Evolution of extortion in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games

Iterated games are a fundamental component of economic and evolutionary game theory. They describe situations where two players interact repeatedly and have the ability to use conditional strategies that depend on the outcome of previous interactions, thus allowing for reciprocation. Recently, a new class of strategies has been proposed, so-called “zero-determinant” strategies. These strategies enforce a fixed linear relationship between one’s own payoff and that of the other player. A subset of those strategies allows “extortioners” to ensure that any increase in one player’s own payoff exceeds that of the other player by a fixed percentage. Here, we analyze the evolutionary performance of this new class of strategies. We show that in reasonably large populations, they can act as catalysts for the evolution of cooperation, similar to tit-for-tat, but that they are not the stable outcome of natural selection. In very small populations, however, extortioners hold their ground. Extortion strategies do particularly well in coevolutionary arms races between two distinct populations. Significantly, they benefit the population that evolves at the slower rate, an example of the so-called “Red King” effect. This may affect the evolution of interactions between host species and their endosymbionts.

[1]  R. Axelrod,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics , 2004 .

[2]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Stochastic evolutionary dynamics of direct reciprocity , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  M. Milinski TIT FOR TAT in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation , 1987, Nature.

[4]  M. Nowak,et al.  A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1993, Nature.

[5]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Red King effect: When the slowest runner wins the coevolutionary race , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  R. May More evolution of cooperation , 1987, Nature.

[7]  Jeff Gore,et al.  A SLOWLY EVOLVING HOST MOVES FIRST IN SYMBIOTIC INTERACTIONS , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  Al Young Providence, Rhode Island , 1975 .

[9]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations , 2004, Nature.

[10]  M. Nowak,et al.  Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations , 1992, Nature.

[11]  J. Hofbauer Deterministic Evolutionary Game Dynamics , 2011 .

[12]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  Essays in game theory and mathematical economics in honor of Oskar Morgenstern , 1981 .

[13]  Alexander J. Stewart,et al.  Extortion and cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Christian Hilbe,et al.  Local Replicator Dynamics: A Simple Link Between Deterministic and Stochastic Models of Evolutionary Game Theory , 2011, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[15]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information , 1986 .

[16]  Manfred Milinski,et al.  The Calculus of Selfishness , 2011 .

[17]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Equal Pay for All Prisoners , 1997 .

[18]  M. Nowak,et al.  Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Arend Hintze,et al.  Winning isn't everything: Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies , 2012 .

[20]  M. Nowak,et al.  The evolution of stochastic strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma , 1990 .

[21]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[22]  David G. Rand,et al.  Anti-social Punishment Can Prevent the Co-evolution of Punishment and Cooperation , 2010 .

[23]  R. Aumann Survey of Repeated Games , 1981 .

[24]  Marcus Frean The prisoner’s dilemma without synchrony , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Imitation Processes with Small Mutations , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[26]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary game dynamics in a Wright-Fisher process , 2006, Journal of mathematical biology.

[27]  C. Hauert,et al.  Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: a numerical approach , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Xin Yao,et al.  The Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma - 20 Years On , 2007, Advances in Natural Computation.

[29]  Marcus Frean,et al.  Adaptation and enslavement in endosymbiont-host associations. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  P. Taylor,et al.  Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics , 1978 .

[31]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Emergence of responsible sanctions without second order free riders, antisocial punishment or spite , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[32]  R. Trivers Reciprocal altruism: 30 years later , 2006 .

[33]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Evolution and Cooperation in Noisy Repeated Games , 1990 .

[34]  M. Doebeli,et al.  The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  M. Nowak,et al.  The Alternating Prisoner's Dilemma , 1994 .

[36]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[37]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Tit-for-tat or win-stay, lose-shift? , 2007, Journal of theoretical biology.

[38]  W. Press,et al.  Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Sabin Lessard,et al.  Effective Game Matrix and Inclusive Payoff in Group-Structured Populations , 2011, Dyn. Games Appl..