1: \documentclass[twocolumn,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4} %
2: \usepackage{epsfig,graphicx}
3: \usepackage{dcolumn}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \draft
8:
9: \title{The public goods game on homogeneous and heterogeneous networks:
10: investment strategy according to the pool size}
11: \author{Zi-Gang Huang, Zhi-Xi Wu, Jian-Yue Guan, An-Cai Wu, and Ying-Hai Wang\footnote{For correspondence: yhwang@lzu.edu.cn}}
12: \address{Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China}
13: \date\today
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: We propose an extended public goods interaction model to study the
17: evolution of cooperation in heterogeneous population. The
18: investors are arranged on the well known scale-free type network,
19: the Barab\'{a}si-Albert model. Each investor is supposed to
20: preferentially distribute capital to pools in its portfolio based
21: on the knowledge of pool sizes. The extent that investors prefer
22: larger pools is determined by investment strategy denoted by a
23: tunable parameter $\alpha$, with larger $\alpha$ corresponding to
24: more preference to larger pools. As comparison, we also study this
25: interaction model on square lattice, and find that the
26: heterogeneity contacts favors cooperation. Additionally, the
27: influence of local topology to the game dynamics under different
28: $\alpha$ strategies are discussed. It is found that the system
29: with smaller $\alpha$ strategy can perform comparatively better
30: than the larger $\alpha$ ones.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \pacs{02.50.Le, 89.75.Hc, 87.23.Ge}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \section{introduction}
38:
39: The evolution of cooperation among unrelated individuals is one of
40: the fundamental problems in biology and social sciences
41: \cite{vonNeumann,MaynardSmith,HauertScience2002}. A number of
42: mechanisms have been suggested which are capable of supporting
43: cooperation in the absence of genetic relatedness. Most notably,
44: this includes repeated interactions and direct reciprocity
45: \cite{Trivers,Axelrod}, indirect reciprocity
46: \cite{Alexander,Nowak3,Nowak4}, punishment
47: \cite{EFehr,Clutton-Brock}, spatially structured populations
48: \cite{Nowak1, GSzabo2, Hauert2, Szabo,HauertScience2002}, or
49: voluntary participation in social interactions
50: \cite{Szabo,HauertScience2002,Hauert4,Wu1}.
51:
52: The public goods game (PGG), which attracted much attention from
53: economists, is a general paradigm to explain cooperative behavior
54: through group interactions \cite{JHKagel}. In this game, the
55: defectors who do not contribute, but exploit the public goods,
56: fare better than the cooperators who pay the cost by contributing.
57: Thus, the defectors have a higher payoff. If more successful
58: states spread, cooperation will vanish from the population, and
59: the public goods along with it. By considering the fact that
60: who-meets-whom is determined by spatial relationships or
61: underlying networks, Szab\'{o} and Hauert \emph{et al.} have
62: recently studied evolutionary PGG in spatially structured
63: populations bound to regular lattices
64: \cite{Szabo,Hauert,HauertScience2002} as well as the well-mixed
65: population \cite{HauertScience2002,Hauert4,Hauert3,Hauert5}. In
66: these work, the effects of compulsory and voluntary interactions
67: of agents are also discussed. Several factors such as the
68: voluntary participation \cite{Hauert}, and small density of
69: population \cite{Hauert3}, which result in small size of
70: interaction group, are found to be capable of boosting
71: cooperation.
72:
73: However, it has been recognized that regular graphs constitute
74: rather unrealistic representations of real-world network of
75: contacts (NoCs), in which local connections (spatial structure)
76: coexist with long-range connections (or shortcuts). Also,
77: connections in real-world networks are heterogeneous, in the sense
78: that different individuals have different numbers of neighbors
79: with whom they interact. Indeed, these features have been recently
80: identified as characteristic of a plethora of natural, social and
81: technological networks
82: \cite{Dorogotsev2003,Barabasi1999,AlbertBarabasi2002}, which often
83: exhibit a power-law dependence on their degree distributions. In
84: addition, it is well accepted that the heterogeneity of network
85: often plays crucial roles in determining the dynamics
86: \cite{May2001,Boccaletti,Santos2005}. Therefore it is worth
87: investigating the public goods interactions on scale-free network.
88:
89:
90: In this paper, we propose an extended PGG model to study the
91: evolution of cooperation and investment behavior upon heterogenous
92: networks. It is known that, in order to reduce risk, investors may
93: take a portfolio consisting of wide variety of joint enterprise
94: \cite{portfolio}. In the viewpoint of investors, some enterprise
95: may be more attractive than others, i.e., there exists
96: heterogeneity of attractiveness. In our previous work, we have
97: studied the the effect of heterogeneous influences on the
98: evolution of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game
99: \cite{Wu2,Wu3,Guan}. Here, in the framework of PGG, we will
100: consider the effect of heterogeneity of common pools (which we
101: call pools' ``attractiveness'' $\mathcal{A}$) on investors. In our
102: model, investors having public goods interactions occupy the
103: vertices of the underlying network, with the edges denoting
104: interactions between them. Investors are assumed to be aware of
105: the sizes of pools, based on which pools' attractiveness can be
106: estimated. The attractiveness of one given pool also depends on
107: the investment strategy $\alpha$ of the system, which regulates
108: the extent of investors' preference to large pools. It will be
109: shown that, compared with the homogeneous network, the
110: heterogeneous graphs generated via the mechanisms of growth and
111: preferential attachment (PA) can distinctively favor cooperation,
112: where, in addition, smaller $\alpha$ strategy favors cooperation
113: more than larger $\alpha$ strategy.
114:
115:
116: \section{our model}
117: Investors in our model are arranged on certain kind of underlying
118: network and interact only with their immediate neighbors. A given
119: investor $j$ acts as an organizer of the common pool $j$ with size
120: $k_{j}+1$, where there occurs the PGG involving $j$ itself and its
121: neighbor investors. Here, $k_{j}$ is the degree of $j$. Meanwhile,
122: investor $j$ will participate in the $k_{j}+1$ pools which we
123: named the `portfolio' of $j$ including $k_{j}$ pools organized by
124: its neighbors, and the one pool by itself. The common pool $j$
125: accumulates capital from all its participant investors, and then
126: equally shares the profit to them. We assume that investors have
127: the capacity for learning the sizes of pools in their own
128: portfolio, which enable them to discriminate pools by estimating
129: the attractiveness quantitatively. The value of a given pool $i$'s
130: attractiveness to investors is
131: $\mathcal{A}_{i}=(k_{i}+1)^{\alpha}$, with the real number
132: $\alpha$ denoting the investment strategy of the system, which
133: regulates the extent of investors' preference to larger pools. We
134: can see that, the larger the $\alpha$ is, the more attractive the
135: large pools will be. The total amount of capital distributed by a
136: cooperator (state $s=1$) is normalized to unity, while that of a
137: defector (state $s=0$) is zero, which implies that defector
138: withhold its investment to free ride the other investor's
139: contributions. Investors' capital will be distributed to pools
140: proportional to the attractiveness. Thus, the amount of capital
141: investor $j$ distributes to one of its pool $i$ at time $t$ is,
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: D_{ji}(t)=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{i}\cdot s_{j}(t)}{\sum_{l\in
144: \mathcal{N}(j)}\mathcal{A}_{l}},\label{eqD}
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: where $\mathcal{N}(x)$ is the community composed of the nearest
147: neighbors of $x$ and itself, and $s_{j}(t)$ is the state of
148: investor $j$ at time $t$. Investors will equally distribute their
149: capital into pools in portfolio when $\alpha=0$. They invest large
150: fraction of capital into larger pools for the case of $\alpha>0$,
151: or into smaller pools for the case of $\alpha<0$. If investor $j$
152: is a defector [$s_{j}(t)=0$], it distributes nothing to its pools,
153: and thereby $D_{ji}(t)=0$.
154:
155: Then, the amount of capital the pool $i$ accumulates at time $t$
156: can be written as,
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: C_{i}(t)=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}D_{ji}(t) =\sum_{j\in
159: \mathcal{N}(i)}\frac{\mathcal{A}_{i}\cdot s_{j}(t)}{\sum_{l\in
160: \mathcal{N}(j)}\mathcal{A}_{l}} \label{eqC}
161: \end{eqnarray}
162: We can express Eq. (\ref{eqC}) in terms of the following matrix
163: equation,
164: \begin{equation}\label{matrix}
165: \vec{C}(t)=A\vec{S}(t):=\begin{pmatrix} a_{11} & \dots &
166: a_{1n}\\
167: a_{21} & \dots & a_{2n}\\
168: \hdotsfor{3}\\
169: a_{n1} & \dots & a_{nn}\\
170: \end{pmatrix}
171: \cdot
172: \begin{pmatrix} s_{1}(t)\\
173: s_{2}(t)\\
174: \dots\\
175: s_{n}(t)
176: \end{pmatrix}
177: \end{equation}
178: where the elements of the matrix $A$ are given by,
179: \begin{equation}
180: a_{ij}=
181: \begin{cases}
182: {\mathcal{A}_{i}}/{\sum\limits_{l \in \mathcal{N}(j)}\mathcal{A}_{l}}& j \in{\mathcal{N}(i)}\\
183: 0& \text{otherwise}
184: \end{cases}.
185: \end{equation}
186:
187: After the foresaid investing period, the total amount in the pools
188: multiples by a constant factor $r$, namely, the interest rate on
189: the common pools. For simplification, we assume that the profit of
190: each common pool is then equally shared to all participants
191: irrespective of their individual contribution. Thus the aggregate
192: payoff of agent $i$ after one generation is,
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: P_{i}(t)=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)}\frac{r\cdot C_{j}(t)}{k_{j}+1}
195: \label{eq07}
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: It can be written as $\vec{P}(t)=rBA\vec{S}(t)$, where the
198: $n\times{n}$ matrix $B$ has element $b_{ij}$ as,
199: \begin{equation}
200: b_{ij}=
201: \begin{cases}
202: {1}/({k_{j}+1})& j \in{\mathcal{N}(i)}\\
203: 0& \text{otherwise}
204: \end{cases}.
205: \end{equation}
206: Taking into account the unity capital initially distributed by
207: cooperator, the total returns of investors can be written as
208: $\vec{R}=\vec{P}-\vec{S}$.
209: \begin{figure}
210: \centerline{\resizebox{9.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{1}}}
211: \caption{Average frequencies of cooperators and defectors as a
212: function of interest rate $r$ (a), and typical snapshot of the
213: $30\times30$ square lattice with $r=3.8$ (b). Black refers to
214: cooperators, and white to defectors. The results in (a) are
215: averaged over $40$ realizations. The $r_{C}$ ($r_{D}$) indicates
216: the value of $r$ where cooperators (defectors) vanish.}
217: \label{fig1}
218: \end{figure}
219:
220: The return $\vec{R}$ obtained in PGG interactions denotes the
221: reproductive success, i.e., the probability that one neighbor will
222: adopt the agent's state. In order to maximize total returns,
223: investors update their states after each round of game according
224: to the following rule: Investor $i$ selects one of its neighbor
225: investor $j$ with equal probability. Given the total returns
226: ($R_{i}$ and $R_{j}$) from the previous round, $i$ adopts neighbor
227: $j$'s state with probability \cite{GSzabo2,Szabo}:
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: W[s_j\rightarrow{s_i}]=\frac{1}{1+exp[(R_i-R_j+\tau)/\kappa]}
230: \end{eqnarray}
231: where $\tau>0$ denotes the cost of state change, and $\kappa$
232: characterizes the noise introduced to permit irrational choices.
233: For $\kappa=0$ the neighboring state $s_{j}$ is adopted
234: deterministically provided the payoff difference exceeds the cost
235: of state change, i.e., $R_{j}-R_{i}>\tau$. For $\kappa>0$, states
236: performing worse are also adopted with a certain probability,
237: e.g., due to imperfect information. Following the previous work
238: \cite{Szabo}, we simply fix the value of $\kappa$ to be $0.1$.
239:
240:
241: \section{simulation results}
242:
243: First, we briefly consider the extended PGG dynamics upon square
244: lattice with periodic boundary conditions, where the strategy
245: $\alpha$ does not affect the capital distribution because of the
246: degree homogeneity. The dynamics starts from the random
247: arrangement of investors' states either as cooperators or
248: defectors. In Fig. \ref{fig1}(a), we show the average equilibrium
249: frequencies of cooperators and defectors as a function of interest
250: rate $r$. It is expectable that, the curve shows a growth in the
251: frequency of cooperators with increasing values of $r$. Below the
252: threshold value $r<r_{C}$ cooperators quickly vanish, whereas for
253: high $r>r_{D}$ defectors go extinct. For intermediate $r$ the two
254: states coexist in dynamical equilibrium. The subscript $S$ of
255: $r_{S}$ refers to the vanishing state. Just as was found in Refs.
