1: %\documentclass [preprint,preprintnumbers,showpacs,amssymb] {revtex4}
2: %\documentclass [twocolumn,preprintnumbers,showpacs,amssymb] {revtex4}
3: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphics,epsfig}
5: \usepackage{epsfig,graphicx}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8: \usepackage{times}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game with dynamic preferential selection}
13:
14: \author{Zhi-Xi Wu$^{1}$, Xin-Jian Xu$^{2}$, Zi-Gang Huang$^{1}$, Sheng-Jun Wang$^{1}$, and Ying-Hai Wang$^{1}$}
15:
16: \address{$^{1}$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou
17: University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China\\
18: $^{2}$Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of
19: Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China}
20:
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We study a modified prisoner's dilemma game taking place on
25: two-dimensional disordered square lattices. The players are pure
26: strategists and can either cooperate or defect with their
27: immediate neighbors. In the generations each player update its
28: strategy by following one of the neighboring strategies with a
29: probability dependent on the payoff difference. The neighbor
30: selection obeys a dynamic preferential rule, i.e., the more
31: frequently a neighbor's strategy was adopted by the focal player
32: in the previous rounds, the larger probability it will be chosen
33: to refer to in the subsequent rounds. It is found that cooperation
34: is substantially promoted due to this simple selection mechanism.
35: Corresponding analysis is provided by the investigations of the
36: distribution of players' impact weights, persistence, and as well
37: as correlation function.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \pacs{02.50.Le, 05.50.+q, 87.23.Cc, 89.65.-s}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \section{introduction}
45: Game theory and its evolutionary context are efficient frameworks
46: to study complex behaviors of biological, ecological, social and
47: economic systems \cite{Neumann,Maynard,Axelrod,Hofbauer}. Of
48: particular renown is the evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game
49: (PDG) which has attracted much attention in theoretical and
50: experimental studies \cite{Axelrod,Hofbauer,Wahl,Fehr,Mesterton}.
51: In the original PDG, players can make two choices: either to
52: cooperate with their co-players or to defect. They are offered
53: some payoffs dependent on their choices, which can be expressed by
54: a $2\times2$ payoff matrix in agreement with the four
55: possibilities. The players get rewards $R$ (or punishment $P$) if
56: both choose to cooperate (or defect). If one player cooperates
57: while the other defects, then the cooperator $(C)$ gets the lowest
58: payoff $S$ (sucker's payoff), while the defector $(D)$ gains the
59: highest payoff $T$ (the temptation to defect). Thus the elements
60: of the payoff matrix satisfy the conditions: $T>R>P>S$ and
61: $2R>T+S$, so that lead to a so-called dilemma situation where
62: mutual cooperation is beneficial in a long perspective but egoism
63: can produce big short-term profits.
64:
65: One of the most interesting items on the PDG is to study under
66: what conditions mutual cooperation will emerge and sustain stably
67: or how to facilitate the cooperation of the whole population
68: \cite{Maynard, Axelrod, Hofbauer}. In the evolutionary PDG, the
69: state that all players are defectors has been proved to be an
70: evolutionary stable state \cite{Hofbauer}, which has inspired
71: numerous investigations of suitable extensions that enable
72: cooperation to persist. Nowak and May \cite{Nowak} introduced a
73: spatial evolutionary PDG model in which individuals located on a
74: lattice play with their neighbors and with themselves. The
75: dynamics is governed by a deterministic rule: in each subsequent
76: round, individuals adopt the strategy that has gained the highest
77: payoff among its neighbors (including also themselves) in the
78: previous round. It has been shown that the spatial effects promote
79: substantially the survival of cooperators \cite{Nowak, Hubermann,
80: Nowak_1, Nowak_2, Hauert_0}. The enhancement of cooperation on
81: lattice-like spatial structure is robust even if some specified
82: distance interactions are allowed \cite{Nowak_2}.
