Dilemma solving by the coevolution of networks and strategy in a 2 x 2 game.

A 2 x 2 game model implemented by a coevolution mechanism of both networks and strategy, inspired by the work of Zimmermann and Eguiluz [Phys. Rev. E72, 056118 (2005)] is established. Network adaptation is the manner in which an existing link between two agents is destroyed and how a new one is established to replace it. The strategy is defined as whether an agent offers cooperation (C) or defection (D) . Both the networks and strategy are synchronously renovated in a simulation time step. A series of numerical experiments, considering various 2 x 2 game structures, reveals that the proposed coevolution mechanism can solve dilemmas in several game classes. The effect of solving a dilemma means mutual-cooperation reciprocity (R reciprocity), which is brought about by emerging several cooperative hub agents who have plenty of links. This effect can be primarily observed in game classes of the prisoner's dilemma and stag hunt. The coevolution mechanism, however, seems counterproductive for game classes of leader and hero, where the alternating reciprocity (ST reciprocity) is meaningful.

[1]  W. Hamilton The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior , 1963, The American Naturalist.

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

[3]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  What is sociobiology? , 1978 .

[4]  B. Bollobás Combinatorics: Random graphs , 1981 .

[5]  M A Nowak,et al.  Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Joshua M. Epstein,et al.  Zones of cooperation in demographic prisoner's dilemma , 1997, Complex.

[7]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

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

[9]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[10]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Evolution: The good, the bad and the lonely , 2002, Nature.

[11]  K. Aihara,et al.  Spatial prisoner's dilemma optimally played in small-world networks , 2003 .

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

[13]  Masaki Tomochi Defectors' niches: prisoner's dilemma game on disordered networks , 2004, Soc. Networks.

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

[15]  Víctor M Eguíluz,et al.  Cooperation, social networks, and the emergence of leadership in a prisoner's dilemma with adaptive local interactions. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. , 2006, Physical review letters.

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

[18]  Wen-Xu Wang,et al.  Effects of average degree on cooperation in networked evolutionary game , 2006 .

[19]  M. Nowak,et al.  Non-commercial Research and Educational Use including without Limitation Use in Instruction at Your Institution, Sending It to Specific Colleagues That You Know, and Providing a Copy to Your Institution's Administrator. All Other Uses, Reproduction and Distribution, including without Limitation Comm , 2022 .

[20]  M. Tomassini,et al.  Hawks and Doves on small-world networks. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Rui Jiang,et al.  A unified framework for the pareto law and Matthew effect using scale-free networks , 2006, physics/0606085.

[22]  J. J. Arenzon,et al.  Does mobility decrease cooperation? , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.