Direct Reciprocity in Spatial Populations Enhances R-Reciprocity As Well As ST-Reciprocity

Kohei Miyaji; Jun Tanimoto; Zhen Wang; Aya Hagishima; Naoki Ikegaya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071961

Abstract

As is well-known, spatial reciprocity plays an important role in facilitating the emergence of cooperative traits, and the effect of direct reciprocity is also obvious for explaining the cooperation dynamics. However, how the combination of these two scenarios influences cooperation is still unclear. In the present work, we study the evolution of cooperation in 2×2 games via considering both spatial structured populations and direct reciprocity driven by the strategy with 1-memory length. Our results show that cooperation can be significantly facilitated on the whole parameter plane. For prisoner's dilemma game, cooperation dominates the system even at strong dilemma, where maximal social payoff is still realized. In this sense, R-reciprocity forms and it is robust to the extremely strong dilemma. Interestingly, when turning to chicken game, we find that ST-reciprocity is also guaranteed, through which social average payoff and cooperation is greatly enhanced. This reciprocity mechanism is supported by mean-field analysis and different interaction topologies. Thus, our study indicates that direct reciprocity in structured populations can be regarded as a more powerful factor for the sustainability of cooperation.

Citation: Miyaji K, Tanimoto J, Wang Z, Hagishima A, Ikegaya N (2013) Direct Reciprocity in Spatial Populations Enhances R-Reciprocity As Well As ST-Reciprocity. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961

Editor: Matjaz Perc, University of Maribor, Slovenia

Received: June 18, 2013; Accepted: July 6, 2013; Published: August 7, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Miyaji et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by JSPS #23651156. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

One major question in evolutionary biology and social science is to understand the emergence of cooperative traits and their sustenance under the pressure of free-rider. To explain the ubiquitous cooperation, a theoretical framework that has shed some light on this long-standing problem is the evolutionary game theory [1]–[3]. In particular, a simple, paradigmatic model, prisoner's dilemma game (PD), where two individuals simultaneously decide to adopt one of two strategies: cooperation (C) and defection (D), has attracted tremendous attention from both theoretical and experimental studies [4], [5]. When populations play the prisoner's dilemma game in the well-mixed case, this setup does not support the organization of cooperative dynamics. Over the past decides, a great number of scenarios have been identified that can offset an unfavorable outcome of social dilemmas and lead to the evolution of cooperation [6]–[10]. Whereas, Nowak attributed all these to five scenarios: kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, network reciprocity, and group selection [11], which, comparing with the so-called well-mixed situation, can be somewhat related to the reduction of an opposing player's anonymity.

Among the five scenarios, network reciprocity, where players are arranged on the spatially structured topology and interact only with their direct neighbors, has attracted the greatest interest [12], because cooperators can survive by means of forming compact clusters which minimize the exploitation from defectors and protect those cooperators that are located in the interior of such clusters. Along this seminal idea, the role of spatial structure, and its various underlying variance in evolutionary games, have been intensively explored (see [13], [14] for a recent review). In addition, scientists also find that the strategy updating rule and dynamics on spatial topology also take a significant impact on the evolution of cooperation [15]–[28]. Let us mention a couple of typical examples. In recent research works [29]–[33], where players were allowed to adjust their strategy based on diverse learning ability or aspiration to fittest opponent, the prevalence of cooperative behavior even under large temptation to defect was observed. In [34] it was reported that the replicator dynamics could lead to an outbreak of cooperation on complex network, even if the conditions did not necessarily favor the spreading of cooperators. It was promising, furthermore, strategy update rules as well as update dynamics were more influence on the evolution of cooperation than the network topology alone [35], [36]. In [37], [38], allowing weight into evaluation of individual fitness, cooperation was also largely enhanced.

Interestingly, except for the above studies mostly focusing on the prisoner's dilemma game (PD), other paradigmatic settings have also been explored on top of spatial topology [39]–[44]. Of particular renown are the investigations of chicken game (CH) (or snowdrift game (SD)) [45], where the best action for individual relies on the choice of your opponent: to defect (cooperate) if the other cooperates (defects). Such a case finally leads to the coexistence of cooperators and defectors, namely, the state of ST-reciprocity [46], which is preferable to maximize population payoff than R-reciprocity [47], [48], [49]. To explain the social cooperative behaviors in this game, many different proposals aimed at sustaining cooperation were suggested and investigated. Examples include continuous strategy [50] multi-person interaction [51], stochastic noise in the payoff [52], teaching activity [53], [54], mobility [55]–[57], memory [41] and fitness evaluation [58], to name but a few.