256: \cite{GSzabo2,Nowak1,Szabo}, the snapshot of the dynamics (Fig.
257: \ref{fig1}(b)) shows that cooperators persist by forming clusters
258: and thereby minimizing exploitation by defectors.
259:
260: Let us now consider the evolutionary dynamics of PGG upon the
261: Barab\'{a}si-Albert (BA) model
262: \cite{Barabasi1999,AlbertBarabasi2002}. It means that different
263: investors in this system will have portfolios consisting of
264: different number of pools. Also, some pools may absorb capital
265: from many investors, whereas other pools may absorb from much less
266: investors. In addition, the size of pools exhibits a scale-free
267: distribution as the degree of the underlying network, which result
268: in very different values of attractiveness. Here, we want to point
269: out that, although larger pools have more investors, whether they
270: can accumulate more capital than the smaller pools still depends
271: on the investment strategy, preferring the smaller pools
272: ($\alpha<0$), the larger pools ($\alpha>0$), or equally
273: distributing investment ($\alpha=0$).
274:
275: Numerical simulations are performed in a system of $N=4000$
276: investors located on a BA network with average connectivity fixed
277: as $4$ which is the same as the square lattice. That is, the
278: network grows from a completely connected network with $m_{0}=5$
279: vertices, and at every time step a new vertex with $m=2$ edges is
280: added (the construction of the BA network can refer to Refs.
281: \cite{Barabasi1999,AlbertBarabasi2002}). Fig. \ref{figPc2} shows
282: the average equilibrium frequencies of cooperators with different
283: $\alpha$ strategies on BA networks. One can notice that, no matter
284: what the strategy $\alpha$ is, the qualitative feature of
285: frequencies of states remain unchanged for the BA network. Again
286: three domains are observed: defectors dominate for low $r<r_{C}$,
287: co-existence for intermediate values of $r$ and homogenous
288: cooperation for high $r>r_{D}$. However, we find that the
289: heterogeneous structure distinctly favors cooperators, because the
290: $r_{D}$ (where defectors vanish) for the BA networks are much
291: smaller than that for lattice (see Fig. \ref{fig1}). Furthermore,
292: we notice that the system with smaller $\alpha$ strategy would
293: behave better than that with larger $\alpha$, which implies that
294: cooperation are rendered more attractive when investors prefer
295: smaller pools rather than larger ones.
296: \begin{figure}
297: \centerline{\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{2}}}
298: \caption{Average frequency of cooperators as a function of
299: interest rate $r$ with investment strategy $\alpha=-2$, $-1$, $0$,
300: and $1$, respectively. Parameters: $\tau=0.1$ and $\kappa=0.1$.}
301: \label{figPc2}
302: \end{figure}
303:
304:
305: \section{analysis and discussions}
306:
307: We can understand the above-mentioned simulation results by the
308: following analysis. From individual perspective, the unit
309: investment contributed by one cooperator $i$ will be returned to
310: the system as $r$ payoff after each round of game. The amount of
311: payoff returned to $i$ itself can be written as,
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: P_{ii}&=&\sum_{j}\frac{r\cdot D_{ij}(t)}{k_{j}+1}\nonumber\\
314: &=&r\cdot{\frac{\sum_{j}[1/(k_{j}+1)]\cdot{\mathcal{A}_{j}}\cdot{s_{i}(t)}}{\sum_{j}\mathcal{A}_{j}}}\\
315: &\equiv& r\cdot{s_{i}(t)}\cdot{L_{\alpha}}. \label{eqPii}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: Here, $j\in{\mathcal{N}(i)}$, and $L_{\alpha}$ denotes the
318: weighted average of $1/(1+k_{j})$ with $\mathcal{A}_{j}$ as weight
319: factor. Thus, how much one cooperator can benefit itself from its
320: own unity investment depends on interest rate $r$, investment
321: strategy $\alpha$, as well as its \textbf{local topology}
322: including the degrees of its own and its neighbors. For a given
323: investor, the temptation to defect can be measured in terms of
324: $1.0-P_{ii}$, which is actually independent of other investors'
325: states. Note that for $r>1/L_{\alpha}$ the social dilemma raised
326: by the PGG is relaxed in the sense that each unity investment has
327: a positive net return, and therefore investor can pay off better
328: when adopting cooperation rather than defection. Here,
329: $1/L_{\alpha}$ in our extended PGG model in fact corresponds to
330: the group size in the original PGG model \cite{HauertScience2002}.
331: For the networks with homogeneous degree $k$, $1/L_{\alpha}$
332: returns to $k+1$ as the value of group size, while for
333: heterogeneous network, the values of $1/L_{\alpha}$ are various
334: for different investors. We give the illustration of $P_{ii}$ on
335: BA network in the case that all investors adopt cooperation
336: ($\vec{S}=1$). The interest rate $r$ is set as $1.0$ so that
337: $L_{\alpha}=P_{ii}$.
338:
339: \begin{figure}
340: \centerline{\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{3}}} \caption{The
341: $P_{ii}$ of investors as a function of their degree $k_{i}$
342: (square), and the average $P_{ii}$ over investors with given
343: degree (dot) with $\alpha=-2$ (a), and $\alpha=1$ (b),
344: respectively. The network is a BA model with $N=10^{5}$ and
345: $m=2$.} \label{figPii1}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348: In Fig. \ref{figPii1}, we show $P_{ii}$ of investors as a function
349: of their degree $K_{i}$, with investment strategy $\alpha=-2$ (a)
350: and $\alpha=1$ (b). It is noteworthy in the figures that investors
351: with the same degree may have wide range of $P_{ii}$, which
352: reveals the great diversity of agents' individual local
353: connection. One can notice from the average values with
354: $\alpha=-2$ that the $P_{ii}$ of investors with large degree and
355: smallest degree ($k=2$) is similar, while that of the intermediate
356: degree investor, especially the $k=3$ investor, is comparatively
357: small. It is known for BA model that, those agents with degree
358: $k=m$ are latterly added following degree-PA mechanism, and
359: thereby more probably to have large degree neighbors. When
360: investor prefers small pools ($\alpha<0$) the investor $i$ with
361: degree $k=2$ would distribute most of its investment to pool $i$,
362: and then gain $1/3$ of the profit, with the largest amount
363: approximately equal $1/3$ [see Fig. \ref{figPii1}(a)]. In
364: contrast, agents with $k=3$ still have a neighbor which is younger
365: than them, thus more likely to be of small degree. The investor
366: $j$ with $k=3$ will distribute part of its capital $c$ (the amount
367: between $0.0$ and $1.0$) to its own pool $j$ and then gain $c/4$,
368: with the remained capital gain less than $(1-c)/3$ profit.
369: Therefore, generally speaking, the $P_{ii}$ of $k=3$ investor is
370: smaller than that of $k=2$ investor. In the inset of Fig.
371: \ref{figPii1}(a), we plot the relations of each $k=3$ investors'
372: $P_{ii}$ with its $3$ neighbors' degree $k'$. One can notice that,
373: for the intermediate degree investors, the separated range of
374: $P_{ii}$ [see Fig. \ref{figPii1}(a)] is closely related to the
375: $k'=m$ neighbor. Those investors with neighbors' minimum degree
376: $k'_{min}=2$ would have larger $P_{ii}$, while those with
377: $k'_{min}\geq3$ are comparatively small ($P_{ii}<1/4$). In
378: addition, the large degree investors almost deterministically have
379: $k'_{min}=2$ neighbor pools, which pay them off with more profit
380: than the large pools. Thus the corresponding ranges of $P_{ii}$
381: are not separated, and the average values are around $0.3$ for
382: large degree investors. In addition, when $\alpha=1$ [see Fig.
383: \ref{figPii1}(b)], investors are likely to distribute most capital
384: into large pools. The decrease of the average $P_{ii}$ with
385: agent's degree can be attributed to investor's increasing number
386: of large pools, which shares the profit to more (other) investors
387: rather than returning to $i$ itself. From the former analysis, one
388: gets that local topology of networks has significant impact on PGG
389: dynamical process.
