A stochastic neutral baseline for G-matrix orientation
A standard expectation:
\[ \mathbb E[\mathbf G_t]=\mathbf G_0 e^{-t/N_e} \]
So drift erodes heritable variation.
But because every entry shrinks proportionally,
\[ \rho\big(\mathbb E[\mathbf G_t]\big)=\rho(\mathbf G_0) \]


Question: does the typical realized population preserve \(\mathbf G\) orientation, or only the expectation?

Classical mean behavior is correct.
But individual populations follow paths.
For nonlinear summaries such as
\[ \rho_{ij}(\mathbf G)=\frac{G_{ij}}{\sqrt{G_{ii}G_{jj}}}, \]
\[ \mathbb E[\rho(\mathbf G_t)]\neq \rho(\mathbb E[\mathbf G_t]). \]

Drift is known to:
But quantitative-genetic theory usually describes drift on \(\mathbf G\) through an expectation.
That leaves no pathwise neutral model for \(\mathbf G\) orientation.
A diffusion approximation separates robust population-level ingredients from microscopic turnover details.
Individual turnover
births, deaths, mutation, reproductive variance
Measure-valued diffusion
trait distribution evolves stochastically in \(\mathbb R^d\)
Moment dynamics
\(n\), \(\bar{\mathbf z}\), \(\mathbf G\), and derived quantities
Retained macroscopic ingredients:
\[ \pink{m(\nu,\mathbf z)}\quad\text{growth / selection}, \qquad \lime{\mathbf M}\quad\text{mutation covariance}, \qquad \violet{v}\quad\text{reproductive variance}. \]
For one useful scaling,
\[ k\left[W^{1/k}(\mathcal P_t^{(k)},\mathbf z)-1\right] \longrightarrow m(\nu_t,\mathbf z). \]
Different individual-based models can share the same limit.
The point is not to keep every microscopic detail; it is to identify what survives at the population scale.
The same stochastic population process gives consistent dynamics for abundance, mean traits and covariance.
\[ \mathrm dn=\pink{\bar m n}\,\mathrm dt+\violet{\sqrt{vn}\,\mathrm dB_n} \]
\[ \mathrm d\bar{\mathbf z}=\pink{\mathrm{Cov}(m,\mathbf z)}\,\mathrm dt +\violet{\sqrt{\frac vn\mathbf P}\,\mathrm d\mathbf B_{\bar{\mathbf z}}} \]
\[\begin{multline} \mathrm d\mathbf P=\Big[\lime{\mathbf M}+\pink{\mathrm{Cov}\big(m,(\mathbf z-\bar{\mathbf z})(\mathbf z-\bar{\mathbf z})^\top\big)}\violet{-\frac vn\mathbf P}\Big]\,\mathrm dt \\ +\violet{\sqrt{\frac vn(\mathbf K-\mathbf P\otimes\mathbf P)}:\mathrm d\mathbf B_{\mathbf P}}. \end{multline}\]
This hierarchy is not closed in general.
Assume additive genetic values are multivariate normal and traits decompose as
\[ \mathbf z=\mathbf g+\mathbf e, \qquad \mathrm{Cov}(\mathbf z)=\mathbf G+\mathbf E. \]
Then the \(\mathbf G\) dynamics close as
\[\begin{multline} \mathrm d\mathbf G=igg[\lime{\mathbf M} +\pink{2\mathbf G(\nabla_{\mathbf G}\bar m-\overline{\nabla_{\mathbf G}m})\mathbf G} \violet{-\frac vn\mathbf G}\bigg]\,\mathrm dt \\ +\violet{\sqrt{\frac vn(\mathbf G\overline\otimes\mathbf G+ \mathbf G\underline\otimes\mathbf G)}:\mathrm d\mathbf B_{\mathbf G}}. \end{multline}\]
This is the part I need for a stochastic neutral model of \(\mathbf G\).
\[ \mathrm d\mathbf G= \violet{-\frac{1}{N_e}\mathbf G\,\mathrm dt} + \violet{\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_e} (\mathbf G\underline\otimes\mathbf G+\mathbf G\overline\otimes\mathbf G)}:\mathrm d\mathbf B} \]
where
\[ \frac{1}{N_e}=\frac vn, \qquad N_e=\frac nv. \]
Assumptions for this neutral baseline:
Apply Itô’s formula to
\[ \rho=f(\mathbf G)=\frac{G_{ij}}{\sqrt{G_{ii}G_{jj}}}. \]
The component form is
\[ \mathrm dG_{ij}= -\frac vnG_{ij}\,\mathrm dt +\sqrt{\frac vn\left(G_{ii}G_{jj}+G_{ij}^2\right)}\,\mathrm dB_{G_{ij}}. \]
The Brownian terms covary. The martingale version keeps those covariances correct while combining stochastic terms:
\[ a\,\mathrm d\mathcal M(x)+b\,\mathrm d\mathcal M(y) =\mathrm d\mathcal M(ax+by). \]
\[ \mathrm d\rho= \pink{-\frac{1}{2N_e}\rho(1-\rho^2)}\,\mathrm dt + \violet{\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_e}(1-\rho^2)}\,\mathrm dB}. \]