In spite of the relative body of work that has been accumulated in the past years, the study for supporting cooperation traits is usually separated with the framework of prisoner's dilemma game (PD) or chicken game (CH). The situation of resolving the social dilemma in both games remains less explored [59], because an effective approach in one game may not provide a way for cooperation to survive in other game. Moreover, in realistic society, the type of dilemma is variable and more complex, how to constitute a universal protocol facilitating cooperation becomes highly necessary and meaningful. Inspired by all these, in the present work, we introduce the mixed strategy with 1-memory length into the different spatial game classes to study the evolution of cooperation, where both network reciprocity and direct reciprocity induced by the memory are suggested. We explore whether cooperation is sustained, especially for prisoner's dilemma game (PD) and chicken game (CH). Our results show that cooperation is actually promoted under such a protocol. In the remainder of this paper we will first describe the considered evolutionary games, subsequently, we will present the main results, and finally we will summarize our conclusions.

Model

We consider 2×2 game as the archetype. In order to depart from the traditional setup of spatial social dilemma games, we introduce strategy profile to each player, where is the probability that player i will cooperate with player j if agent j was a cooperator in the last step, while is the probability that player i will cooperate with player j when player j defected in the anterior step. Interestingly, 1-length memory is assumed for each player to store the opponent's previous strategy, and it can be, to some extent, considered as a type of mixed strategy game with 1-memory length. In a typical game, two players simultaneously decide whether they wish to cooperate or defect. If both cooperate (defect) they receive the reward R (the punishment P). If, however, one player chooses cooperation while the other defects, the latter gets the temptation T and the former is left with the sucker's payoff S. For simplicity, the standard scaled parameterization entails designating R = 1 and P = 0 as fixed, while the remaining two payoffs can be occupied −1≤S≤1 and 0≤T≤2. Thus, if T>R>P>S we have prisoner's dilemma game (PD), T>R>S>P yields chicken game (CH) (or snowdrift game (SD)), and R>T>P>S belongs to stag-hunt game (SH), as schematically presented in Fig. 1(a). Without loss of generality, the payoff parameterization can also been denoted by the stag-hunt-type dilemma D_r = P−S and the chicken-type dilemma D_g = T−R as follows [48], [60], (1)

Download:

Figure 1. Schematic presentation for fraction of cooperators

in well-mixed populations derived by replicator dynamics.

(a) is illustrated by T-S parameter plane, and (b) is illustrated by D_g-D_r parameter plane, where PD, CH, SH and H denote prisoner's dilemma game, chicken game, stag-hunt game and harmony game, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g001

Correspondingly, we have the prisoner's dilemma game (PD) if and, the chicken game (CH) if and , the stag-hunt game (SH) if and (see fig. 1(b)).

Throughout this work each player i is initially designated either as a cooperator (C) or defector (D) with equal probability, and is also assigned the parameter value S = (p, q) to the interval [0, 1]. This setting is performed uniformly irrespective of its initial strategy and remains unchanged during the simulations. As the interaction network, we use either the regular square lattice or random regular graph (RRG) constructed as described in [61]. At each Monte Carlo step (MCS), defined as the amount of time, on average, each player has a chance to update its strategy once. The updating procedure comprises the following elementary steps. First, a randomly chosen player i earns its payoff by playing the game with all its four neighbors. Then, we evaluate in the same way the payoffs of all the neighbors of player i. At last, player i adopts the strategy from the selected player j with the probability (2)where K denotes the amplitude of noise [62]. The effect of noise on the cooperation in the spatial game has been studied in detail in previous work [63]. Since this issue goes beyond the purpose of the present work, in all our following studies, we simply fix the value of K to be K = 0.5.

The results of Monte Carlo simulations presented below are obtained for lattices with 100² individuals, and the average fraction of cooperators , that is, the number of cooperators divided by , is determined by the average within the last 2000 steps out of the total 2×10⁵ MCS. Moreover, since the random distributions of p and q may introduce additional disturbances, the final results are averaged over up to 100 independent runs for each set of parameter values in order to assure suitable accuracy.

Results and Discussion

We start by presenting the color map encoding the final fraction of cooperation , strategy profile p and q on the D_g-D_r parameter plane in Figure 2. It is obvious, compared with the solution of well-mixed population shown in Figure 1, cooperative behavior drastically enhances in our setting. Even under the case of strong dilemma D_g = D_r = 1 (PD region), where mutual defection dominates in the traditional scenario, almost complete cooperation can be observed. In this sense, the prosperity of cooperative behavior suggests the formation of R-reciprocity, where the best choice to maximize social profit is that all players become cooperators to obtain R in prisoner's dilemma game [46], [48], [49]. Moreover, it is interesting to focus on the strategy profile parameters. p reaches nearly 1 besides the top left corner of CH, while q differs according to the exposed dilemma strength and gradually gets close to 0 when the chicken-type dilemma D_g exceeds 0. Based on these facts, the elucidation for the high level of cooperation is explicit that the defined strategies in our model can be regarded as the mixed strategies, which effectively help cooperators to weaken defector attacks. Naturally, such a feedback mechanism causes the preference of cooperation with a defector (i.e., the value of q) fast decreasing. Thus, we argue when stochasticity is introduced in the decision making process, the evolution of cooperation thrives.

Download:

Figure 2. Color map depicting (a) fraction of cooperation

, (b) p, and (c) q on the D_g-D_r parameter plane.

Obviously, in the top left corner of CH where D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) is satisfied (surrounded by black dotted line), incomplete cooperation is emerged (namely, the so-called ST-reciprocity [46]), which can lead to high payoff than the case of complete cooperation (the so-called R-reciprocity [47]).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g002

In order to explain the promotive impact of mixed strategy (caused by memory) on the evolution of cooperation, we examine the evolution process of cooperation fraction , strategy profile p and q. Figure 3 features results obtained for D_g = D_r = 1, whereat the corresponding behavioral snapshots are shown as well (see Fig. 3(b)-C). Interestingly, as observed in the traditional version [29], [30], [62], [64], in the early stages of the evolutionary process, it appears as if defectors would actually fare better than cooperators. This is actually in agreement with what one would expect, given that defectors are, as individuals, more successful than cooperators and will thus be chosen more likely as potential strategy donors. At the same time, we can observe that the values of p and q decrease. However, the tide changes fast, as one can observe from the presented time series, the individuals with high p value start to form compact clusters (see the Fig. 3(b)-A), which, to large extent, helps more agents choose cooperation to resist the disadvantageous environment. Under the guidance of such a direct reciprocity proposal, the few remaining clusters of cooperators start recovering lost ground against expended defectors. More crucial is the fact that the clusters formed by these cooperators are impervious to defector attacks again, which can obtain sufficient attestation through the extremely low q value. In a sea of cooperators another cooperator rather than a defector always tries to penetrate into the clusters. Thus, we validate our argument that the feedback mechanism driven by direct reciprocity scenario halts and transfers the march of defectors to the undisputed decay. This newly identified mechanism eventually leads to the widespread cooperation that goes beyond what can be warranted by the spatial reciprocity alone [48], [49].

Download:

Figure 3. (a) Time courses for the evolution of cooperation and strategy profile p, q at Dg = Dr = 1.

(b) The corresponding snapshots for the corresponding evolution course. (b)-A shows parameter p; (b)-B shows parameter q and the behaviors of cooperators (C, white) or defectors (D, black) are presented in the panel of (b)-C. For these snapshots, the time steps from left to right are 0, 20, 60, 100, 300 and 700, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g003

Next, it is interesting to focus on the evolution of cooperation in chicken game (CH). One notable character is that the complete cooperation phase (namely, ) is still not observed in the upper half part of CH (surrounded by dotted line in Fig.2(a)) even if both memory and spatial topology are implemented. What happens in the game? Here, to obtain more payoff, ST-reciprocity becomes more meaningful than R-reciprocity when the condition D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) is satisfied. In what follows, we will systematically examine the validity of this claim.

To quantify the vantage of maintaining ST-reciprocity in chicken game (CH), we first calculate the expected payoff via the mean-field approximation. Assuming the cooperation fraction at equilibrium as , then the expected payoff for each individual should be (3)

According to the above expression, we can further obtain the maximal payoff and the corresponding cooperation fraction resulting in this maximal payoff (4)and

(5)Figure 4 illustrates how the expected payoff obtained by playing games with four neighbors varies as a function of cooperation fraction when assuming D_g = −D_r = 1. Obviously, can maximize the average social payoff in the population, because the expected payoff is a quadratic function curve for the fraction of cooperation. We also confirm that when the spatial structure is introduced, the final distribution of agents' strategies is homogeneous at equilibrium (due to the fact that the continuous value is permitted as strategy profile). Thus, the discussion about mean-field approximation is still valid in spatial structure. Substituting D_g = −D_r = x into both Eqs. (4) and (5), we obtain the maximum payoff and the corresponding cooperation fraction as follows, (6) (7)

Download:

Figure 4. Expected payoff

as a function for fraction of cooperation

at D_g = −D_r = 1, which is obtained by applying mean-field approximation approach.

It is a quadratic function curve. Therefore, there is a cooperation fraction to guarantee the highest expected payoff . For example, in the Fig. 4, best social payoff (exceeding 4R) is supported by (indicated by dotted line.).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g004

We need to particularly note that these formulas are only valid for D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T), because this limitation guarantees ST-reciprocity becoming more meaningful (to obtain higher payoff) than R-reciprocity. Figure 5 features the comparison between the theoretical analysis and the simulation result. It is evident that the average payoff under simulation is close to the theoretical maximum payoff. Moreover, because of the well-known claim that spatial topology may inhibit the evolution of cooperation in the chicken game (CH) (or snowdrift game (SD)) [45], it becomes of interest to explore the ST-reciprocity. We can observe, under the joint impact of spatial interaction topology and direct reciprocity driven by memory, that efficient ST-reciprocity (that exceeding R-reciprocity) can be maintained.

Download:

Figure 5. Comparison between simulation results and analytical solutions derived by mean-field approximation approach in chicken game (CH).

Solid line (Pay_max) and dotted line (ρc_max) show maximum payoff and the corresponding cooperation fraction for analysis, respectively. Triangles (Pay) and squares (ρc) show simulation results for maximal payoff and the corresponding cooperation fraction. Diamonds (ρc_tr) show simulation results on square lattice when traditional discrete strategy setting is used.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g005

An important remaining question is to examine the universality of mixed strategy implemented by two parameters within different topology and neighborhoods. Results presented in Fig. 6 depict how cooperators and the average payoff fare on the random regular graph (RRG). Similarly as Fig. 2(a), it can be observed, when the condition Dg>Dr+1 is satisfied, that cooperators perform significantly better than the well-mixed case yet can not reach the complete dominance. While for the average payoff, strikingly, we can observe that it becomes more profitable than the state of full cooperation, which proves the existence of ST-reciprocity once again. This is in the qualitative agreement with the observations made on the square lattice, indicating that direct reciprocity in spatial populations is universally effective in promoting the evolution of cooperation and enhancing ST-reciprocity, irrespective of the underlying interaction networks. In addition, we can observe that, with the increment of neighborhood, cooperation fraction will decay and corresponding average payoff becomes lower, which is consistent with previous prediction of mean field approximation [65]. Lastly, it is instructive to explore how the cooperation evolves under extremely strong dilemma. Figure 7 shows the cooperation behaviors and strategy profile p, q as a function of D_g value. Strikingly, full cooperation dominance state can be maintained even for D_g>1, which further supports the fact that the newly introduced scenario about the reciprocity in spatial topology boosts the R-reciprocity and is generally valid for strong dilemma. When D_g is sufficiently large (namely, D_g>1.8), the cooperation level within the system starts to decline slowly, and p possess the similar tendency with the changing of ρ_c (note that the downfall of q is particularly obvious in the weak dilemma region and its value approximates to 0 for extremely strong dilemma). Thus, direct reciprocity in spatial populations, i.e., the propensity of individual cooperation with the opponent according to previous performance, can be seen as a universally applicable promoter of cooperation for different dilemma games.

Download:

Figure 6. (a) fraction of cooperation

and (b) average payoff when random regular graph (RRG) is employed as the interaction network topology.

For comparison, the theoretically predicted maximum payoff and its cooperation fraction (dashed line, denoted by “Max”) are depicted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g006

Download:

Figure 7. Fraction of cooperation

and strategy parameters, p and q in dependence on dilemma strength.

Obviously, cooperative behavior can be remained even under extremely strong dilemma structure when both memory length and the network are assumed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071961.g007

Conclusion

We have presented a new framework of direct reciprocity on spatial populations in 2×2 games, where two strategy profile parameters p and q are taken into account. By means of extensive simulations, we have found, to maximize social efficiency, that agents alternatively change their strategies according to the difference of exposed dilemma structure, which is even effective under the strong dilemma structure. Compared with the case of spatial reciprocity alone [36], it is interesting that complete cooperative phase can be maintained till extremely strong dilemma structure in prisoner's dilemma game (PD). The elucidation for the promotion of cooperation can be attributed to a feedback mechanism: the survival cooperators not only induce a collective resistance against the invasion of defectors, but importantly accelerate the formation of extremely robust clusters of cooperators, where they are more likely to be regarded as the potential strategy donors and surrounded by more followers. In this sense, the area of R-reciprocity extensively increases (i.e., players still choose mutual cooperation for obtaining R in strong dilemma). Moreover, another interesting finding is that although cooperation trait cannot reach the perfect state in the region D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) of chicken game (CH), ST-reciprocity can be guaranteed (i.e., alternatively obtaining S and T is more profitable than mutual cooperation), which is robust to the network topology. Through mean-field analysis, we have also proved that social average payoff has maximum value in this particular area. Therefore, the direct reciprocity in spatial populations can be regarded as a universally applicable promoter of cooperation irrespective of the evolutionary games. We hope that it will inspire future studies, especially in terms of the solution of some realistic social puzzles via a co-evolutionary process [14].

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: KM JT ZW AH NI. Performed the experiments: KM JT ZW AH NI. Analyzed the data: KM JT ZW AH NI. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: KM JT ZW AH NI. Wrote the paper: KM JT ZW AH NI.

References

1. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Nowak MA (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Axelrod R (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
4. Chen XJ, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2012) Risk-driven migration and the collective-risk social dilemma. Phys Rev E 80: 036101.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Carlos GL, Alfredo F, Gonzalo R, Alfonso T, Jose AC, et al. (2012) Heterogeneous networks do not promote cooperation when humans play a prisoner's dilemma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 12922–12926.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Wang Z, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2012) If players are sparse social dilemmas are too: Importance of percolation for evolution of cooperation. Sci Rep 2: 369.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Wu ZX, Rong ZH, Holme P (2009) Diversity of reproduction time scale promotes cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma games. Phys Rev E 80: 036103.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Du WB, Cao XB, Hu MB Wang WX (2009) Asymmetric cost in snowdrift game on scale-free networks. Europhys Lett 87: 60004.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Markus B (2011) Playing against the fittest: a simple strategy that promotes the emergence of cooperation. Europhys Lett 94: 30003.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Wang Z, Wang L, Yin ZY, Xia CY (2012) Inferring Reputation Promotes the Evolution of Cooperation in Spatial Social Dilemma Games. PLoS One 7: e40218.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Nowak MA (2006) Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Nowak MA, May RM (2007) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359: 826–829.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Szabo G, Fath G (2007) Evolutionary games on graphs. Phys Rep 446: 97–216.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Perc M, Szolnoki A (2010) Coevolutionary games–a mini review. BioSystems 99: 209–125.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Tanimoto J (2011) Influence of strategy adaptation speed on network reciprocity for evolutionary prisoner's dilemma games. Sociobiology 58: 1–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Kim BJ, Trusina A, Holme P, Minnhagen P, Chung JS, et al. (2002) Dynamic instabilities induced by asymmetric influence: Prisoners' dilemma game on small-world networks. Phys Rev E 66: 021907.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Vainstein MH, Arenzon JJ (2001) Disordered environments in spatial games. Phys Rev E 64: 051905.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Wang Z, Wang Z, Zhu X, Arenzon JJ (2012) Cooperation and age structure in spatial games. Phys Rev E 85: 011149.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Traulsen A, Pacheco JM, Nowak MA (2007) Pairwise comparison and selection temperature in evolutionary game dynamics. J Theor Biol 246: 522–529.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Roca CP, Cuesta JA, Sánchez A (2009) Imperfect imitation can enhance cooperation. Europhys Lett 87: 48005.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabó G (2010) Evolutionary establishment of moral and double moral standards through spatial interactions. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000758.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Santos FC, Pacheco JM, Lenaerts T (2006) Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS Comput Biol 2: e140.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Xia CY, Wang J, Wang L, Sun SW, Wang JS (2012) Role of update dynamics in the collective cooperation on the spatial snowdrift games: Beyond unconditional imitation and replicator dynamics. Chaos Solitons Fractals 45: 1239–1245.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Poncela J, Gomez-Gardenes J, Traulsen A, Pacheco JM (2009) Evolutionary game dynamics in a growing structured population. New J Phys 11: 083031.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabó G (2010) Punish, but not too hard: How costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game. New J Phys 12: 083005.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Pierre B, Marco T (2012) Evolution of cooperation on spatially embedded networks. Phys Rev E 86: 066107.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Tang CB, Xiang L, Lang C, Zhang JY (2012) The σ law of evolutionary dynamics in community-structure population. J Theor Biol 306: 1–6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Zhang HF, Yang HX, Du WB, Wang BH, Cao XB (2010) Evolutionary public goods games on scale-free networks with unequal payoff allocation mechanism. Physica A 389: 1099–1104.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Wang Z, Perc M (2010) Aspiring to the fittest and promoted of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. Phy Rev E 82: 021115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Perc M, Wang Z (2010) Heterogeneous aspiration promotes cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. PLoS One 5: e15117.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Tanimoto J, Nakata M, Hagishima A, Ikegaya N (2011) Spatially correlated heterogeneous aspirations to enhance network reciprocity. Physica A 391: 680–685.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Szolnoki A, Szabó G (2007) Cooperation enhanced by inhomogeneous activity of teaching for evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma games. Europhys Lett 77: 30004.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Zhang HF, Small M. Yang HX, Wang BH (2010) Adjusting learning motivation to promote cooperation. Physica A 389: 4734–4739.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Gómez-Gardeñes J, Campillo M, Floría LM, Moreno Y (2007) Dynamical organization of cooperation in complex networks. Phys Rev Lett 98: 108103.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Yamauchi A, Tanimoto J, Hagishima A (2010) What controls network reciprocity in the prisoner's dilemma game? BioSystems 102(2–3): 82–87.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Yamauchi A, Tanimoto J, Hagishima A (2011) An analysis of network reciprocity in Prisoner's Dilemma games using Full Factorial Designs of Experiment. BioSystems 103: 85–92.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Xia CY, Zhang J, Wang J, WangYL, Zhang H (2011) Enhancement of cooperation in prisoner's dilemma game on weighted lattices. Physica A 390(23–24): 4602.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Xia CY, Ma ZQ, Wang Z, Wang J (2012) Evaluating fitness by integrating the highest payoff within the neighborhood promotes the cooperation in social dilemmas. Physica A 391: 6400–6447.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Wang WX, Ren J, Chen GR, Wang BH (2006) A mutual attraction model for both assortative and disassortative weighted networks. Phys Rev E 74: 056113.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Sysi-Aho M, Saramaki J, Kertesz J, Kaski K (2005) Spatial snowdrift game with myopic agents. Eur Phys J B 44: 129–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Xia CY, Ma Z, Wang Y, Wang J, Chen ZQ (2011) Influence of vertex weight on cooperative behavior in a spatial snowdrift game. Phys Scripta 84: 025802.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Sinatra R, Iranzo J, Gómez-Gardeñes J, Florıa LM, Latora V, et al.. (2009) The Ultimatum Game in complex network. J Stat Mech P09012..
43. Xu ZJ, Wang Z, Zhang LZ (2010) Bounded rationality in volunteering public goods games. J Theor Biol 264: 19.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Wang Z, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2013) Interdependent network reciprocity in evolutionary games. Sci Rep 3: 1183.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Hauert C, Doebeli M (2004) Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 428: 643–646.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. ST-reciprocity: In region of Chicken game (CH) satisfying D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) (see Fig. 2), that all players become cooperator is not best way for maximizing social profit. In this area, mixed equilibrium state of both cooperators and defectors at certain level is the best to maximize the social profit. For example (see Fig. 4), when the mixed strategy and mean-field approximation is employed, we can observe that ρ_C = 0.75 is the best fraction of cooperators in D_g = −D_r = 1. We call this special relationship obtaining S and T in the area satisfying D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) as ST-reciprocity.
47. R-reciprocity: In prisoner's dilemma game (PD), the best choice to maximize social profit is that all players become cooperators to obtain R. This is the so-called state of the Equal Pareto Optimum in PD. We call the state as R-reciprocity.
48. Tanimoto J, Sagara H (2007) Relationship between dilemma occurrence and the existence of a weakly dominant strategy in a two-player symmetric game. BioSystems 90: 105–114.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Tanimoto J, Sagara H (2007) A study on emergence of alternating reciprocity in a 2×2 game with 2-length memory strategy. BioSystems 90: 728–737.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. McNamara JM, Barta Z, Fromhage L, Houston AI (2008) The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature 451: 189–192.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Zheng DF, Yin HP, Chan CH, Hui PM (2007) Cooperative behavior in a model of evolutionary snowdrift games with N-person interactions. Europhys Lett 80: 18002.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Perc M (2007) Uncertainties facilitate aggressive behavior in a spatial hawk-dove game. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 17: 4223.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Szolnoki A, Perc M (2008) Coevolution of teaching activity promotes cooperation. New J Phys 10: 043036.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Szolnoki A, Perc M (2009) Promoting cooperation in social dilemmas via simple coevolutionary rules. Eur Phys J B 67: 337–344.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Sicardi EA, Fort H, Vainstein MH Arenzon JJ (2009) Random mobility and spatial structure often enhance cooperation. J Theor Biol 256: 240–246.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Helbing D, Yu W (2009) The outbreak of cooperation among success-driven individuals under noisy conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 3680–3685.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Xia CY, Meloni S Moren Y (2012) Effects Of Environment Knowledge On Agglomeration And Cooperation In Spatial Public Goods Games. Adv Complex Syst 15: 1250056.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Wang Z, Du WB, Cao XB, Zhang LZ (2011) Integrating neighborhoods in the evaluation of fitness promotes cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game. Physica A 390: 1234–1239.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Szolnoki A, Xie NG, Wang C, Perc M (2011) Imitating emotions instead of strategies in spatial games elevates social welfare.Europhys lett. 96: 38002.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Shigaki K, Tanimoto J, Wang Z, Kokubo S, Hagishima A, et al. (2012) Referring to the social performance promotes cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma games. Phys Rev E 86: 031141.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Robinson RW, Wormald NC (1994) Almost all regular graphs are Hamiltonian. Random Structures Algorithms 5: 363–374.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Szabó G, Tőke C (1998) Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game on a square lattice. Phys Rev E 58: 69–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Szolnoki A, Szabó G, Perc M (2011) Phase diagrams for the spatial public goods game with pool punishment. Phys Rev E 83: 036101.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Brede M (2013) Short versus long term benefits and the evolution of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. PLoS One 8: e56016.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Tang CL, Wang WX, Wu X, Wang BH (2006) Effects of average degree on cooperation in networked evolutionary game. Eur Phys J B 53: 411–415.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[ref2] 2. Nowak MA (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[ref3] 3. Axelrod R (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

[ref4] 4. Chen XJ, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2012) Risk-driven migration and the collective-risk social dilemma. Phys Rev E 80: 036101.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Carlos GL, Alfredo F, Gonzalo R, Alfonso T, Jose AC, et al. (2012) Heterogeneous networks do not promote cooperation when humans play a prisoner's dilemma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 12922–12926.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Wang Z, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2012) If players are sparse social dilemmas are too: Importance of percolation for evolution of cooperation. Sci Rep 2: 369.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Wu ZX, Rong ZH, Holme P (2009) Diversity of reproduction time scale promotes cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma games. Phys Rev E 80: 036103.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Du WB, Cao XB, Hu MB Wang WX (2009) Asymmetric cost in snowdrift game on scale-free networks. Europhys Lett 87: 60004.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Markus B (2011) Playing against the fittest: a simple strategy that promotes the emergence of cooperation. Europhys Lett 94: 30003.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Wang Z, Wang L, Yin ZY, Xia CY (2012) Inferring Reputation Promotes the Evolution of Cooperation in Spatial Social Dilemma Games. PLoS One 7: e40218.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Nowak MA (2006) Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Nowak MA, May RM (2007) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359: 826–829.
View Article
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Szabo G, Fath G (2007) Evolutionary games on graphs. Phys Rep 446: 97–216.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Perc M, Szolnoki A (2010) Coevolutionary games–a mini review. BioSystems 99: 209–125.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Tanimoto J (2011) Influence of strategy adaptation speed on network reciprocity for evolutionary prisoner's dilemma games. Sociobiology 58: 1–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Kim BJ, Trusina A, Holme P, Minnhagen P, Chung JS, et al. (2002) Dynamic instabilities induced by asymmetric influence: Prisoners' dilemma game on small-world networks. Phys Rev E 66: 021907.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Vainstein MH, Arenzon JJ (2001) Disordered environments in spatial games. Phys Rev E 64: 051905.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Wang Z, Wang Z, Zhu X, Arenzon JJ (2012) Cooperation and age structure in spatial games. Phys Rev E 85: 011149.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Traulsen A, Pacheco JM, Nowak MA (2007) Pairwise comparison and selection temperature in evolutionary game dynamics. J Theor Biol 246: 522–529.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Roca CP, Cuesta JA, Sánchez A (2009) Imperfect imitation can enhance cooperation. Europhys Lett 87: 48005.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabó G (2010) Evolutionary establishment of moral and double moral standards through spatial interactions. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000758.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Santos FC, Pacheco JM, Lenaerts T (2006) Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS Comput Biol 2: e140.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Xia CY, Wang J, Wang L, Sun SW, Wang JS (2012) Role of update dynamics in the collective cooperation on the spatial snowdrift games: Beyond unconditional imitation and replicator dynamics. Chaos Solitons Fractals 45: 1239–1245.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Poncela J, Gomez-Gardenes J, Traulsen A, Pacheco JM (2009) Evolutionary game dynamics in a growing structured population. New J Phys 11: 083031.
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabó G (2010) Punish, but not too hard: How costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game. New J Phys 12: 083005.
View Article
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Pierre B, Marco T (2012) Evolution of cooperation on spatially embedded networks. Phys Rev E 86: 066107.
View Article
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Tang CB, Xiang L, Lang C, Zhang JY (2012) The σ law of evolutionary dynamics in community-structure population. J Theor Biol 306: 1–6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Zhang HF, Yang HX, Du WB, Wang BH, Cao XB (2010) Evolutionary public goods games on scale-free networks with unequal payoff allocation mechanism. Physica A 389: 1099–1104.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Wang Z, Perc M (2010) Aspiring to the fittest and promoted of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. Phy Rev E 82: 021115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Perc M, Wang Z (2010) Heterogeneous aspiration promotes cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. PLoS One 5: e15117.
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Tanimoto J, Nakata M, Hagishima A, Ikegaya N (2011) Spatially correlated heterogeneous aspirations to enhance network reciprocity. Physica A 391: 680–685.
View Article
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Szolnoki A, Szabó G (2007) Cooperation enhanced by inhomogeneous activity of teaching for evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma games. Europhys Lett 77: 30004.
View Article
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Zhang HF, Small M. Yang HX, Wang BH (2010) Adjusting learning motivation to promote cooperation. Physica A 389: 4734–4739.
View Article
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Gómez-Gardeñes J, Campillo M, Floría LM, Moreno Y (2007) Dynamical organization of cooperation in complex networks. Phys Rev Lett 98: 108103.
View Article
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Yamauchi A, Tanimoto J, Hagishima A (2010) What controls network reciprocity in the prisoner's dilemma game? BioSystems 102(2–3): 82–87.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Yamauchi A, Tanimoto J, Hagishima A (2011) An analysis of network reciprocity in Prisoner's Dilemma games using Full Factorial Designs of Experiment. BioSystems 103: 85–92.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Xia CY, Zhang J, Wang J, WangYL, Zhang H (2011) Enhancement of cooperation in prisoner's dilemma game on weighted lattices. Physica A 390(23–24): 4602.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Xia CY, Ma ZQ, Wang Z, Wang J (2012) Evaluating fitness by integrating the highest payoff within the neighborhood promotes the cooperation in social dilemmas. Physica A 391: 6400–6447.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Wang WX, Ren J, Chen GR, Wang BH (2006) A mutual attraction model for both assortative and disassortative weighted networks. Phys Rev E 74: 056113.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Sysi-Aho M, Saramaki J, Kertesz J, Kaski K (2005) Spatial snowdrift game with myopic agents. Eur Phys J B 44: 129–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Xia CY, Ma Z, Wang Y, Wang J, Chen ZQ (2011) Influence of vertex weight on cooperative behavior in a spatial snowdrift game. Phys Scripta 84: 025802.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Sinatra R, Iranzo J, Gómez-Gardeñes J, Florıa LM, Latora V, et al.. (2009) The Ultimatum Game in complex network. J Stat Mech P09012..