390:
391:
392: \begin{figure}
393: \centerline{\resizebox{9cm}{!}{\includegraphics{4}}} \caption{(a)
394: Average $P_{ii}$ over given degree investors under different
395: investment strategies. The strategies from top to bottom
396: respectively are $\alpha=-2$, $-1$, $0$, and $1$. And (b) the
397: corresponding probability distribution of $P_{ii}$. The interest
398: rate $r$ is set as $1.0$. (c) The fraction of investors whose
399: $P_{ii}$ are larger than $1.0$ with the increasing $r$. (d) The
400: effective group size $\langle1/L_{\alpha}\rangle$ of network
401: (circle) under different investment strategies $\alpha$, compared
402: with that of square lattice (square). The network is a BA model
403: with $N=10^{5}$ and $m=2$.} \label{figPii2}
404: \end{figure}
405:
406: In Fig. \ref{figPii2}(a), with respect to the dash line
407: $P_{ii}=0.2$ which denotes the case of square lattice, we show the
408: average values of $P_{ii}$ over investors of given degree with
409: investment strategies $\alpha=-2$, $-1$, $0$, and $1$. The
410: corresponding probability distributions of $P_{ii}$ are also given
411: in Fig. \ref{figPii2}(b). The smaller $\alpha$ strategies are
412: found to result in comparatively larger values of $P_{ii}$. This
413: can be easily understood from the form of Eq. (\ref{eqPii})
414: \cite{Pii}. The fraction of investors who have $P_{ii}>1.0$, with
415: the increasing of rate $r$ are also plotted in Fig.
416: \ref{figPii2}(c). We see that, in the system with smaller $\alpha$
417: strategy, more agents are better off cooperating than defecting
418: for certain interest rate $r$, no matter what their neighbor
419: investors do. Furthermore, we can improve our understanding from
420: the perspective of so-called ``effective group size''
421: $\langle1/L_{\alpha}\rangle$, which denotes the average impact of
422: agent's local topology to the game dynamics under certain
423: investment strategy. The effective group size
424: $\langle1/L_{\alpha}\rangle$ of BA model with $m=2$ (circle) as a
425: function of strategy $\alpha$ are shown in Fig. \ref{figPii2}(d).
426: In the reign of $\alpha<0$, the $\langle1/L_{\alpha}\rangle$ of BA
427: model is smaller than the group size of the square lattice
428: (square), while in the reign of $\alpha>0$ the
429: $\langle1/L_{\alpha}\rangle$ becomes larger. In this point of
430: view, our result is coincide with that of the former works
431: \cite{Szabo,Hauert,HauertScience2002,Hauert4,Hauert3,Hauert5},
432: i.e., smaller group of player favor cooperators in the PGG.
433:
434: From the illustration of $\vec{S}=1$ case, we know that, agents'
435: temptation to defect are different because of their different
436: local topologies. Furthermore, the system with smaller $\alpha$
437: strategy may render cooperation more attractive for the reason
438: that cooperator investors can benefit themselves more than those
439: in systems of larger $\alpha$, which therefore relaxes the social
440: dilemma better.
441:
442:
443:
444: \begin{figure}
445: \centerline{\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{5}}} \caption{(a)
446: Distributions of states in BA network. Cooperators are denoted by
447: red bars, while defectors by white bars, the lengthes of which are
448: proportional to the relative percentage of the respective state
449: for each degree $k$. (b) Each agent's frequency of state updating
450: (open square) during the evolution of the system from the initial
451: random state to the final equilibrium state within $25000$
452: generations. And the averages over agents with the same degree
453: (dot). The simulation takes place on the BA network of size
454: $N=1000$ and $m=2$, with interest rate $r=1.6$, strategy
455: $\alpha=0$, which result in the frequency of cooperators
456: $\rho_{C}=0.684$.} \label{figHis}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459: Similar to the former studies of other games
460: \cite{Santos2005,Santos20061,Santos20062}, the heterogeneity
461: intrinsic to SF NoCs also contributes to the enhancement of
462: cooperation, by favoring cooperators to occupy the large degree
463: agents so as to outperform defectors. The detailed description of
464: the occupation of vertices with given degree is shown in Fig.
465: \ref{figHis}(a). One can clearly find that, almost all hubs are
466: occupied by cooperators, whereas defectors present merely at low
467: degree vertices. In Fig. \ref{figHis}(b), we plot the state
468: updating frequency of each agent during the evolution of the
469: system from the initial state to the final equilibrium state. From
470: the figures, we know that with respect to the small degree agents,
471: the hubs always behave as cooperator and rarely change. During the
472: evolution, when a hub is a defector investor, it can exploit and
473: may easily invade most of its cooperator neighbors. However, in
474: doing so, the number of neighbor cooperators will decrease in
475: subsequent rounds, which in turn acts to reduce the total returns
476: of such defector hub. Whenever its return becomes comparable to
477: that of a cooperator neighbor, invasion may occur. On the
478: contrary, however, once cooperators invade hubs, they will tend to
479: increase the fraction of cooperator neighbors, in turn maximizing
480: their own returns. In other words, once invading a hub, a
481: cooperator becomes so successful that it is very difficult for
482: defectors to `trike back', as evidenced by the results shown in
483: Fig. \ref{figHis}.
484:
485:
486: \section{conclusion}
487:
488: In summary, considering the heterogeneity of real-world NoCs, we
489: have proposed an extended public goods interaction model in this
490: paper. The investor bounded to the underlying network will
491: distribute capital to pools proportionally to their
492: attractiveness, which reflects the heterogeneous influence of
493: pools on investors, with the investment strategy $\alpha$
494: regulating the value of attractiveness. From the comparative
495: studies of the game dynamics upon square lattice and BA scale-free
496: network, we found that heterogeneous structured population
497: partially resolves the dilemma and improves social welfare. On one
498: hand, the hub cooperators always remain stable, and spread
499: cooperation to a larger fraction of the agents. On the other hand,
500: cooperator investors can pay themselves off with more profit when
501: taking small $\alpha$ investment strategy, which relaxes the
502: social dilemma further and enhances the reproductive success of
503: cooperation.
504:
505: In addition, the qualitative features of the game dynamics sustain
506: when the network size $N$ and the parameter $m$ of BA networks are
507: different. The networks with smaller $m$ are proved to favor
508: cooperation more, which can be attributed to the corresponding
509: smaller group size \cite{Hauert,Hauert4}.\\
510:
511:
512: We thank Dr. Xin-Jian Xu for helpful discussion. This work was
513: supported by the Fundamental Research Fund for Physics and
514: Mathematics of Lanzhou University under Grant No. Lzu05008.
515:
516:
517: \begin{references}
518:
519: \bibitem{vonNeumann}
520: J. von Neumann, and O. Morgenstern, \emph{Theory of Games and
521: Economic Behaviour} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944).
522:
523: \bibitem{MaynardSmith}
524: J. Maynard Smith, and E. Szathm\'{a}ry, \emph{The Major
525: Transitions in Evolution} (W. H. Freeman \& Co., Oxford, 1995).
526:
527: \bibitem{HauertScience2002}
528: C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, and K. Sigmund, Science
529: \textbf{296}, 1129 (2002).
530:
531: \bibitem{Trivers}
532: R.L. Trivers, Q. Rev. Biol. \textbf{46}, 35 (1971).
533:
534: \bibitem{Axelrod}
535: R. Axelrod, and W.D. Hamilton, Science \textbf{211}, 1390 (1981).
536:
537: \bibitem{Alexander}
538: R.D. Alexander, \emph{The biology of moral systems} (New York, NY:
539: Aldine DE Gruyter, 1987).
540:
541: \bibitem{Nowak3}M.A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, Nature \textbf{393}, 573
542: (1998).
543:
544: \bibitem{Nowak4}M.A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, Nature \textbf{437}, 1291
545: (2005).
546:
547: \bibitem{Clutton-Brock}
548: T.H. Clutton-Brock, and G.A. Parker, Nature \textbf{373}, 209
549: (1995).
550:
551: \bibitem{EFehr}
552: E. Fehr, and S. G\"{a}chter, Nature \textbf{415}, 137 (2002).
553:
554: \bibitem{Nowak1}
555: M.A. Nowak, and R.M. May, Nature (London) \textbf{359}, 826
556: (1992).
557:
558: \bibitem{GSzabo2}
559: G. Szab\'{o}, and C. T\H{o}ke, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 69
560: (1998).
561:
562: \bibitem{Hauert2}
563: C. Hauert, and M. Doebeli, Nature (London) \textbf{428}, 643
564: (2004).
565:
566: \bibitem{Szabo}
567: G. Szab\'{o}, and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett \textbf{89}, 118101
568: (2002); G. Szab\'{o}, and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66},
569: 062903 (2002); G. Szab\'{o}, and J. Vukov, Phys. Rev. E
570: \textbf{69}, 036107 (2004).
571:
572: \bibitem{Wu1}
573: Z.-X. Wu, X.-J. Xu, Y. Chen, and Y.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. E
574: \textbf{71}, 037103 (2005).
575:
576: \bibitem{Hauert4}
577: C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, and K. Sigmund, J. Theor.
578: Biol. \textbf{218}, 187 (2002).
579:
580: \bibitem{JHKagel} J.H. Kagel, and A.E. Roth (eds.)
581: \emph{The handbook of experimental economics} (Princeton, NJ:
582: Princeton University Press, 1995).
583:
584: \bibitem{Hauert} C. Hauert, and G. Szab\'{o}, Complexity
585: \textbf{8}, 31 (2003).
586:
587: \bibitem{Hauert5}
588: H. Brandt, C. Hauert, and K. Sigmund, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
589: \textbf{103}, 495 (2006).
590:
591: \bibitem{Hauert3} C. Hauert, M. Holmes, and M. Doebeli, Proc. R. Soc. B
592: \textbf{273}, 2565 (2006).
593:
594:
595: \bibitem{Dorogotsev2003}
596: S.N. Dorogotsev, and J.F.F. Mendes, \emph{Evolution of Networks:
597: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW} (Oxford University,
598: Oxford, 2003).
599:
600: \bibitem{Barabasi1999}
601: A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, and R. Albert, Science \textbf{286}, 509
602: (1999).
603:
604: \bibitem{AlbertBarabasi2002}
605: R. Albert, and A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{74}, 47
606: (2002).
607:
608: \bibitem{Boccaletti}
609: S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang,
610: Phys. Rep. \textbf{424}, 175 (2006).
611:
612: \bibitem{May2001}
613: R.M. May, S. Gupta, and A.R. McLean, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
614: \textbf{356}, 901 (2001).
615:
616: \bibitem{portfolio}
617: In the real financial system, investors always take a range of
618: securities to invest. This is because if any particular security
619: proves to be a bad investment, the impact on such a diversified
620: portfolio is not as significant as having put all eggs in one
621: basket.
622:
623: \bibitem{Wu2}
624: Z.-X. Wu, X.-J. Xu, and Y.-H. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett. \textbf{23},
625: 531 (2005).
626:
627: \bibitem{Wu3} Z.-X. Wu, X.-J. Xu, Z.-G. Huang, S.-J. Wang, and Y.-H. Wang,
628: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{74}, 021107 (2005).
629:
630: \bibitem{Guan}
631: J.-Y. Guan, Z.-X. Wu, Z.-G. Huang, X.-J. Xu, and Y.-H. Wang,
632: Europhys. Lett. \textbf{76}, 1214 (2006).
633:
634:
635: \bibitem{Pii}
636: From Eq. (\ref{eqPii}), we know that, for given agent $i$,
637: $P_{ii}$ would be larger when $\alpha$ is small, because the value
638: $1/(k+1)$ of the larger $k$ which is small will have more
639: contribution to $P_{ii}$.
640:
641: \bibitem{Santos2005}
642: F.C. Santos, and J.M. Pacheco, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{95},
643: 098104 (2005).
644:
645: \bibitem{Santos20061}
646: F.C. Santos, J.F. Rodrigues, and J.M. Pacheco, Proc. R. Soc. B
647: \textbf{273}, 51 (2006).
648:
649: \bibitem{Santos20062}
650: F.C. Santos, J.M. Pacheco, and T. Lenaerts, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
651: U.S.A. \textbf{103}, 3490 (2006).
652:
653: \end{references}
654:
655:
656:
657:
658: \bigskip
659: \end{document}
660: