Variational methods for Learning Multilevel Genetic Algorithms using the Kantorovich Monad

Anja M\"osch; Cameron Smith; Francesco Alesiani; Jonathan Warrell; Martin Renqiang Min

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Variational methods for Learning Multilevel Genetic Algorithms using the Kantorovich Monad

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a multilevel Wright-Fisher process on the Kantorovich monad supports a mixed multilevel Price equation, and that above a cooperativity threshold $\kappa^*$ expected mean fitness can decrease at every level below the…

desk verdict A genuinely interesting multilevel framework with a load-bearing proof error in Prop. 3 and an underspecified coalescent estimator; worth reviewing, but needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09779 v1 pith:ZEI44ZXY submitted 2024-11-14 q-bio.PE cs.NEmath.CT

Jonathan Warrell , Francesco Alesiani , Cameron Smith , Anja Mösch , Martin Renqiang Min This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.PEcs.NEmath.CT MSC 92D1560B0518B99

keywords multilevelselectionWright-FisherprocessKantorovichmonadPriceequationWassersteindistancecoalescentanalysisvariationaloptimizationgeneticalgorithms

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a unified mathematical model of multilevel selection: a Wright-Fisher process whose states live in the Kantorovich monad, so populations of populations can be nested to any depth. The authors aim to show that this single construction supports both theory and learning: it yields a mixed multilevel Price equation that splits expected trait change into a probabilistic mixture over levels, and it gives a parameter threshold $\kappa^*$ at which, for any level below the top, high cooperativity $\kappa$ makes expected mean fitness decrease for some population states. On the learning side, the paper aims to show that genetic algorithms over the same process can be fit to data by minimizing a recursive Wasserstein objective, and that combining forward simulation with a multilevel coalescent sampler improves the fit on a synthetic traveling-salesman problem. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a rare attempt to have one formal framework that both characterizes when levels of selection conflict and provides inference algorithms for fitting such multilevel processes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kantorovich monad on the category of 1-bounded compact metric spaces: the operation $B$ sends a metric space $X$ to the space of Borel probability measures on $X$, with the Wasserstein distance as metric, and the monad's unit and multiplication let a population be a measure over genotypes, a meta-population a measure over populations, and so on indefinitely. The multilevel Wright-Fisher transition uses a recursive fitness $f_l(x_l)=\kappa\psi(x_l)+\sum_i f_{l-1}(x_{l-1}^{(i)})$, where $\psi$ is the average pairwise similarity, one minus the Wasserstein distance, inside the meta-population. The fitness recursion is what makes the mixed Price equation and the conflict threshold computable; the multilevel coalescent process, which walks backward through the same level assignments, is what makes the importance-sampled training objectives possible. The paper defines a multilevel coalescent process $C(\cdot|x_T^\dagger_L,\theta)$ that assigns parent states backwards and fills undefined states by forward sampling.

What would settle it

Write down and normalize the multilevel coalescent density $C(\cdot|x_T^\dagger_L,\theta)$ for a small case, then check the importance-sampling identity in Eq. 32 numerically; if the density is intractable or its normalizing constant is not 1, the forward-coalescent VO, SPSA, and MC-EM objectives are not well defined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a multilevel Wright-Fisher process on the Kantorovich monad has a tractable selection decomposition and a sharp conflict regime. Proposition 1 derives a Mixed Multilevel Price Equation, $E[\phi_{t+1}-\phi_t]=\sum_{l<L}p_l\,\mathrm{Cov}(\phi_t,\hat\Omega^t_l)$, in which the expected change in a trait is a probability-weighted covariance sum over the level chosen to reproduce. Proposition 2 shows that with no cooperativity ($\kappa=0$) expected mean fitness increases at every level. Proposition 3 shows that once $\kappa$ exceeds a level-dependent threshold $\kappa^*$, for every level $l<L-1$ there are population states in which expected mean fitness decreases. Two worked examples delimit the top level: for $L=2$, $N=2$ mean fitness at the top level never decreases, while for $N\ge 5$ the authors find states where it does. The optimization sections claim that the same Wasserstein-based hierarchy supports variational and gradient-based fitting, and that a forward-plus-coalescent estimator improves learning of the fitness landscape in a small TSP test problem.