[ref43] 43. Xu ZJ, Wang Z, Zhang LZ (2010) Bounded rationality in volunteering public goods games. J Theor Biol 264: 19.
View Article
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Wang Z, Szolnoki A, Perc M (2013) Interdependent network reciprocity in evolutionary games. Sci Rep 3: 1183.
View Article
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Hauert C, Doebeli M (2004) Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 428: 643–646.
View Article
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. ST-reciprocity: In region of Chicken game (CH) satisfying D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) (see Fig. 2), that all players become cooperator is not best way for maximizing social profit. In this area, mixed equilibrium state of both cooperators and defectors at certain level is the best to maximize the social profit. For example (see Fig. 4), when the mixed strategy and mean-field approximation is employed, we can observe that ρ_C = 0.75 is the best fraction of cooperators in D_g = −D_r = 1. We call this special relationship obtaining S and T in the area satisfying D_g>D_r+1 (or 2R<S+T) as ST-reciprocity.

[ref47] 47. R-reciprocity: In prisoner's dilemma game (PD), the best choice to maximize social profit is that all players become cooperators to obtain R. This is the so-called state of the Equal Pareto Optimum in PD. We call the state as R-reciprocity.

[ref48] 48. Tanimoto J, Sagara H (2007) Relationship between dilemma occurrence and the existence of a weakly dominant strategy in a two-player symmetric game. BioSystems 90: 105–114.
View Article
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Tanimoto J, Sagara H (2007) A study on emergence of alternating reciprocity in a 2×2 game with 2-length memory strategy. BioSystems 90: 728–737.
View Article
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. McNamara JM, Barta Z, Fromhage L, Houston AI (2008) The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature 451: 189–192.
View Article
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Zheng DF, Yin HP, Chan CH, Hui PM (2007) Cooperative behavior in a model of evolutionary snowdrift games with N-person interactions. Europhys Lett 80: 18002.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Perc M (2007) Uncertainties facilitate aggressive behavior in a spatial hawk-dove game. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 17: 4223.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Szolnoki A, Perc M (2008) Coevolution of teaching activity promotes cooperation. New J Phys 10: 043036.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Szolnoki A, Perc M (2009) Promoting cooperation in social dilemmas via simple coevolutionary rules. Eur Phys J B 67: 337–344.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Sicardi EA, Fort H, Vainstein MH Arenzon JJ (2009) Random mobility and spatial structure often enhance cooperation. J Theor Biol 256: 240–246.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Helbing D, Yu W (2009) The outbreak of cooperation among success-driven individuals under noisy conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 3680–3685.
View Article
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Xia CY, Meloni S Moren Y (2012) Effects Of Environment Knowledge On Agglomeration And Cooperation In Spatial Public Goods Games. Adv Complex Syst 15: 1250056.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Wang Z, Du WB, Cao XB, Zhang LZ (2011) Integrating neighborhoods in the evaluation of fitness promotes cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game. Physica A 390: 1234–1239.
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Szolnoki A, Xie NG, Wang C, Perc M (2011) Imitating emotions instead of strategies in spatial games elevates social welfare.Europhys lett. 96: 38002.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Shigaki K, Tanimoto J, Wang Z, Kokubo S, Hagishima A, et al. (2012) Referring to the social performance promotes cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma games. Phys Rev E 86: 031141.
View Article
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Robinson RW, Wormald NC (1994) Almost all regular graphs are Hamiltonian. Random Structures Algorithms 5: 363–374.
View Article
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Szabó G, Tőke C (1998) Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game on a square lattice. Phys Rev E 58: 69–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Szolnoki A, Szabó G, Perc M (2011) Phase diagrams for the spatial public goods game with pool punishment. Phys Rev E 83: 036101.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Brede M (2013) Short versus long term benefits and the evolution of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. PLoS One 8: e56016.
View Article
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Tang CL, Wang WX, Wu X, Wang BH (2006) Effects of average degree on cooperation in networked evolutionary game. Eur Phys J B 53: 411–415.
View Article
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Model

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

Author Contributions

References