have, with $Q=f_I$, 

1777: \begin{equation}

1778: \bar{n}_I=\left\langle f_I\left( \vec{n}\right) \right\rangle ^{*}\cong

1779: f_I\left( \bar{n}\right) +\frac{N_0}2f_I{}^{JK}\hat{G}_{JK}+\ldots \,\,.

1780: \label{eq:nbar}

1781: \end{equation}

1782: Again, we expect the second term to be $O\left( 1/N_0\right) $ compared to

1783: the first, so that we may write an expansion for $\bar{n}_I$: 

1784: \begin{equation}

1785: \bar{n}_I=\bar{n}_I^{(0)}+\bar{n}_I^{(1)}+\ldots \,\,.  

1786: \label{eq:n-exp}

1787: \end{equation}

1788: Inserting this back into equation 

1789: (\ref{eq:nbar}) and noting equation (\ref{eq:n*}), we find the expected 

1790: \begin{equation}

1791: \bar{n}_I^{(0)}=n_I^{*}\,\,.  

1792: \label{eq:n0}

1793: \end{equation}

1794: Proceeding to the next order, we find 

1795: \begin{equation}

1796: \bar{n}_I^{(1)}=f_I^J\left( \bar{n}_I^{(0)}\right) \bar{n}_I^{(1)}

1797: +\frac{N_0}{2} f_I^{JK}\hat{G}_{JK}\,\,,  

1798: \label{eq:n1G}

1799: \end{equation}

1800: where all functions of $\vec{n}$ in the last term can be evaluated at 

1801: $\bar{n}_I^{(0)}$. To save notation, we will just write $\hat{G}_{JK}$ 

1802: in lieu of the more explicit form: $\hat{G}_{JK}^{(0)}$. We recognize that 

1803: $f_I^J\left(\bar{n}_I^{(0)}\right) $ is just the stability matrix $S_I^J$ 

1804: and write 

1805: \begin{equation}

1806: \bar{n}_I^{(1)}=\frac{N_0}2V_I^Mf_M{}^{JK}\hat{G}_{JK} \;, 

1807: \label{eq:n-G}

1808: \end{equation}

1809: where 

1810: \begin{equation}

1811: {\bf V\equiv }\left( {\bf 1-S}\right) ^{-1}  

1812: \label{eq:Vdef}

1813: \end{equation}

1814: (the inverse of $-{\bf \tilde{\Lambda}}$ in \cite{RIKZIA03}). Let us 

1815: emphasize that $V_I^M$ and $\hat{G}_{JK}$ are supposedly $O\left( 1\right) $, 

1816: while $f_M{}^{JK}$ is $O\left( 1/N_0\right) $ so that the right-hand side of 

1817: equation 

1818: (\ref{eq:n-G}) is a quantity of $O\left( 1\right) $. This expression also

1819: provides a precise meaning to the phrase ``no eigenvalue (of ${\bf S}$) is

1820: close to unity,'' which appeared as a restriction on the FP's we study.

1821: 

1822: Extending this technique to $n_In_J$ , we consider 

1823: \begin{equation}

1824: N_0\hat{G}_{IJ}+\left\langle n_I\right\rangle ^{*}\left\langle

1825: n_J\right\rangle ^{*}=\left\langle n_In_J\right\rangle ^{*}=\left\langle

1826: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) \right\rangle ^{*}\,\,,  

1827: \label{eq:nn-exact}

1828: \end{equation}

1829: from equations (\ref{eq:n+C}) and (\ref{eq:f+H}). Again, using the Gaussian

1830: approximation for both sides, we arrive at 

1831: \begin{equation}

1832: N_0\hat{G}_{IJ}+\bar{n}_I\bar{n}_J\cong H_{IJ}\left( \bar{n}\right) 

1833: +\frac{N_0}2H_{IJ}{}^{KM}\hat{G}_{KM}+\ldots \,\,.  

1834: \label{eq:G-H}

1835: \end{equation}

1836: At the lowest order, $O\left( N_0^2\right) $, of this equation, internal

1837: consistency will ensure that 

1838: $H_{IJ}\left( \bar{n}^{(0)}\right) \cong \bar{n}_I^{(0)}\bar{n}_J^{(0)}$ 

1839: and should provide a check for tedious, error-prone

1840: computations. Furthermore, we can consider the {\em difference} : 

1841: \begin{equation}

1842: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) -

1843: f_I\left( \vec{n}\right) f_J\left( \vec{n}\right)  

1844: \label{eq:h_IJ}

1845: \end{equation}

1846: and find that it is often one order lower (as explicitly shown in the main

1847: text for our model). In other words, we have 

1848: \begin{equation}

1849: H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) -

1850: f_I\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) f_J\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) 

1851: \sim O\left( N_0\right) \,\,.

1852: \end{equation}

1853: To emphasize this property, we explicitly extract a factor $N_0$ and

1854: define 

1855: \begin{equation}

1856: \hat{H}_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right) \equiv \left[ H_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}\right)

1857: -f_I\left( \vec{n}\right) f_J\left( \vec{n}\right) \right] /N_0\,\,,

1858: \label{eq:Htilde0}

1859: \end{equation}

1860: so that 

1861: \begin{equation}

1862: H_{IJ}\left( \bar{n}\right) 

1863: =f_I\left( \bar{n}\right) f_J\left( \bar{n}\right) 

1864: +N_0\hat{H}_{IJ}\left( \bar{n}\right) \,\,.  

1865: \label{eq:Hff}

1866: \end{equation}

1867: Since we keep only terms of orders $N_0^2$ and $N_0$, we can evaluate 

1868: $\hat{H}_{IJ}\left( \bar{n}\right) $ at $\vec{n}^{*}$ and define, 

1869: for simplicity, 

1870: \begin{equation}

1871: \hat{H}_{IJ}\equiv \hat{H}_{IJ}\left( \vec{n}^{*}\right) \,\,.

1872: \label{eq:Htilde}

1873: \end{equation}

1874: As a reminder, this quantity is of $O\left( 1\right) $. Next, to lowest

1875: order needed (i.e., $O\left( 1\right) $), we find 

1876: \begin{equation}

1877: H_{IJ}{}^{KM}=S_I^KS_J^M+S_I^MS_J^K+f_If_J{}^{KM}+f_I{}^{KM}f_J{}\,\,,

1878: \label{eq:H_IJKM}

1879: \end{equation}

1880: all evaluated at the FP. Inserting these expressions into 

1881: equation (\ref{eq:G-H}), we obtain 

1882: \begin{eqnarray}

1883: \fl

1884: N_0G_{IJ}+\bar{n}_I\bar{n}_J

1885: &\cong& 

1886: f_I\left( \bar{n}\right) f_J\left( \bar{n}\right) 

1887: + N_0\hat{H}_{IJ} \nonumber\\

1888: && +\frac{N_0}2 \left[S_I^KS_J^M+S_I^MS_J^K 

1889: + f_If_J{}^{KM}+f_I{}^{KM}f_J\right] G_{KM}+\ldots 

1890: \,\,. 

1891: \nonumber\\

1892: \end{eqnarray}

1893: Exploiting equation (\ref{eq:nbar}), we arrive at an equation for 

1894: ${\bf \hat{G}}$ : 

1895: \begin{equation}

1896: \hat{G}_{IJ}

1897: =\hat{H}_{IJ}+\frac 12\left[ S_I^KS_J^M+S_I^MS_J^K\right] \hat{G}_{KM} \;.

1898: \end{equation}

1899: But, ${\bf G}$ is symmetric, so that the final equation, in matrix form,

1900: reads 

1901: \begin{equation}

1902: {\bf \hat{G}-S\hat{G}S}^T={\bf \hat{H}\,\,.}  \label{eq:ansG}

1903: \end{equation}

1904: Here, ${\bf S}^T$ denotes the transpose of ${\bf S}$, and, from 

1905: equation (\ref{eq:Hdef}), ${\bf \hat{H}}$ is necessarily symmetric. Again, let 

1906: us emphasize that all quantities in this equation are $O\left( 1\right) $.

1907: Unfortunately, there is no simple way 

1908: to express ${\bf \hat{G}}$ 

1909: in terms of the known matrices: ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf \hat{H}}$. 

1910: A formal series can be written as 

1911: \begin{equation}

1912: {\bf \hat{G}}

1913: =

1914: {\bf \hat{H}+S\,\hat{H}} \thinspace {\bf S}^T+{\bf SS\,\hat{H}}

1915: \thinspace {\bf S}^T{\bf S}^T \thinspace +...

1916: \;,

1917: \label{eq:formser}

1918: \end{equation} 

1919: equivalent to a recursion relation, 

1920: \begin{equation}

1921: {\bf \hat{G}}_n = {\bf \hat{H}} + {\bf {S}}{\bf \hat{G}}_{n-1}{\bf {S}}^T

1922: \label{eq:recrel}

1923: \end{equation}

1924: with ${\bf \hat{G}}_0 = {\bf \hat{H}}$. 

1925: It was this recursion method that was used to obtain numerical results for 

1926: comparison with the Monte Carlo results in the figures and tables. 

1927: Convergence to four significant digits was obtained with 

1928: $n=20$ for ${\cal N} =2$, $n=30$ for ${\cal N} =3$, 

1929: and $n=140$ for ${\cal N} =4$.

1930: 

1931: An explicit form for ${\bf \hat{G}}$ 

1932: can be found when we examine this equation in the frame where 

1933: ${\bf S}$ is diagonal. To be explicit, take matrix elements of 

1934: equation (\ref{eq:ansG}) with $u_a^I$, the left eigenvectors of ${\bf S}$, 

1935: which satisfy 

1936: \begin{equation}

1937: u_a^IS_I^K=\lambda _au_a^I\qquad \mathrm{(no\;sum\;on\;}a) \;. 

1938: \end{equation}

1939: The result is 

1940: \begin{equation}

1941: \hat{G}_{ab}=\hat{H}_{ab}/\left( 1-\lambda _a\lambda _b\right) 

1942: \qquad \mathrm{(no\;sum)} \;, 

1943: \label{final}

1944: \end{equation}

1945: where 

1946: \begin{equation}

1947: \hat{G}_{ab}=\hat{G}_{IJ}u_a^Iu_b^J\qquad \mathrm{and}\qquad \hat{H}_{ab}

1948: =\hat{H}_{IJ}u_a^Iu_b^J\,\,.  \label{eq:Hab}

1949: \end{equation}

1950: To find the original matrix elements, we apply the dual set $v_I^a$ (i.e.,

1951: the right eigenvectors of ${\bf S}$, normalized by $v_I^au_b^I=\delta _b^a$)

1952: and obtain 

1953: \begin{equation}

1954: \hat{G}_{IJ}=v_I^a v_J^b \hat{G}_{ab}

1955: =\sum_{a,b}v_I^av_J^b\hat{H}_{ab}/\left(1-\lambda _a\lambda _b\right) \;.  

1956: \label{eq:explicit}

1957: \end{equation}

1958: 

1959: Finally, this expression again shows the importance of insisting that ``no

1960: eigenvalue (of ${\bf S}$) is close to unity.'' In case one or more $\lambda $

1961: approaches unity, the system would be labelled ``critical'' or

1962: ``multi-critical,'' in the language of phase transitions.

1963: Away from such

1964: points, the Gaussian approximation, along with its associated

1965: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, is adequate. For further details, see, for

1966: example, the books by van Kampen~\cite{vanKampen} and Risken~\cite{Risken}.

1967: 

1968: 

1969: \section*{References}

1970: 

1971: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1972: \bibitem{DROS01}  Drossel B 2001 {\it Adv. Phys.} {\bf 50} 209

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{LASS02} L{\"a}ssig M and Valleriani A 2002 

1975: {\em Biological Evolution and Statistical Physics} (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

1976: 

1977: \bibitem{RIKV03A}  Rikvold P~A and Zia R~K~P 2003, in {\em Computer

1978: Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics XVI}, ed D~P Landau,

1979: S~P Lewis and H-B Sch{\"{u}}ttler (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, in press)

1980: {\it Preprint\/} arXiv:nlin.AO/0303010

1981: 

1982: \bibitem{RIKZIA03}  Rikvold P~A and Zia R~K~P 2003 {\it Phys. Rev. E} 

1983: {\bf 68} 031913

1984: 

1985: \bibitem{HALL02}  Hall M, Christensen K, di~Collobiano S~A and 

1986: Jensen H~J 2002 {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 66} 011904

1987: 

1988: \bibitem{CHRI02}  Christensen K, di~Collobiano S~A, Hall M and 

1989: Jensen H~J 2002  {\it J. theor. Biol.} {\bf 216} 73

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{COLL03}  di~Collobiano S~A, Christensen K and Jensen H~J 2003 

1992: {\it J. Phys. A} {\bf 36} 883

1993: 

1994: \bibitem{BAK93}  Bak P and Sneppen K 1993 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 

1995: {\bf 71} 4083

1996: 

1997: \bibitem{GOUL77}  Gould S~J and Eldredge N 1977 {\it Paleobiology} 

1998: {\bf 3} 115

1999: 

2000: \bibitem{GOUL93}  Gould S~J and Eldredge N 1993 {\it Nature} {\bf 366} 223

2001: 

2002: \bibitem{NEWM85}  Newman C~M, Cohen J~E and Kipnis C 1985 

2003: {\it Nature} {\bf 315} 400

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{Krug03}  A similar distribution has been reported in Krug J and

2006: Karl C 2003 {\em Physica} {\bf A318} 137. Recast as a distribution of

2007: inverse lifetimes (i.e., ``decay rates''), $p\left( \tau \rightarrow

2008: \infty

2009: \right) \,\sim \,1/\tau ^2$ becomes

2010: $p \left( r\rightarrow 0\right) \,\sim \,const.$, a property which

2011: appears not only plausible but also ``generic'' or ``universal.''

2012: 

2013: \bibitem{VERH1838}  Verhulst P~F 1838 {\it Corres. Math. et Physique} 

2014: {\bf 10} 113 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{BBGKY}  See, for example, Mohling F 1982 {\em Statistical Mechanics,

2017: Method and Application} (New York: Wiley); 

2018: or Dorfman J~R 1999 {\em An introduction to Chaos in 

2019: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics} (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press)

2020: 

2021: \bibitem{vanKampen}  See, for example, Chapter IX in van Kampen N 1981 

2022: {\em Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry} 

2023: (Amsterdam: North Holland). 

2024: A treatment which closely parallels the one given here can be found in Howard M

2025: and Zia R~K~P 2001 {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. B} {\bf 15} 391

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{ZIA04}  Zia R~K~P and Rikvold P~A, in preparation

2028: 

2029: \bibitem{Risken}  Risken H 1984 {\em The Fokker-Planck Equation}

2030: (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

2031: 

2032: \end{thebibliography}

2033: 

2034: \end{document}

2035: