1: %\documentclass [preprint,preprintnumbers,showpacs,amssymb] {revtex4}
2: \documentclass [twocolumn,preprintnumbers,showpacs,amssymb] {revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{epsfig,graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7: \usepackage{times}
8: \newcommand{\unitx}{\hat{\mathbf{x}}}
9: \draft
10:
11: \begin {document}
12:
13: \title{Spatial prisoner's dilemma game with volunteering in Newman-Watts small-world networks}
14:
15: \author{Zhi-Xi Wu, Xin-Jian Xu, Yong Chen\footnote {Email address: ychen@lzu.edu.cn}, and Ying-Hai Wang\footnote {Email address: yhwang@lzu.edu.cn}}
16:
17: \address{Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China}
18:
19:
20:
21: \begin {abstract}
22: A modified spatial prisoner's dilemma game with voluntary
23: participation in Newman-Watts small-world networks is studied.
24: Some reasonable ingredients are introduced to the game
25: evolutionary dynamics: each agent in the network is a pure
26: strategist and can only take one of three strategies (\emph
27: {cooperator}, \emph {defector}, and \emph {loner}); its
28: strategical transformation is associated with both the number of
29: strategical states and the magnitude of average profits, which are
30: adopted and acquired by its coplayers in the previous round of
31: play; a stochastic strategy mutation is applied when it gets into
32: the trouble of \emph {local commons} that the agent and its
33: neighbors are in the same state and get the same average payoffs.
34: In the case of very low temptation to defect, it is found that
35: agents are willing to participate in the game in typical
36: small-world region and intensive collective oscillations arise in
37: more random region.
38: \end {abstract}
39:
40: \pacs{02.50.Le, 87.23.Kg, 87.23.Ge, 89.75.Hc}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: There has been a long history of studying complex behaviors
45: qualitatively of biological, ecological, social and economic
46: systems using special game models. After the prisoner's dilemma
47: game (PDG) was first applied by Neumann and Morgenstern \cite
48: {Neumann} to study economic behavior, great developments have been
49: made by a lot of subsequent studies. Recently, more and more
50: attentions have been focused on the applications of the PDG in the
51: fields of biology \cite {Wahl}, economy \cite {Fehr}, ecology
52: \cite {Mesterton-Gibbons}, and other domains \cite {Huberman}.
53: Game theory and evolutionary theory provide a powerful metaphor
54: for simulating the interactions of individuals in these systems
55: \cite {Maynard}.
56:
57: Most realistic systems can be regarded as composing of a large
58: number of individuals with simple local interactions. For example,
59: human beings are limited in territory and interact more frequently
60: with their neighbors than those far away. Therefore, the spatial
61: structure may greatly affect their activities. Since Axelrod
62: \cite{Axelrod} suggested ideas of the PDG on a lattice, spatial
63: prisoner's dilemma games (SPDG) have been extensively explored in
64: various kinds of network models in the past few years, including
65: regular lattices \cite {Nowak, Szabo_0, Vainstein}, random regular
66: graphs \cite {Szabo_1}, random networks with fixed mean degree
67: distribution \cite {Ebel}, small-world networks \cite {Szabo_2,
68: Kim, Abramson} and real-world acquaintance networks \cite {Holme},
69: etc. In the general SPDG, each agent can take one of two
70: strategies (or states): \emph {cooperator} ($C$) and \emph
71: {defector} ($D$). There are four possible combinations: ($C$,
72: $C$), ($C$, $D$), ($D$, $C$) and ($D$, $D$), which get payoffs
73: ($r$, $r$), ($s$, $t$), ($t$, $s$), and ($p$, $p$), respectively.
74: The parameters satisfy the conditions $t>r>p>s$ and $2r>t+s$, so
75: that lead to a so-called dilemma situation where mutual trust and
76: cooperation is beneficial in a long perspective but egoism and
77: guile can produce big short-term profit. Agents update their
78: states by imitating the strategy of the wealthiest among their
79: neighborhoods in subsequent plays. The system is easy to get into
80: an absorbing state: all agents are $D$ for large values of $t$,
81: which is known as the tragedy of the \emph{commons }\cite
82: {Hardin}.
83:
84: Recently, Szab\'o \emph{et al.} \cite {Szabo_0, Szabo_1, Szabo_2}
85: developed the SPDG with voluntary participation, in which agents
86: can take one of three possible strategies, \emph {cooperator},
87: \emph {defector} and \emph {loner} ($L$). \emph {Cooperators} and
88: \emph {defectors} are interested in taking part in the game and
89: the payoffs for their encounters are assigned as before. \emph
90: {Loners} do not participate in the game temporarily and get the
91: same small fixed income $\sigma$ ($\sigma<r<t$) as their
92: neighbors. Thus the payoff matrix can be tabulated as
93: \begin {eqnarray}
94: \begin {array}{c c c c}
95: &{\bf C} & {\bf D} & {\bf L}\\ {\bf C} & r & s & \sigma \\
96: {\bf D} & t & p & \sigma \\ {\bf L} & \sigma & \sigma &
97: \sigma.
98: \end {array}
99: \end {eqnarray}
100: Each element in the matrix denotes the corresponding payoff of an
101: agent adopting the strategy of the left and encountering an agent
102: performing the strategy of the above. In the volunteers version,
103: the three strategies can coexist by cyclic dominance ($D$ invades
104: $C$ invades $L$ invades $D$), which efficiently avoid the system
105: getting into a frozen state.
106:
107: In this Brief Report, we study the SPDG with voluntary
108: participation in the Newman-Watts (NW) network, which is a typical
109: small-world model constructed as follows: starting with a
110: two-dimensional lattice with periodic boundary conditions; each
111: agent locates on the lattice and links with its four nearest
112: neighbors; for every agent, with probability $Q$, we add a long
113: range link for each its four links to a random selected agent from
114: the whole system with duplicate links forbidden; then a NW network
115: is realized (see Ref. \cite {Newman_1} for details). The
116: structural characteristics of social communities, namely, high
117: clustering and small diameter, can be well described by this
118: small-world graph. A round of play consists of the encounters of
119: all agents with their nearest neighbors. Following Ref. \cite
120: {Kim}, the payoffs earned by the agents are calculated as average
121: and not accumulated from round to round. To start the next round,
122: agents are allowed to inspect the profits collected by their
123: neighbors and adjust their strategies.
124:
125: We argue that the ingredients for agents changing their states
126: mainly come from two aspects: (i) For the sake of pursuing higher
127: profits, agents have a trend to follow the successful agents who
128: get higher payoffs, i.e., \lq\lq successful\rq\rq strategies are
129: imitated. We figure that $i$th agent adopts the strategy of its
130: arbitrary neighbor $j$ with a probability
131: \begin {equation}
132: \gamma_{ij}=\frac{g_{j}}{\sum_{k\in\Omega_{i}} g_{k}}\label{rule},
133: \end {equation}
134: where $g_{j}$ denotes the average profit earned by $j$th agent and
135: $\Omega_{i}$ is the community composing of the nearest neighbors
136: of $i$ and itself; (ii) When one agent and its neighbors are in
137: the same state and get the same average payoffs, it has a
138: spontaneous willing to make some mutations. We propose that the
139: agents getting into the above case make spontaneous alterations
140: with a probability depending on the elements of the payoff matrix.
141: If the agent under consideration is $C$, in the next round, the
142: probabilities for its changing to $C$, $D$, or $L$ are
143: $r/(r+t+\sigma)$, $t/(r+t+\sigma)$, and $\sigma/(r+t+\sigma)$
144: respectively; if the agent is $D$, the probabilities for its
145: changing to $C$, $D$, or $L$ are $s/(s+p+\sigma)$,
146: $p/(s+p+\sigma)$, and $\sigma/(s+p+\sigma)$ respectively; and if
147: the agent is $L$, the probabilities of its changing to $C$, $D$,
148: or $L$ are the same value and equal to $1/3$. This spontaneous
149: mutational mechanism not only efficiently avoids the system
150: getting into a frozen state but also sufficiently describes the
151: agents' flexibility.
152:
153: \begin {figure}
154: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{fig1.eps}} \caption{The
155: evolution of the density of \emph {defectors} ($\rho_{D}$) with
156: varied values of (RTQ, $Q$) under the equilibrium state: (a) form
157: top to bottom, the curves correspond to ($0.02$, $0.1$), ($0.56$,
158: $0.1$), ($0.56$, $0.5$) respectively; and (b) ($0.02$, $0.5$).}
159: \label {fig1}
160: \end {figure}
161:
162: \begin {figure}
163: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{fig2.eps}} \caption{MC data
164: of the density of defectors as a function of the network's
165: structure parameter $Q$ under different values of RTQ: 0.02 (a),
166: 0.1 (b), 0.2 (c) and 0.8 (d). Closed squares represent the average
167: density of defectors; open circles and triangles show their
168: maximal and minimal values due to oscillation.} \label {fig2}
169: \end {figure}
170:
171: \begin {figure}
172: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{fig3.eps}} \caption{MC data
173: of the density of defectors as a function of RTQ under different
174: values of the network's structure parameter Q: 0.001 (a), 0.1 (b),
175: 0.5 (c) and 1.0 (d). The symbols as shown in Fig. \ref
176: {fig2}.}\label {fig3}
177: \end {figure}
178:
179:
180: \begin {figure}
181: \centerline{\epsfxsize=6cm \epsffile{fig4.eps}} \caption{The
182: density of \emph {cooperators} (a), \emph{ defectors} (b) and
183: \emph{loners} (c) vs the network's structure parameter $Q$ under
184: different values of RTQ. The symbols of open squares, closed
185: circles, open triangles, closed diamonds and open stars correspond
186: to the value of RTQ: $0.02$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.56$, and $0.8$,
187: respectively.}\label {fig4}
188: \end {figure}
189:
190: \begin {figure}
191: \centerline{\epsfxsize=6cm \epsffile{fig5.eps}} \caption{Average
192: payoffs of \emph {cooperators} (a) and \emph {defectors} (b) vs
193: the network's structure parameter $Q$ under different values of
194: RTQ: $0.02$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.56$, and $0.8$. The symbols are the
195: same as shown in Fig. \ref {fig4}, and the dotted line indicates
196: the fixed average payoff of \emph {loners}.}\label {fig5}
197: \end {figure}
198:
199: Our analysis of the model is based on systematic Monte Carlo (MC)
200: simulations performed in different NW networks with the total size
201: of $200 \times 200$ populations. The three strategies are assigned
202: randomly to the agents with probability $1/3$ initially. For
203: convenience, following Refs. \cite {Szabo_1, Nowak, Abramson,
204: Kim}, we set $s=p=0$, $r=1$, $\sigma=0.3$, and $1<t<2$. We define
205: $t-r$ as the relative temptation quantity (shortly RTQ) reflecting
206: the extent of the temptation and cursorily partition the networks
207: into three regions: lattice, small-world and random graphs
208: corresponding to the variational range of $Q$: $(0.0001, 0.001)$,
209: $(0.001, 0.3)$ and $(0.3, 1)$ respectively. We iterate the rules
210: of the model with parallel updating. The total sampling times are
211: $5000$ MC steps. After appropriate relaxation times the system
212: stabilizes in dynamical equilibrium characterized by their
213: densities of $\rho_{C}$, $\rho_{D}$, $\rho_{L}$ and average
214: payoffs $P_{C}$, $P_{D}$, $P_{L}$. According to the previous
215: assumption, it is easy to know that $P_{L}$ is always equals to
216: $\sigma$. All the results are averaged over the realizations of
217: ten networks.
218:
219: The main features of the steady-state phase diagram can be
220: summarized as follows. All three states coexist and coevolve
221: steadily in equilibrium state. For large values of $Q$ with very
222: small values of RTQ, strong global oscillations arise, which is
223: similar to the phenomena studied in Ref. \cite {Szabo_2} for high
224: temptation to defect. The bifurcation of $\rho_{D}$ for large
225: values of temptation studied in Refs. \cite {Szabo_1, Szabo_2},
226: however, does not arise in our model. For small values of $Q$ with
227: arbitrary values of RTQ or large values of RTQ with arbitrary
228: values of $Q$, the stationary state is characterized by a weak
229: global oscillation where the amplitude of fluctuation is
230: significantly less than the corresponding average value. As a
231: distinct view, in Fig. \ref{fig1}, the last $2000$ steps'
232: evolution of $\rho_{D}$ under values of $Q$ ($0.1$ and $0.5$) and
233: RTQ ($0.02$ and $0.56$) has been tracked (the evolution of
234: $\rho_{C}$ and $\rho_{L}$ are similar to $\rho_{D}$); the average
235: values of $\rho_D$ and the corresponding maximum and minimum
236: deviation in the steady state are also reported in Fig. \ref{fig2}
237: for fixed values of RTQ $(0.02, 0.1, 0.2, 0.8)$ with varied values
238: of $Q$ $\in (0.0001 \thicksim 1.0)$ and in Fig. \ref {fig3} for
239: fixed values of $Q$ $(0.001, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0)$ with varied values of
240: RTQ $\in (0.0\thicksim 1.0)$. These phenomena can be explained as
241: follows.
242:
243: During the process of the evolution, \emph {defectors} can not
244: form stable large clusters, of which the inner agents would get
245: zero profit and possess the same state as their neighbors
246: (\emph{local commons}). According to the evolutionary rules, they
247: will try to throw off embarrassment by changing their strategies.
248: Namely, the easy formation of clusters of $D$ will make the agents
249: self-adapt frequently in their communities, and then confine the
250: fluctuation of $ \rho_{D}$ in a narrow range [see Fig.
251: \ref{fig1}(a), Fig. \ref{fig2}(b), Fig. \ref{fig2}(c), Fig.
252: \ref{fig2}(d), Fig. \ref{fig3}(a), Fig. \ref{fig3}(b)]. There are
253: two factors favoring the forming of clusters of \emph{defectors}:
254: the high temptation to defect (large values of RTQ) and the well
255: clustered structure of the agents (small values of $Q$), which
256: would strengthen the adoption and the imitation of strategy $D$
257: greatly. Therefore, in our model, high temptation to defect will
258: only give rise to steady oscillation of the system rather than
259: result in the bifurcation phenomena studied in Refs. \cite
260: {Szabo_1, Szabo_2}. While for poorly clustered agents (large
261: values of $Q$) with low temptation, the formation of large
262: clusters of \emph{defectors} is reasonably difficult, which would
263: slow down the evolutionary velocity of the whole system and
264: guarantee the growth (decline) of $\rho_{D}$ lasting for a long
265: time, and consequently broaden the fluctuant amplitude (see Fig.
266: \ref{fig1}(b), Fig. \ref{fig2}(a), Fig. \ref{fig3}(c) and Fig.
267: \ref{fig3}(d).
268:
269: In addition, in the lattice region, $\rho_{D}$ keeps a steady
270: level for any values of RTQ [see Fig. \ref{fig2}, Fig.
271: \ref{fig3}(a) and Fig. \ref{fig4}(b)]. It is also a result of the
272: fast self-adaptation of the agents. With the increasing of RTQ,
273: agents of $C$ are easy to change to $D$ for high temptation, and
274: then again change to $L$ because clusters of \emph{defectors} are
275: extremely unstable and can not survive a long time. The decrease
276: of $\rho_C$ nearly results in the increasing of $\rho_L$ [see Fig.
277: \ref{fig4}(a) and Fig. \ref{fig4}(c)]. In this region, the fast
278: self-adaptation of the agents also leads to the case that the
279: neighbors of \emph{defectors} would include other types of agents
280: in most time during the evolution, which gives rise to larger
281: values of $P_D$ than $P_L$. By comparison, in Refs. \cite{Szabo_1,
282: Szabo_2}, very big clusters of \emph{defectors} can survive a long
283: time during the evolution and most agents would get only the zero
284: payoff resulting in lower average payoffs of the \emph{defectors}
285: than the \emph{loners}. It is obvious that the differences in the
286: evolutionary dynamics of the game give rise to the distinct
287: results. It is worth mentioning that the present model is also
288: different from the cyclic spatial games studied in Ref. \cite
289: {Szabo_3} where the dynamics evolution is governed by a strictly
290: cyclic dominance, i.e., $\emph {rock}$ dominates $\emph
291: {scissors}$ dominates $\emph {paper}$ dominates $\emph {rock}$.
292: While in our model, any two types of the three strategies can
293: transform each other in particular case. As a result of the
294: difference in evolutionary dynamics, the phase transitions
295: phenomena studied in Ref. \cite {Szabo_3} for $\emph
296: {rock-scissors-paper}$ games do not arise in our model.
297:
298: Another interesting feature of the equilibrium phase diagram is
299: that in the vicinity of $Q=0.1$ where the NW networks possess
300: notable small-world effect, namely, large clustering and small
301: diameter at the same time, agents are willing to participation in
302: the game in the case of very low temptation to defect. To view in
303: detail, in Fig.\ref {fig4} and Fig.\ref {fig5}, we plot the
304: average density and corresponding average payoffs of $C$-$D$-$L$
305: vs the small-world parameter $Q$ under different values of RTQ
306: respectively. For very low temptation to defect (e.g. RTQ$=0.02$),
307: the evolutionary curve of $\rho_{L}$ decreases slowly with the
308: increasing of $Q$ and reaches a minimum at certain culminating
309: point. As $Q$ increases over this point, $\rho_{L}$ ascends
310: rapidly (see Fig. \ref{fig4}). We conclude that two factors, the
311: very low temptation to defect and the small-world property of the
312: network, are beneficial for the spreading of $C$ in the system,
313: which then stimulates more and more agents to take part in the
314: game. In the case of more random networks $(Q\rightarrow1)$, the
315: evolutionary results of the game are qualitatively the same as
316: Refs. \cite{Szabo_1, Szabo_2}, i.e., the majority of members in
317: the system are \emph{loners} and the values of $P_{C}$ and $P_{D}$
318: get closed to the fixed value $\sigma$.
319:
320:
321: In summary, we have studied the SPDG with voluntary participation
322: in NW small-world networks. To model the realistic social systems,
323: some reasonable ingredients are introduced to the evolutionary
324: dynamics: each agent in the networks is a pure strategist and can
325: only take one of three strategies (\emph {C, D, L}); its
326: strategical transformation is associated with both the number of
327: strategical states and the magnitude of average profits, which are
328: adopted and acquired by its coplayers in the previous round of
329: play. To model initiative and flexibility, a stochastic strategy
330: change is applied when the agents get into the condition of \emph
331: {local commons}. The agents self-adapt and self-organize into
332: dynamical equilibrium after a short transient. When the agents are
333: well structured (the cases of small values of $Q$), they can
334: steadily coexist and coevolve. On the other hand, for high
335: temptation or more random networks, \emph {loners} dominate the
336: network. Especially, in the case of very low temptation to defect,
337: it is found that agents are willing to participate in the game in
338: typical small-world region and intensive collective oscillations
339: arise in more random region.
340:
341: %\bigskip
342:
343: The authors thank Prof. Hong Zhao for interesting discussions.
344: This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science
345: Foundation of China under Grant No. 10305005 and the Natural
346: Science Foundation of Gansu Province under Grant No.
347: ZS011-A25-004-2.
348: \begin {references}
349: \bibitem{Neumann}
350: J.von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, \emph{Theory of Games and
351: Economic Behavior } (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
352: 1953).
353:
354: \bibitem{Wahl}
355: L.M. Wahl and M.A. Nowak, J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{200}, 307
356: (1999); \textbf{200}, 323 (1999).
357:
358: \bibitem{Fehr} E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher, Econom. J.
359: \textbf{112}, 478 (2002); K. Clark and M. Sefton, Econom. J.
360: \textbf{111}, 51 (2001).
361:
362: \bibitem{Mesterton-Gibbons}
363: M. Mesterton-Gibbons and L.A. Dugatkin, Anim. Behav. \textbf{54},
364: 551 (1997).
365:
366: \bibitem{Huberman}
367: B.A. Huberman and R.M. Lukose, Science \textbf{227}, 535 (1997);
368: J.H. Miller \emph{et al.}, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. \textbf{47}, 179
369: (2002).
370:
371: \bibitem {Maynard}
372: J.M. Smith, \emph{Evolution and the Theory of Games} (Cambridge
373: University Press, Cambridge, 1982).
374:
375: \bibitem {Axelrod}
376: R. Axelrod, \emph{The Evolution of Cooperation} (Basic Books, New
377: York, 1984).
378:
379: \bibitem{Szabo_0}
380: G. Szab\'o and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 118101
381: (2002).
382:
383: \bibitem {Vainstein}
384: M.H. Vainstein and J.J. Arenzon, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{64}, 051905
385: (2001).
386:
387: \bibitem {Nowak}
388: M.A. Nowak and R.M. May, Nature \textbf{359}, 826 (1992); M.A.
389: Nowak and K. Sigmund, J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{168}, 219 (1994).
390:
391: \bibitem {Szabo_1}
392: G. Szab\'o and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 062903 (2002).
393:
394: \bibitem {Ebel}
395: H. Ebel and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 056118 (2002).
396:
397: \bibitem {Szabo_2}
398: G. Szab\'o and J. Vukov, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 036107 (2004).
399:
400: \bibitem{Kim}
401: B.J. Kim \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 021907 (2002).
402:
403: \bibitem {Abramson}
404: G. Abramson and M. Kuperman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{63}, 030901
405: (2001).
406:
407: \bibitem{Holme}
408: P. Holme \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 030901 (2003).
409:
410: \bibitem {Hardin}
411: G. Hardin, Science \textbf{162}, 1243 (1968).
412:
413: \bibitem{Newman_1}
414: M.E.J. Newman and D.J. Watts, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{60}, 7332
415: (1999).
416:
417: \bibitem {Szabo_3}
418: G. Szab\'o \emph{et al.}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. \textbf{37}, 2599
419: (2004); A. Szolnoki, and G. Szab\'o, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70},
420: 037102 (2004).
421:
422: \end {references}
423:
424: \end {document}
425: