Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28384156›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

How evolution learns to generalise: Using the principles of learning theory to understand the evolution of developmental organisation.

Kostas Kouvaris, Jeff Clune, Loizos Kounios, Markus Brede, Richard A Watson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Heuristically Adaptive Diffusion-Model Evolutionary Strategy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. The variability of evolvability: Properties of dynamic fitness landscapes determine how phenotypic variability evolves.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Implications From the Analogous Relationship Between Evolutionary and Learning Processes.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Variability in Neural Circuit Formation.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kostas KouvarisECS, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jeff CluneUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, United States of America.
Loizos KouniosECS, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9133-9178
Markus BredeECS, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Richard A WatsonECS, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most intriguing questions in evolution is how organisms exhibit suitable phenotypic variation to rapidly adapt in novel selective environments. Such variability is crucial for evolvability, but poorly understood. In particular, how can natural selection favour developmental organisations that facilitate adaptive evolution in previously unseen environments? Such a capacity suggests foresight that is incompatible with the short-sighted concept of natural selection. A potential resolution is provided by the idea that evolution may discover and exploit information not only about the particular phenotypes selected in the past, but their underlying structural regularities: new phenotypes, with the same underlying regularities, but novel particulars, may then be useful in new environments. If true, we still need to understand the conditions in which natural selection will discover such deep regularities rather than exploiting 'quick fixes' (i.e., fixes that provide adaptive phenotypes in the short term, but limit future evolvability). Here we argue that the ability of evolution to discover such regularities is formally analogous to learning principles, familiar in humans and machines, that enable generalisation from past experience. Conversely, natural selection that fails to enhance evolvability is directly analogous to the learning problem of over-fitting and the subsequent failure to generalise. We support the conclusion that evolving systems and learning systems are different instantiations of the same algorithmic principles by showing that existing results from the learning domain can be transferred to the evolution domain. Specifically, we show that conditions that alleviate over-fitting in learning systems successfully predict which biological conditions (e.g., environmental variation, regularity, noise or a pressure for developmental simplicity) enhance evolvability. This equivalence provides access to a well-developed theoretical framework from learning theory that enables a characterisation of the general conditions for the evolution of evolvability.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionMachine LearningModels, BiologicalSelection, GeneticComputational BiologyEnvironmentHumansLearningPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID28384156
PMCPMC5383015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.