Under drift alone in this isolated neutral baseline, realized populations concentrate near extreme genetic correlations.
The Itô drift term points back toward zero:
\[ -\frac{1}{2N_e}\rho(1-\rho^2). \]
But the diffusion coefficient vanishes at the boundaries:
\[ \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_e}(1-\rho^2)}. \]
So the process spends increasing time near \(\rho=\pm1\).
Equivalently, with \(u=\operatorname{arctanh}(\rho)\),
\[ \mathrm du = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_e}}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}\,\mathrm dB, \]
which makes boundary-seeking behavior easier to see.
Classical expectation:
\[ \mathbb E[\mathbf G_t]=\mathbf G_0e^{-t/N_e} \]
Realized neutral paths:

The previous null is not wrong. It is an expectation-level null, not a pathwise null for orientation.


Explicit recombining extensions are still needed. But these data reinforce the need for a stochastic neutral orientation baseline.
Not just “moments are useful.”
The useful point is that \(n\), \(\bar{\mathbf z}\) and \(\mathbf G\) are derived from one stochastic population process, so their stochastic terms and cross-covariances are consistent.
That makes it possible to derive new stochastic dynamics for quantities such as
\[ \rho(\mathbf G),\qquad \bar m(n,\bar{\mathbf z},\mathbf G),\qquad \alpha(\bar{\mathbf z}_1,\bar{\mathbf z}_2), \]
rather than specifying noise terms ad hoc.
Drift contracts \(\mathbf G\) on average, but individual neutral paths can strongly alter orientation.
Genetic correlations tend toward \(\pm1\) in the isolated drift-only baseline.
A stochastic moment framework gives a reusable way to derive pathwise population-level models from underlying turnover.
Numerical implementations: github.com/bobweek/multi-mtgl
Steve Krone, Peter L. Ralph, Hinrich Schulenburg, Patrick C. Phillips, Arne Traulsen, Jonas Wickman, Brendan Bohannan




The framework is useful when a biological problem can be described through growth rates or fitness functions.
Ecological examples
\[ m(\nu,\mathbf z)=r-\tfrac12\mathbf z^\top\mathbf\Psi\mathbf z-cn \]
\[ m_i=r_i-\sum_j\alpha_{ij}n_j \]
Evolutionary examples
Numerical use:
github.com/bobweek/multi-mtgl.Analytical use:
\[\begin{align} \mathrm dn &= \bar m n\,\mathrm dt+\sqrt{vn}\,\mathrm dB_n,\\ \mathrm d\bar{\mathbf z} &= \mathbf G(\nabla_{\bar{\mathbf z}}\bar m-\overline{\nabla_{\bar{\mathbf z}}m})\,\mathrm dt +\sqrt{\frac vn\mathbf G}\,\mathrm d\mathbf B_{\bar{\mathbf z}},\\ \mathrm d\mathbf G &= \left[\mathbf M+2\mathbf G(\nabla_{\mathbf G}\bar m-\overline{\nabla_{\mathbf G}m})\mathbf G-\frac vn\mathbf G\right]\mathrm dt\\ &\qquad+\sqrt{\frac vn(\mathbf G\overline\otimes\mathbf G+\mathbf G\underline\otimes\mathbf G)}:\mathrm d\mathbf B_{\mathbf G}. \end{align}\]
The density animation is only a visualization.
The formal object is a measure-valued population process characterized by a martingale problem.
For a test function \(x\),
\[ \mathrm dN_t(x)=N_t(Lx)\,\mathrm dt+\mathrm d\mathcal M_t(x), \]
with quadratic covariation
\[ \mathrm d\mathcal M_t(x)\,\mathrm d\mathcal M_t(y) = v\,N_t(xy)\,\mathrm dt. \]
This is the source of the stochastic covariance structure in the moment equations.

\(v=\) reproductive variance
Higher \(v\) means stronger demographic stochasticity and stronger random genetic drift at fixed \(n\).
\(v>0\implies\) random genetic drift
