Friendly-rivalry solution to the iterated n-person public-goods game

Repeated interaction promotes cooperation among rational individuals under the shadow of future, but it is hard to maintain cooperation when a large number of error-prone individuals are involved. One way to construct a cooperative Nash equilibrium is to find a ‘friendly rivalry’ strategy, which aims at full cooperation but never allows the co-players to be better off. Recently it has been shown that for the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma in the presence of error, a friendly rival can be designed with the following five rules: Cooperate if everyone did, accept punishment for your own mistake, punish defection, recover cooperation if you find a chance, and defect in all the other circumstances. In this work, we construct such a friendly-rivalry strategy for the iterated n-person public-goods game by generalizing those five rules. The resulting strategy makes a decision with referring to the previous m = 2n − 1 rounds. A friendly-rivalry strategy inherently has evolutionary robustness in the sense that no mutant strategy has higher fixation probability in this population than that of neutral drift, and our evolutionary simulation indeed shows excellent performance of the proposed strategy in a broad range of environmental conditions. Author summary How to maintain cooperation among a number of self-interested individuals is a difficult problem, especially if they can sometimes commit error. In this work, we propose a strategy for the iterated n-person public-goods game based on the following five rules: Cooperate if everyone did, accept punishment for your own mistake, punish others’ defection, recover cooperation if you find a chance, and defect in all the other circumstances. These rules are not far from actual human behavior, and the resulting strategy guarantees three advantages: First, if everyone uses it, full cooperation is recovered even if error occurs with small probability. Second, the player of this strategy always never obtains a lower long-term payoff than any of the co-players. Third, if the co-players are unconditional cooperators, it obtains a strictly higher long-term payoff than theirs. Therefore, if everyone uses this strategy, no one has a reason to change it. Furthermore, our simulation shows that this strategy will become highly abundant over long time scales due to its robustness against the invasion of other strategies. In this sense, the repeated social dilemma is solved for an arbitrary number of players.

[1]  Peter Duersch,et al.  Unbeatable Imitation , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[2]  P. Richerson,et al.  The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. , 1988, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  Luis A. Martinez-Vaquero,et al.  Memory-n strategies of direct reciprocity , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Partners or rivals? Strategies for the iterated prisoner's dilemma☆ , 2015, Games Econ. Behav..

[5]  H. Gintis Behavioral ethics meets natural justice , 2006 .

[6]  K. Sigmund The Calculus of Selfishness , 2010 .

[8]  P. Molander The Optimal Level of Generosity in a Selfish, Uncertain Environment , 1985 .

[9]  Martin A Nowak,et al.  Optional games on cycles and complete graphs. , 2014, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  S. Baek,et al.  Seven rules to avoid the tragedy of the commons. , 2018, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  C. Adami,et al.  Evolutionary instability of zero-determinant strategies demonstrates that winning is not everything , 2012, Nature Communications.

[12]  Alexander J. Stewart,et al.  From extortion to generosity, evolution in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Nobuyasu Ito,et al.  An open-source job management framework for parameter-space exploration: OACIS , 2018, ArXiv.

[14]  Joshua B. Plotkin,et al.  Small groups and long memories promote cooperation , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Reputation drives cooperative behaviour and network formation in human groups , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Ethan Akin,et al.  The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: Good Strategies and Their Dynamics , 2012, 1211.0969.

[17]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Automata, repeated games and noise , 1995 .

[18]  Kristian Lindgren,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics in game-theoretic models , 1996 .

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

[20]  Stefan Hougardy,et al.  The Floyd-Warshall algorithm on graphs with negative cycles , 2010, Inf. Process. Lett..

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

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

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

[24]  M. Nowak,et al.  Partners and rivals in direct reciprocity , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[25]  Seung Ki Baek,et al.  Combination with anti-tit-for-tat remedies problems of tit-for-tat. , 2016, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  M. Nowak Stochastic strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma , 1990 .

[27]  W. Arthur,et al.  The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II , 1988 .

[28]  Alexander J. Stewart,et al.  Collapse of cooperation in evolving games , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Ethan Akin,et al.  What You Gotta Know to Play Good in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 2015, Games.

[30]  Beom Jun Kim,et al.  Intelligent tit-for-tat in the iterated prisoner's dilemma game. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[32]  M. Nowak,et al.  Adaptive Dynamics of Extortion and Compliance , 2013, PloS one.

[33]  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.

[34]  Yohsuke Murase,et al.  Automata representation of successful strategies for social dilemmas , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[35]  Sandra Macedo-Ribeiro,et al.  Structure of mycobacterial maltokinase, the missing link in the essential GlgE-pathway , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Martin A Nowak,et al.  Evolution of extortion in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Martin A Nowak,et al.  Comparing reactive and memory-one strategies of direct reciprocity , 2016, Scientific Reports.