Chromodynamics of Cooperation in Finite Populations

Background The basic idea of tag-based models for cooperation is that individuals recognize each other via arbitrary signals, so-called tags. If there are tags of different colors, then cooperators can always establish new signals of recognition. The resulting “chromodynamics” is a mechanism for the evolution of cooperation. Cooperators use a secret tag until they are discovered by defectors who then destroy cooperation based on this tag. Subsequently, a fraction of the population manages to establish cooperation based on a new tag. Methodology/Principal Findings We derive a mathematical description of stochastic evolutionary dynamics of tag-based cooperation in populations of finite size. Benefit and cost of cooperation are given by b and c. We find that cooperators are more abundant than defectors if b/c > 1+2u/v, where u is the mutation rate changing only the strategy and v is the mutation rate changing strategy and tag. We study specific assumptions for u and v in two genetic models and one cultural model. Conclusions/Significance In a genetic model, tag-based cooperation only evolves if a gene encodes both strategy and tag. In a cultural model with equal mutation rates between all possible phenotypes (tags and behaviors), the crucial condition is b/c > (K+1)/(K−1), where K is the number of tags. A larger number of tags requires a smaller benefit-to-cost ratio. In the limit of many different tags, the condition for cooperators to have a higher average abundance than defectors becomes b > c.

[1]  S. A. Levin,et al.  Global cooperation achieved through small behavioral changes among strangers , 2000, Complex..

[2]  B. Crespi,et al.  Cadherins in maternal–foetal interactions: red queen with a green beard? , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[4]  L. V. Valen,et al.  A new evolutionary law , 1973 .

[5]  P. Richerson,et al.  The evolution of indirect reciprocity , 1989 .

[6]  J. M. Smith,et al.  Group Selection , 1976, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[7]  P. Taylor,et al.  How to make a kin selection model. , 1996, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  Rousset,et al.  A theoretical basis for measures of kin selection in subdivided populations: finite populations and localized dispersal , 2000 .

[9]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Parochial altruism in humans , 2006, Nature.

[10]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Similarity-based cooperation and spatial segregation. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[12]  Naoki Masuda,et al.  Tag-based indirect reciprocity by incomplete social information , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game on a square lattice , 1997, cond-mat/9710096.

[14]  T K,et al.  Self-organized Criticality in Spatial Evolutionary Game Theory , 1998 .

[15]  M. Baalen,et al.  The Unit of Selection in Viscous Populations and the Evolution of Altruism. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[17]  S. Siller Foundations of Social Evolution , 1999, Heredity.

[18]  D. Wilson A theory of group selection. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  L. Keller,et al.  Selfish genes: a green beard in the red fire ant , 1998, Nature.

[20]  A. Griffin,et al.  Testing Hamilton's rule with competition between relatives , 2001, Nature.

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

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

[23]  Rick Durrett,et al.  Can stable social groups be maintained by homophilous imitation alone , 2005 .

[24]  Karl Sigmund,et al.  The logic of reprobation: assessment and action rules for indirect reciprocation. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[25]  Alan Grafen,et al.  Optimization of inclusive fitness. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  Rick L. Riolo,et al.  Behavioural evolution (Communication arising): Does similarity breed cooperation? , 2002, Nature.

[27]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring , 1998, Nature.

[28]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Playing for Real , 2007 .

[29]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations , 2004, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[30]  Bruce Edmonds,et al.  Applying a socially inspired technique (tags) to improve cooperation in P2P networks , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

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

[32]  L. Imhof,et al.  Stochasticity and evolutionary stability. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[33]  M J Wade,et al.  Group selection on a quantitative character. , 1978, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[36]  L. Blume The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction , 1993 .

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

[38]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations with strong selection and weak mutation. , 2006, Theoretical population biology.

[39]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  The evolution of altruism by costly punishment in lattice-structured populations: score-dependent viability versus score-dependent fertility , 2005 .

[40]  A. Grafen Do animals really recognize kin? , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[41]  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.

[42]  David Hales,et al.  Change Your Tags Fast! - A Necessary Condition for Cooperation? , 2004, MABS.

[43]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  How should we define goodness?--reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[44]  Robert M. May,et al.  Group selection , 1975, Nature.

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

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

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

[48]  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.

[49]  George Williams Group Selection , 1971 .

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

[51]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[53]  Gilbert Roberts,et al.  Behaviorial evolution: does similarity breed cooperation? , 2002, Nature.

[54]  R. Lewontin ‘The Selfish Gene’ , 1977, Nature.

[55]  M. Nowak,et al.  Digital cows grazing on digital grounds , 2006, Current Biology.

[56]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  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.

[58]  Vincent A. A. Jansen,et al.  Common language or Tower of Babel? On the evolutionary dynamics of signals and their meanings , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

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