Evolution of cooperation by phenotypic similarity

The emergence of cooperation in populations of selfish individuals is a fascinating topic that has inspired much work in theoretical biology. Here, we study the evolution of cooperation in a model where individuals are characterized by phenotypic properties that are visible to others. The population is well mixed in the sense that everyone is equally likely to interact with everyone else, but the behavioral strategies can depend on distance in phenotype space. We study the interaction of cooperators and defectors. In our model, cooperators cooperate with those who are similar and defect otherwise. Defectors always defect. Individuals mutate to nearby phenotypes, which generates a random walk of the population in phenotype space. Our analysis brings together ideas from coalescence theory and evolutionary game dynamics. We obtain a precise condition for natural selection to favor cooperators over defectors. Cooperation is favored when the phenotypic mutation rate is large and the strategy mutation rate is small. In the optimal case for cooperators, in a one-dimensional phenotype space and for large population size, the critical benefit-to-cost ratio is given by b/c=1+2/3. We also derive the fundamental condition for any two-strategy symmetric game and consider high-dimensional phenotype spaces.

[1]  S. Wright,et al.  Evolution in Mendelian Populations. , 1931, Genetics.

[2]  W. Hamilton.  The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  D. Byrne.  Attitudes and Attraction , 1969 .

[4]  George R. Price,et al.  Selection and Covariance , 1970, Nature.

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

[6]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[7]  J. M. Smith,et al.  The Logic of Animal Conflict , 1973, Nature.

[8]  G. Parker,et al.  Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. , 1974, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  L. Nahemow,et al.  Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. , 1975 .

[10]  P. Moran,et al.  Wandering distributions and the electrophoretic profile. II. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[11]  Wandering distributions and the electrophoretic profile. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[12]  J M Smith,et al.  Evolution and the theory of games , 1976 .

[13]  John Frank Charles Kingman,et al.  Coherent random walks arising in some genetical models , 1976, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[14]  B. Bainbridge,et al.  Genetics , 1981, Experientia.

[15]  D. E. Matthews.  Evolution and the Theory of Games , 1977 .

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

[17]  R. May,et al.  Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[19]  N. Kampen,et al.  Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry , 1981 .

[20]  L. Segel,et al.  Models of the influence of predation on aspect diversity in prey populations , 1982, Journal of mathematical biology.

[21]  J. Kingman.  On the genealogy of large populations , 1982, Journal of Applied Probability.

[22]  R. Dawkins.  The Extended Phenotype , 1982 .

[23]  Lee A. Segel,et al.  PATTERN GENERATION IN SPACE AND ASPECT. , 1985 .

[24]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary games and spatial chaos , 1992, Nature.

[25]  Robert M. May,et al.  Species coexistence and self-organizing spatial dynamics , 1994, Nature.

[26]  R. Durrett,et al.  The Importance of Being Discrete (and Spatial) , 1994 .

[27]  W. Ebeling.  Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry , 1995 .

[28]  A. Colman.  Game Theory and its Applications: In the Social and Biological Sciences , 1995 .

[29]  D. Haig,et al.  Gestational drive and the green-bearded placenta. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  M N,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation in a Lattice-Structured Population , 1996 .

[31]  M. Doebeli,et al.  Spatial evolutionary game theory: Hawks and Doves revisited , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  B. Sinervo,et al.  The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies , 1996, Nature.

[33]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  The evolution of cooperation in a lattice-structured population. , 1997, Journal of theoretical biology.

[34]  Ilan Eshel,et al.  The emergence of kinship behavior in structured populations of unrelated individuals , 1999, Int. J. Game Theory.

[35]  Claudia Neuhauser,et al.  An explicitly spatial version of the Lotka-Volterra model with interspecific competition , 1999 .

[36]  S. Nee.  Mutualism, parasitism and competition in the evolution of coviruses. , 2000, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[37]  J. Mateo,et al.  Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[38]  S. Redner.  A guide to first-passage processes , 2001 .

[39]  R. Riolo,et al.  Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity , 2001, Nature.

[40]  M A Nowak,et al.  Evolution: Tides of tolerance , 2001, Nature.

[41]  Laurent Lehmann,et al.  Altruism, Dispersal, and Phenotype‐Matching Kin Recognition , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[42]  György Szabó,et al.  Phase transitions and volunteering in spatial public goods games. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[43]  M. Feldman,et al.  Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors , 2002, Nature.

[44]  François Rousset,et al.  A minimal derivation of convergence stability measures. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[45]  R. Cressman.  Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games , 2003 .

[46]  Barry Sinervo,et al.  SOCIALLY MEDIATED SPECIATION , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[47]  H. Whitehead,et al.  Single-Gene Greenbeard Effects in the Social Amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum , 2003 .

[48]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Single-Gene Greenbeard Effects in the Social Amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum , 2003, Science.

[49]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Minimal model for tag-based cooperation. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[50]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics of Biological Games , 2004, Science.

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

[52]  Ross A Hammond,et al.  ALTRUISM VIA KIN‐SELECTION STRATEGIES THAT RELY ON ARBITRARY TAGS WITH WHICH THEY COEVOLVE , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[53]  J. Burger,et al.  What a Coincidence! The Effects of Incidental Similarity on Compliance , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[54]  T. Vincent,et al.  Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics: The Darwinian game , 2005 .

[55]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolution of indirect reciprocity , 2005, Nature.

[56]  A. Lizé,et al.  Kin discrimination and altruism in the larvae of a solitary insect , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[57]  Jean Clobert,et al.  Self-recognition, color signals, and cycles of greenbeard mutualism and altruism. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[59]  F. C. Santos,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  V. Jansen,et al.  Altruism through beard chromodynamics , 2006, Nature.

[61]  H. Ohtsuki,et al.  A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks , 2006, Nature.

[62]  Ross A. Hammond,et al.  Evolution of contingent altruism when cooperation is expensive. , 2006, Theoretical population biology.

[63]  J. Fletcher.  Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics , 2006, Journal of Mammalian Evolution.

[64]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Chromodynamics of Cooperation in Finite Populations , 2007, PloS one.

[65]  A. Gardner,et al.  Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition , 2007, Current Biology.

[66]  Peter D. Taylor,et al.  Evolution of cooperation in a finite homogeneous graph , 2007, Nature.

[67]  F. Rousset,et al.  CONSTRAINTS ON THE ORIGIN AND MAINTENANCE OF GENETIC KIN RECOGNITION , 2007, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[68]  J. Wakeley.  Coalescent Theory: An Introduction , 2008 .

[69]  K. Foster,et al.  FLO1 Is a Variable Green Beard Gene that Drives Biofilm-like Cooperation in Budding Yeast , 2008, Cell.

[70]  Pat Barclay,et al.  A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good , 2008 .

[71]  APPENDIX FOR “EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION BY PHENOTYPIC SIMILARITY” , 2009 .

[72]  S. Branje,et al.  The role of music preferences in early adolescents' friendship formation and stability. , 2009, Journal of adolescence.

[73]  David G. Rand,et al.  Dynamic remodeling of in-group bias during the 2008 presidential election , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[74]  Joseph Lipka,et al.  A Table of Integrals , 2010 .