Load-bearing premise

The combined forward-coalescent training objectives rest on the assumption that the probability of a coalescent trajectory can be computed exactly under both the forward and coalescent processes; the paper states "we assume that this can be done" without giving the coalescent density $C(\cdot|x_T^\dagger_L,\theta)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $\kappa=0$ the model reproduces the classical guarantee that expected mean fitness cannot decrease, at every level simultaneously.
For $\kappa>\kappa^*$, selection at any level below the top can be antagonistic to mean fitness at that level, giving a concrete parameter-based definition of when levels of selection conflict.
Conflict at the top level is not generic: it depends on the population size and on the genotype fitness and distance parameters, so a fitted model must estimate these before predicting top-level behavior.
If the combined forward-coalescent objectives are valid, the paper's method offers a way to fit hierarchical genetic algorithms and multilevel evolutionary models from a single observed final population.
The framework treats the number of levels as a design choice, so the same sampler and objective can be used to compare models with different numbers of levels.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, a reader could turn the conflict threshold into a model-selection test: fit the model with and without a cooperativity term and see whether the inferred $\kappa$ crosses $\kappa^*$, using fitness trajectories from real multilevel systems to estimate the number of active levels.
The same Wasserstein recursion could define a distance-to-data objective for tumor phylogenies, where clones at multiple scales play the role of the TSP genotypes; the paper notes this direction but does not test it.
The importance-sampling estimate in Eq. 32 would become a fully operational estimator only when the coalescent density $C(\cdot|x_T^\dagger_L,\theta)$ is written down explicitly; supplying that density is the natural next step for making the combined objectives practical.
If the mixed estimator is validated, the monotone improvement guarantee of smoothing-based optimization suggests the forward-coalescent VO estimator should inherit a descent property in expectation, though the paper does not prove that for the mixed version.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely interesting framework, but the main theoretical result has a load-bearing proof error and the coalescent estimator is not actually computable as written. I would send it to review—the model is worth engaging—but it should not be accepted without major revision.

What is actually new: the multilevel Wright-Fisher process on the Kantorovich monad, with recursive Wasserstein fitness, and the attempt to fit such processes with VO, SPSA, and MC-EM using both forward and coalescent simulation. The model definition is clear, and the categorical framing is structural rather than decorative: Wasserstein distance recurses naturally across levels. Prop. 1 is correctly labeled a special case of Rice's equation; that is an honest reduction, not overclaiming, though the abstract's wording overstates the novelty. Prop. 2 is straightforward and sound.

The soft spots are real. Prop. 3 is the centerpiece of the theoretical section and its proof, as printed, does not work. Eq. 19 gives the mixed-level group a positive κ term, so increasing κ makes f_1^{l',*} larger, not smaller; the text then claims f_2^{l',*} − f_1^{l',*} can be made arbitrarily large. That is the opposite sign from what the argument needs. The proof also drops the constant κ term for uniform groups without explanation. Since the abstract's antagonistic/cooperative characterization rests on this proposition, this is not a typo-level issue. The examples are plausible but do not rescue the general claim.

Second, the coalescent-based estimators in Sec. 4.2 are not fully specified. Eq. 32 requires the density of the coalescent sampler C(.|x_T^†, θ), but the paper only describes the algorithm and says "we assume this can be done." Without a density, the importance weights in Eq. 32 and the MC-EM objective in Eq. 37 cannot be computed. The synthetic experiments are a toy TSP, five runs, ten epochs; they illustrate the pipeline but provide little evidence for the claim that coalescent training helps. No code or data are included.

Who should read this: people working on multilevel selection or evolutionary computation who want a formal, recursive language for levels. The model formulation and Prop. 2 are useful even if Prop. 3 falls. A serious referee should get it, but the authors need to fix Prop. 3 or demote it to a conjecture, and they need to give a real coalescent density or drop the importance-sampling estimator.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multilevel Wright-Fisher process on the Kantorovich monad, with fitness defined recursively across levels and a cooperativity term κ. It derives a mixed multilevel Price equation (Prop. 1), shows absence of conflict when κ=0 (Prop. 2), and claims that for sufficiently large κ there are population states with negative expected change in mean fitness at every level below the top (Prop. 3). The second half of the paper develops variational and stochastic optimization methods, including a multilevel coalescent sampler, and evaluates them on a small synthetic TSP-based problem.

Significance. If the theoretical results held, the paper would offer a useful, unified formalization of multilevel selection and a parameter-based criterion for antagonism between levels, together with a general inference framework. The category-theoretic construction is elegant, and the authors are honest in noting that Prop. 1 is a special case of Rice's equation. The synthetic experiments are a reasonable proof-of-concept. However, the proof of Prop. 3 contains algebraic sign errors, the coalescent-based estimator lacks a specified density, and the model definition in Eq. (6) appears to be missing a normalization. These are load-bearing issues, so the contribution is presently conditional on substantial repairs.

major comments (5)

[§3, Eq. (19)] Proposition 3 is not established by the proof as printed. In Eq. (19), the mixed level-l' group is assigned fitness f^{l',*}_1 = N^{l'} μ_{l'} + κ(1 - ((N-1)^2+1)/N^2)(1 - d_l(...)), while the uniform group is assigned f^{l',*}_2 = N^{l'} f^*_2 with no κ term. Because f^*_1 > f^*_2, μ_{l'} lies above f^*_2, and the coefficient of κ is nonnegative, this makes f^{l',*}_1 - f^{l',*}_2 increase with κ; the proof immediately asserts the opposite. The statement in the same paragraph that uniform level-l meta-populations have 'cooperativity term 0' also contradicts Eq. (4), which gives ψ=1 for a uniform population and hence a contribution κ to f_l. The central conflict claim of the paper therefore rests on an equation with the wrong sign.
[§3, Eq. (18)] Eq. (18)'s variance expression is not consistent with the state defined in Eq. (17). With h level-l meta-populations having fitness f^*_1 and N^{L-l}-h having fitness f^*_2, the variance of the level-l fitnesses contains the factor h(N^{L-l}-h), and the factor N/h appearing in Eq. (18) is unexplained; the displayed value also omits h entirely. Because Eq. (18) is used to bound Δ_l^l above, the bound Δ_l^l < μ/2 is unsupported.
[§4.2, Eq. (32)] The importance-sampling estimate in Eq. (32) requires explicit densities for both the forward process P^{L,T}_{θ} and the multilevel coalescent process C(.|x^{T†}_L, θ). The paper specifies C only algorithmically, and the text states 'we assume that this can be done' without giving the density or its normalization. Without these densities, the ratio P/C is not computable, and the coalescent variants of VO, SPSA, and MC-EM, as well as the claim in Table 1 that coalescent simulations are beneficial, are not well-defined.
[§2, Eq. (6)] The transition kernel in Eq. (5) uses \tilde f, but Eq. (6) is printed as \tilde f(x^{t,i}_l) = f(x^{t,i}_l) times a sum of parent fitnesses, rather than as f(parent) divided by the sum of fitnesses in the parent group. Taken literally, this does not define a Wright-Fisher reproduction step and invalidates the proof of Prop. 1, which requires \tilde f to be a normalized reproduction probability. This needs to be corrected or the notation explained.
[§3, Example 1, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The algebra in Example 1 conflates the normalized quantities \tilde f^*_1, \tilde f^*_2 with the raw fitness values f^*_1, f^*_2, and the simplifications leading to Eq. (23) do not follow from Eq. (22). Since the example is used to assert that f^{L-1} is non-decreasing for all states in a two-level model, that assertion is not supported as written.

minor comments (6)

[§2, first paragraph] 'Kantorivich' is a typo for 'Kantorovich'.
[§4 heading] 'Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Perturbation' should be 'Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation' (SPSA).
[§3, Prop. 3 statement] 'p_L is uniform' should read 'p_l is uniform over l=0,...,L-1', since level L is not updated.
[§2, Eq. (8)] The permutation notation and Iverson brackets in Eq. (8) are not defined precisely; please spell out the indexing and the ranges of the permutations.
[§3, Eq. (13)] The notation in the variance expression is garbled: the factor 'NP' has no clear meaning, and the formula should be rewritten with explicit definitions of the sums and variances.
[§5, Table 1] Several comparisons are within one standard deviation (for example, VO Wasserstein 0.25±0.02 vs. 0.23±0.03), so the statement that coalescent simulations are beneficial for all methods should be qualified or supported by significance testing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the theoretical results follow from explicit model assumptions and the optimization claims are benchmarked against synthetic ground truth rather than the paper's own fitted values.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Proposition 1 (Mixed Multilevel Price Equation) is explicitly acknowledged in the text as a special case of Rice's Equation / the Stochastic Price Equation, citing Rice and Simpson; this is an honest reduction to a known result rather than a circular restatement. Propositions 2 and 3 are proved from the model definitions in Eqs. 3-7, with no fitted parameter serving as the premise of the claimed theorem; the cooperativity constant kappa is a model input, not an estimated quantity. The optimization section uses synthetic ground-truth data and reports Wasserstein distances and Euclidean city-position errors against that ground truth, so the performance claims are externally benchmarked rather than self-referential. The paper's self-citations, notably Warrell and Gerstein [8] and Simpson [17], are contextual and are not load-bearing for the model's formal claims. The main weakness identified in the manuscript, the assumed but unspecified coalescent density in Eq. 32, is an incompleteness or correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not define C(.|x_T_dagger_L, theta) and only states that forward and coalescent probabilities are calculable, but this is a missing specification rather than an input disguised as a result. Accordingly, no specific reduction of a claimed prediction to a fitted value or self-citation chain can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces a small set of hand-set parameters; the central theoretical results are conditional on the fitness composition rule and on a coalescent sampler whose density is never specified.

free parameters (5)

κ (cooperativity strength) = 1 in experiments; varied in theory
Controls the weight of the consistency term in Eq. 3; all theoretical results on conflict depend on varying κ.
λ (mutation penalty) = 5 in experiments
Sets the scale of the Wasserstein-distance-based mutation kernel Eq. 7 in the synthetic TSP experiments.
pm (mutation probability) = 0.25 in experiments
Probability of mutation in Eq. 39; chosen by hand, not learned.
β (inverse temperature) = 2 in experiments
Scales the TSP fitness Eq. 38; fixed by hand.
N, L, T, M (population size, levels, time steps, cities) = N=4, L=3, T=5, M=5 in experiments
Simulation dimensions; fixed ad hoc for the toy demonstration.

assumptions (6)

standard math Kantorovich monad structure (B, η, μ) on KMet1
Imported from [9] and used to define meta-populations and Wasserstein distance in Sec. 2.
domain assumption Fitness composition across levels follows Eq. 3 with additive base fitness and κ-weighted consistency ψ
This is the paper's postulated fitness extension; the conflict results are consequences of this form.
domain assumption The transition kernel Eq. 5 describes reproduction by sampling parents within the same higher-level group
Defines the multilevel Wright-Fisher dynamics; all later analysis uses this kernel.
domain assumption Mutation kernels are either Wasserstein-exponential (Eq. 7) or swap-count based (Eq. 8) and are symmetric in the required ways
Used in Sec. 2 and experiments; Eq. 8 is complex and not fully validated.
ad hoc to paper The multilevel coalescent process C(.|x_T†_L, θ) has a computable density
Sec. 4.2 says 'we assume that this can be done' when defining the importance estimator; no explicit density is provided.
ad hoc to paper Prop. 3 assumes N even, f(x1)≠f(x2), uniform level selection p_l, and constructs special states
The proof of conflict relies on these restrictions and on the algebra in Eqs. 18-20.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational methods for Learning Multilevel Genetic Algorithms using the Kantorovich Monad." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZEI44ZXY

@misc{pith2026241109779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational methods for Learning Multilevel Genetic Algorithms using the Kantorovich Monad},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZEI44ZXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09779}
}

read the original abstract

Levels of selection and multilevel evolutionary processes are essential concepts in evolutionary theory, and yet there is a lack of common mathematical models for these core ideas. Here, we propose a unified mathematical framework for formulating and optimizing multilevel evolutionary processes and genetic algorithms over arbitrarily many levels based on concepts from category theory and population genetics. We formulate a multilevel version of the Wright-Fisher process using this approach, and we show that this model can be analyzed to clarify key features of multilevel selection. Particularly, we derive an extended multilevel probabilistic version of Price's Equation via the Kantorovich Monad, and we use this to characterize regimes of parameter space within which selection acts antagonistically or cooperatively across levels. Finally, we show how our framework can provide a unified setting for learning genetic algorithms (GAs), and we show how we can use a Variational Optimization and a multi-level analogue of coalescent analysis to fit multilevel GAs to simulated data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09779 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Multilevel evolutionary process for ant colonies. Selection may act at the cellular, individual or colony level, and fitness any of these levels may conflict with fitness at any other. In light of the above, we introduce here a minimal model of multilevel selection based on the Wright-Fisher model, which we refer to as a ‘multilevel Wright-Fisher process’. Our model is minimal in the sense of including only those… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Schematic of a Multi-level Evolutionary Process. The population consists of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fitness across levels for 5 synthetic examples. Mean value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

The major transitions in evolution revisited

Brett Calcott and Kim Sterelny. The major transitions in evolution revisited . MIT Press, 2011

work page 2011
[2]

Evolution and the levels of selection

Samir Okasha. Evolution and the levels of selection . Clarendon Press, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Cancer and the levels of selection

Samir Okasha. “Cancer and the levels of selection” . In: (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Compositional evolution: the impact of sex, symbiosis and modularity on the gradualist framework of evolution

Richard A Watson. Compositional evolution: the impact of sex, symbiosis and modularity on the gradualist framework of evolution . Mit Press, 2006

work page 2006
[5]

Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic algorithms

Richard A Watson and Jordan B Pollack. “Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic algorithms” . In:Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406) . Vol. 2. IEEE. 1999, pp. 1406–1413

work page 1999
[6]

Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection

Arne Traulsen and Martin A Nowak. “Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection” . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103.29 (2006), pp. 10952–10955

work page 2006
[7]

The generalized Price equation: forces that change population statistics

Steven A Frank and William Godsoe. “The generalized Price equation: forces that change population statistics” . In:Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8 (2020), p. 240

work page 2020
[8]

Cyclic and multilevel causation in evolutionary pro- cesses

Jonathan Warrell and Mark Gerstein. “Cyclic and multilevel causation in evolutionary pro- cesses” . In:Biology & Philosophy 35.5 (2020), p. 50

work page 2020

Show all 27 references

[9]

The metric monad for probabilistic nondeterminism

Franck van Breugel. “The metric monad for probabilistic nondeterminism” . In: Draft available at http://www.cse.yorku.ca/˜franck/research/drafts/monad.pdf (2005)

2005
[10]

Wasserstein auto-encoders

Ilya Tolstikhin et al. “Wasserstein auto-encoders” . In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01558 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[11]

Inferring phylogenies

Joseph Felsenstein. “Inferring phylogenies” . In: Inferring phylogenies. 2004, pp. 664–664

2004
[12]

Variational combinatorial sequential Monte Carlo methods for Bayesian phylogenetic inference

Antonio Khalil Moretti et al. “Variational combinatorial sequential Monte Carlo methods for Bayesian phylogenetic inference” . In:Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence . PMLR. 2021, pp. 971–981

2021
[13]

Variational Bayesian phylogenetic inference

Cheng Zhang and Frederick A Matsen IV. “Variational Bayesian phylogenetic inference” . In: International Conference on Learning Representations. 2018

2018
[14]

Improved variational Bayesian phylogenetic inference with normalizing flows

Cheng Zhang. “Improved variational Bayesian phylogenetic inference with normalizing flows” . In: Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), pp. 18760–18771

2020
[15]

Smoothing-based optimization

Marius Leordeanu and Martial Hebert. “Smoothing-based optimization” . In: 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE. 2008, pp. 1–8

2008
[16]

Evolutionary Theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations

Sean H Rice. “Evolutionary Theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations” . In: (2004)

2004
[17]

How Many Levels Are There? How Insights from Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality Help Measure the Hierarchical Complexity of Life

Carl Simpson. “How Many Levels Are There? How Insights from Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality Help Measure the Hierarchical Complexity of Life” . In: Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited (2011), p. 199

2011
[18]

Stochastic optimization, stochastic approximation and simulated annealing

James C Spall. “Stochastic optimization, stochastic approximation and simulated annealing” . In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (2001)

2001
[19]

A review of Monte Carlo-based versions of the EM algorithm

William Ruth. “A review of Monte Carlo-based versions of the EM algorithm” . In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00945 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

Passenger mutations in more than 2,500 cancer genomes: overall molecular functional impact and consequences

Sushant Kumar et al. “Passenger mutations in more than 2,500 cancer genomes: overall molecular functional impact and consequences” . In: Cell 180.5 (2020), pp. 915–927. 17

2020
[21]

Estimating growth patterns and driver effects in tumor evolution from individual samples

Leonidas Salichos et al. “Estimating growth patterns and driver effects in tumor evolution from individual samples” . In:Nature communications 11.1 (2020), p. 732

2020
[22]

Lineage tracing reveals the phylodynamics, plasticity, and paths of tumor evolution

Dian Yang et al. “Lineage tracing reveals the phylodynamics, plasticity, and paths of tumor evolution” . In:Cell 185.11 (2022), pp. 1905–1923

2022
[23]

CloneSig can jointly infer intra-tumor heterogeneity and mutational signature activity in bulk tumor sequencing data

Judith Ab´ ecassis, Fabien Reyal, and Jean-Philippe Vert. “CloneSig can jointly infer intra-tumor heterogeneity and mutational signature activity in bulk tumor sequencing data” . In: Nature communications 12.1 (2021), p. 5352

2021
[24]

Microbial life history: the fundamental forces of biological design

Steven A Frank. Microbial life history: the fundamental forces of biological design . Princeton University Press, 2022

2022
[25]

The information theory of individuality

David Krakauer et al. “The information theory of individuality” . In: Theory in Biosciences 139 (2020), pp. 209–223

2020
[26]

Implicit bilevel optimization: differentiating through bilevel optimization programming

Francesco Alesiani. “Implicit bilevel optimization: differentiating through bilevel optimization programming” . In:Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Vol. 37. 12. 2023, pp. 14683–14691

2023
[27]

Categorical deep learning: An algebraic theory of architectures

Bruno Gavranovi´ c et al. “Categorical deep learning: An algebraic theory of architectures” . In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15332 (2024). 18

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The major transitions in evolution revisited

Brett Calcott and Kim Sterelny. The major transitions in evolution revisited . MIT Press, 2011

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Evolution and the levels of selection

Samir Okasha. Evolution and the levels of selection . Clarendon Press, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Cancer and the levels of selection

Samir Okasha. “Cancer and the levels of selection” . In: (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Compositional evolution: the impact of sex, symbiosis and modularity on the gradualist framework of evolution

Richard A Watson. Compositional evolution: the impact of sex, symbiosis and modularity on the gradualist framework of evolution . Mit Press, 2006

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic algorithms

Richard A Watson and Jordan B Pollack. “Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic algorithms” . In:Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406) . Vol. 2. IEEE. 1999, pp. 1406–1413

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection

Arne Traulsen and Martin A Nowak. “Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection” . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103.29 (2006), pp. 10952–10955

work page 2006

[7] [7]

The generalized Price equation: forces that change population statistics

Steven A Frank and William Godsoe. “The generalized Price equation: forces that change population statistics” . In:Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8 (2020), p. 240

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Cyclic and multilevel causation in evolutionary pro- cesses

Jonathan Warrell and Mark Gerstein. “Cyclic and multilevel causation in evolutionary pro- cesses” . In:Biology & Philosophy 35.5 (2020), p. 50

work page 2020