Cooperation in Networks Where the Learning Environment Differs from the Interaction Environment

We study the evolution of cooperation in a structured population, combining insights from evolutionary game theory and the study of interaction networks. In earlier studies it has been shown that cooperation is difficult to achieve in homogeneous networks, but that cooperation can get established relatively easily when individuals differ largely concerning the number of their interaction partners, such as in scale-free networks. Most of these studies do, however, assume that individuals change their behaviour in response to information they receive on the payoffs of their interaction partners. In real-world situations, subjects do not only learn from their interaction partners, but also from other individuals (e.g. teachers, parents, or friends). Here we investigate the implications of such incongruences between the ‘interaction network’ and the ‘learning network’ for the evolution of cooperation in two paradigm examples, the Prisoner's Dilemma game (PDG) and the Snowdrift game (SDG). Individual-based simulations and an analysis based on pair approximation both reveal that cooperation will be severely inhibited if the learning network is very different from the interaction network. If the two networks overlap, however, cooperation can get established even in case of considerable incongruence between the networks. The simulations confirm that cooperation gets established much more easily if the interaction network is scale-free rather than random-regular. The structure of the learning network has a similar but much weaker effect. Overall we conclude that the distinction between interaction and learning networks deserves more attention since incongruences between these networks can strongly affect both the course and outcome of the evolution of cooperation.

[1]  Zhi-Xi Wu,et al.  Cooperation enhanced by the difference between interaction and learning neighborhoods for evolutionary spatial prisoner's dilemma games. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[3]  Ángel Sánchez,et al.  Effect of spatial structure on the evolution of cooperation , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[5]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[6]  M. Perc,et al.  Social diversity and promotion of cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Coevolutionary Games - A Mini Review , 2009, Biosyst..

[8]  Jörgen W. Weibull,et al.  Evolutionary Game Theory , 1996 .

[9]  Thilo Gross,et al.  Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[10]  Margarita Ifti,et al.  Effects of neighbourhood size and connectivity on the spatial Continuous Prisoner's Dilemma. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  F. C. Santos,et al.  Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[12]  Takaya Arita,et al.  Evolution of cooperation on different combinations of interaction and replacement networks with various intensity of selection , 2011, Int. J. Bio Inspired Comput..

[13]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[14]  A. Griffin,et al.  Evolutionary Explanations for Cooperation , 2007, Current Biology.

[15]  Ángel Sánchez,et al.  Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics , 2009, Physics of life reviews.

[16]  G. Szabó,et al.  Cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma with two types of players for increasing number of neighbors. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Restricted connections among distinguished players support cooperation. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  H. Ohtsuki,et al.  Breaking the symmetry between interaction and replacement in evolutionary dynamics on graphs. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[19]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[20]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs: Notation , 2001 .

[21]  A. Gardner,et al.  Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans , 2011 .

[22]  C. Hauert,et al.  Game theory and physics , 2005 .

[23]  Michael Doebeli,et al.  Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game , 2004, Nature.

[24]  T. Chu,et al.  The evolution of cooperation in spatial groups , 2011 .

[25]  D. Heckathorn The dynamics and dilemmas of collective action , 1996 .

[26]  C. Hauert,et al.  Models of cooperation based on the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Snowdrift game , 2005 .

[27]  Martin A Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary graph theory: breaking the symmetry between interaction and replacement. , 2007, Journal of theoretical biology.

[28]  M. Nowak Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation , 2006, Science.

[29]  Guangming Xie,et al.  Effects of encounter in a population of spatial prisoner's dilemma players. , 2011, Theoretical population biology.