83:
84: Szab\'{o} and T\H{o}ke extended the deterministic dynamics to a
85: stochastic evolutionary one \cite{Szabo_0}: rather than following
86: the most successful neighbor's strategy straightly, the adoption
87: of one of the neighboring strategies is allowed with a probability
88: dependent on the payoff difference. This revised version took into
89: account the irrational choices of the players. It was observed
90: that a stable absorbing state of all $C$ emerged when the
91: temptation to defect is below a certain critical value
92: (noise-dependent). Vainstein and Arenzon studied the PDG on a
93: diluted lattice \cite{Vainstein} and found that cooperation is
94: easier to maintain due to blocking the spreading of defection
95: caused by the empty sites on the lattice. The investigations of
96: the PDG on random graphs have shown that cooperation is strongly
97: enhanced for lattices with fluctuating connectivity in comparison
98: with fixed connectivity lattice \cite{Duran}. In the past few
99: years, the PDG has been studied on different social network
100: models. It was found that cooperation can be maintained on these
101: networks in a wide range of network parameters \cite{Abramson,
102: Kim, Ebel, Holme, Wu, Szabo_1, Szabo_2}. In addition, several
103: mechanisms were also introduced to sustain high concentration of
104: cooperators, such as voluntary participation \cite{Szabo_1},
105: dynamic network model \cite{Zimmermann} and dynamic payoff
106: matrices \cite{Tomochi}, and so on. Very recently, Santos \emph{et
107: al.} studied the PDG and snowdrift games on scale-free networks.
108: Their results indicated that the heterogeneity of networks favors
109: the emergence of cooperation \cite{Santos}.
110:
111: Though many intriguing fruits have been obtained in understanding
112: the emergence of cooperation in spatial PDG \cite {Nowak,
113: Hubermann, Nowak_1, Nowak_2, Hauert_0, Szabo_0, Vainstein, Duran,
114: Abramson, Kim, Ebel, Holme, Wu, Szabo_1, Szabo_2}, it would also
115: be interesting to explore other mechanisms to enhance the
116: cooperative behavior. In the present work, we make further studies
117: of the evolutionary PDG using Szab\'{o}-T\H{o}ke version
118: \cite{Szabo_0} on two-dimensional disordered square lattices.
119: Considering individuals heterogeneously affected by their
120: neighbors in society, we introduce impact weight to each one of
121: the interacting players. Based on the player's impact weights, a
122: dynamic preferential selection (DPS) mechanism is incorporated
123: into the spatial PDG to model dynamic behaviors of human
124: communities. It will be shown that the DPS promotes substantially
125: the cooperative behavior of the players which may provide a new
126: perspective in understanding the persistence of cooperation in
127: realistic world.
128:
129: In the next section, evolutionary rules of the game are explained.
130: In Sec. III, simulation results of our model implemented on
131: disordered lattices are presented and, in Sec. IV, the effects of
132: the DPS on the evolution of cooperation is studied in detail.
133: Conclusions are given in the last section.
134:
135: \section{The Model}
136: We consider the evolutionary PDG with players located on the
137: two-dimensional disordered square lattice which is characterized
138: by a total $\phi$ portion of randomly rewired links with fixed
139: number of neighbors of each site (in the limit
140: $\phi\rightarrow1.0$, the \lq\lq disordered lattice\rq\rq is in
141: fact a regular random graph \cite{Szabo_1, Szabo_3}). This
142: approach excludes those effects coming from the fluctuation of the
143: number of neighbors as it happens on diluted lattices \cite
144: {Vainstein}, random graphs \cite{Duran}, and scale-free networks
145: \cite{Santos}. Similar consideration has also been made in Refs.
146: \cite{Szabo_2, Szabo_3}. The players are pure strategists and can
147: follow only two simple strategies: $C$ (cooperate) and $D$
148: (defect). Each player plays a PDG with itself and with its
149: neighbors, and collects payoffs dependent on the payoff-matrix
150: parameters. The total payoffs of a certain player is the sum over
151: all interactions. Following common practices \cite{Nowak, Szabo_0,
152: Abramson, Kim}, the elements of the payoff matrix can be rescaled,
153: i.e., choosing $R=1$, $P=S=0$, and $T=b$ $(1.0<b<2.0)$ to
154: represent the advantage of defectors over cooperators. We have
155: checked that the properties of the simulation results do not
156: change for $S=-\epsilon$ $(0.0 < \epsilon \ll 1.0)$.
157:
158: In society, some special persons may influence others much
159: stronger than the average individual \cite{Kim}. In other words,
160: different neighbors would have different impacts on one's
161: behavior. In general, one can expect that the influence between
162: two individuals would be asymmetric and time-dependent. To model
163: this situation, we define a quantity $A_{ij}(t)$, which describes
164: the impact weight of the $j$th player on the $i$th player at time
165: $t$ and possesses the asymmetric property, i.e., $A_{ij}(t) \neq
166: A_{ji}(t)$. In this way, we hope to catch some general effects of
167: the dynamic asymmetric influence among interacting players on the
168: dynamical behavior of the game.
169:
170: After each round of the game, players are allowed to inspect their
171: neighbors' payoffs and change their strategies in the next round
172: according to the comparisons. The randomly chosen player $i$
173: revises its strategy by selecting one of its neighbors $j$ with a
174: probability $\gamma$ in terms of a preferential selection rule:
175: \begin {equation}
176: \gamma_{ij}=\frac{A_{ij}(t)}{\sum_{k\in\Omega_{i}} A_{ik}(t)}\label{rule1},
177: \end {equation}
178: where $\Omega_{i}$ is the community composing of the nearest
179: neighbors of $i$. Eq. (\ref {rule1}) means that the stronger the
180: impact of a neighbor is, the larger probability it is selected to
181: compare with. If and only if their strategies are different, the
182: $i$th player's state as well as the neighbor's impact weight will
183: be updated, otherwise nothing happens (no strategy transformation
184: and impact weight update). Following ideas developed by Szab\'{o}
185: \emph{et al.} \cite{Szabo_0, Szabo_1, Szabo_2, Szabo_3}, given the
186: total payoffs ($E_i$ and $E_j$ for the $i$th and $j$th players,
187: respectively) from the previous round, the player $i$ adopts $j$'s
188: strategy with the probability
189: \begin{equation}
190: W = \frac{1}{1 + \exp{[-(E_j - E_i)/\kappa]}}\label{eq1},
191: \end{equation}
192: where $\kappa$ characterizes the noise introduced to permit
193: irrational choices. It should be noted that the transformation is
194: only affected by their payoff difference. We set the value of
195: $\kappa$ to $0.1$, similar to that in Refs. \cite{Szabo_0,
196: Szabo_1, Szabo_2, Szabo_3}. Generating a random number $r$ from a
197: uniform distribution in the interval $(0, 1)$, if $r< W$ (or
198: $r>W$), the player $j$'s strategy is accepted (or discarded) by
199: the player $i$ and $A_{ij}(t)$ is revised according to the
200: following rule
201: \begin {equation}
202: A_{ij}(t+1)=A_{ij}(t)(1\pm\alpha)\label{rule2},
203: \end {equation}
204: where the minus corresponds to the case of $r>W$, denoting no
205: strategy updating for the $i$th player. Initially, all $A_{ij}(0)$
206: are assigned to $1.0$. The parameter $\alpha$ in Eq. (\ref{rule2})
207: can be depicted as a multiplication factor which characterizes
208: qualitatively the relative change of the impact weight in each
209: round. Larger $\alpha$ corresponds to stronger strengthening (or
210: losing) of impact. In subsequent investigations, the value of
211: $\alpha$ is constrained in the range $(0,1)$ to ensure no negative
212: elements in $A_{ij}(t)$, which means that all opinions ($C$ and
213: $D$ in the present case) have opportunities to be followed. If
214: strategies of the players spread successfully, they can be called
215: as \lq\lq winners\rq\rq regardless of the payoffs (for example,
216: due to the noise, the worse performance strategy also has a
217: certain probability to take over a better performance one). Thus,
218: this rule (Eq. (\ref{rule2})) could be termed as: \lq\lq
219: win-strengthen, lose-weaken\rq\rq. The more frequently a player's
220: strategy followed by its neighbors, the larger probability it will
221: be picked up to refer to in the subsequent generations, and vice
222: versa.
223:
224: \section{simulation results}
225: In what follows three groups of systems will be considered: (i)
226: regular square lattices ($\phi=0.0$ with $\alpha=0.0$, $0.01$,
227: $0.1$, and $0.3$, respectively); (ii) weak disordered lattices
228: ($\phi=0.1$ with the same values of $\alpha$ as before); (iii)
229: strong disordered lattices ($\phi=1.0$ with the same values of
230: $\alpha$ as the former). On the one hand (as a byproduct), we want
231: to understand how the underlying disordered structures affect the
232: evolution of the PDG; on the other hand (as the main aim), we try
233: to explore the potentiality of the DPS (in combination with the
234: disordered structures) on the evolution of cooperation.
235:
236: All the simulations are performed in systems with $300\times300$
237: players. Starting from a random initial state with equal fraction
238: of $C$ and $D$, we iterate the model with synchronous update. The
239: evolution eventually leads to dynamic equilibrium states with
240: small fluctuations of the cooperator density around an average
241: value. The parameter $\alpha$, which determines the evolution of
242: impact weights, is not critical, and convergence has been verified
243: for all values of $\alpha$ between $0$ and $1$. A key quantity is
244: the density of cooperators, $\rho_C$, which is defined as the
245: average fraction of players adopting the strategy $C$ in the
246: equilibrium state. The total sampling times were $10^5$
247: Monte-Carlo (MC) steps \cite{Note_1}, and the equilibrium density
248: of cooperators was obtained by averaging over the last $10^4$
249: steps. Each data point (in Figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2})
250: results from an average over 10 realizations for the same type of
251: disordered lattices specified by the parameter $\phi$.
252:
253: The dependence of $\rho_C$ on $b$ in the equilibrium state for
254: different values of $\phi$ and $\alpha$, are shown in Fig.
255: \ref{fig1}. The main features in the steady state are similar to
256: the results reported in Ref. \cite{Szabo_0}, i.e., there exist two
257: different absorbing states $(\rho_C=1$ and $ \rho_C=0)$ separated
258: by the active phase (coexistence of $C$ and $D$). We have found
259: numerically that $\rho_C=1$ in all the cases we are interested in
260: when $b<5/4$, which can be regarded as a homogeneous cooperation
261: state. Since our main aim goes beyond this trivial steady-state,
262: we will only concentrate on the region of $b>5/4$, where new
263: features may emerge.
264:
265: First, we consider the model without DPS ($\alpha=0.0$). In the
266: case of $\phi=0.0$, which corresponds to the regular square
267: lattice, we recover the results of the stochastic model
268: \cite{Szabo_0}, i.e. $\rho_C$ decreases monotonically with the
269: increase of $b$ and vanishes at a threshold $b_c$. When long range
270: links emerge on the lattice ($\phi=0.1$), the level of cooperation
271: is promoted (a larger threshold $b_c$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}(b) than
272: that in Fig. \ref{fig1}(a)), which is different from previous
273: reports that local interactions promote the sustainment of
274: cooperation (see Refs. \cite{Nowak, Hubermann, Nowak_1, Hauert_0}
275: and the references therein). Particularly, in the case of
276: $\phi=1.0$ (corresponding to a regular random graph), where the
277: spatial correlation is very weak, cooperation is enhanced further
278: (if it is just measured by the value of $b_c$). Even in the case
279: of $b>2.0$, minor fractional cooperators can be found in a sea of
280: defectors.
281:
282: These results can be understood in the following way. On the one
283: hand, in our model, the state transformation of the players
284: conforms to a Fermi function (see Eq. (\ref{eq1})) suggested by
285: Szab\'{o} \emph{et al.} \cite{Szabo_0, Szabo_1, Szabo_2, Szabo_3}.
286: Using this update rule, they have also found that long range
287: interactions enhance the cooperation when the PDG (with no
288: self-interactions included) was performed on regular random graphs
289: \cite{Szabo_1}. On the other hand, self-interactions are included
290: in the present work. Recently, Hauert and Doebeli have studied
291: another famous evolutionary game, snowdrift game, on different
292: types of lattice \cite{Hauert_1}. They have found that the spatial
293: structure eliminates cooperation for intermediate and high
294: cost-to-benefit ratio of cooperation because benefits of costly
295: cooperative acts accrue not only to others but also to the
296: cooperator itself \cite{Hauert_1, Doebeli}. As to our PDG model,
297: each player $C$ plays with itself besides its nearest neighbors,
298: which indicates that it will gain at least $R$ payoff even in the
299: worst case (surrounding by four defectors). In a different
300: interpretation, besides their neighbors, the cooperators'
301: investment will benefit themselves too. Note that the high
302: cost-to-benefit ratio of cooperation in snowdrift game corresponds
303: to large values of $b$ in the PDG. Considering these two factors,
304: it is not surprising that the disordered structure can promote
305: cooperation in the present model.
306:
307: We now focus our attention on the influence of the DPS on the game
308: evolution. The results obtained for $\alpha=0.01, 0.1, 0.3$ are
309: summarized in Fig. \ref{fig1}. Although qualitative behaviors are
310: similar to those of the random selection case, there are some
311: remarkable quantitative differences. The simulation results depend
312: strongly on both the parameters $\phi$ and $\alpha$. For well
313: structured populations ($\phi=0$, regular square lattice case)
314: with $\alpha=0.01$, the DPS promotes cooperation for small $b$ in
315: comparison with the random selection case. For large $b$, however,
316: the tendency is reversed and the fraction of cooperators is
317: somewhat lower than the corresponding value in the case of
318: $\alpha=0.0$. There exists a cross point for $b$ separating the
319: two regions which depends on $\alpha$: for $\alpha=0.01$,
320: $b\approx1.5$. For the other two values of $\alpha$ ($0.1$ and
321: $0.3$), the DPS enhances greatly the cooperation with respect to
322: otherwise. In the cases of disordered structural populations
323: ($\phi=0.1$ and $1.0$), for all the values of $\alpha$ considered
324: here, the cooperative behavior can be substantially promoted (see
325: Figs. \ref{fig1}(b) and \ref{fig1}(c)) and maintained even in the
326: extreme defection circumstance ($b>2.0$), where the game is not a
327: proper Prisoner's Dilemma. It is strikingly interesting that, for
328: disordered structural populations, all the curves nearly collapse
329: into a single curve (shown in Figs. \ref{fig1}(b) and
330: \ref{fig1}(c)) when the DPS is introduced into the game. The
331: visible difference exists only in the region where cooperators are
332: going to extinction. The larger $\alpha$ gives rise to larger
333: threshold $b_c$. The data collapsing is also found in well
334: structured populations for large $\alpha$ (see Fig.
335: \ref{fig1}(a)).
336:
337: From these observed features, we argue that, whether the
338: underlying \lq\lq lattice\rq\rq is well structured or disordered,
339: as soon as the multiplication factor $\alpha$ is finite and
340: sufficiently large, the enhancement of cooperation will be to some
341: extent realized. Despite of the fact that the disordered structure
342: prefers to favor the emergence of cooperation, the much stronger
343: enhancement of cooperative behavior for $\alpha>0.0$ than that for
344: $\alpha=0.0$ implies that the DPS plays a crucial role in the
345: dynamics.
346:
347: \begin{figure}
348: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{fig1.eps}} \caption{(color
349: online). Average density of cooperators, $\rho_{c}$, as a function
350: of the temptation to defect $b$ in the equilibrium state. Filled
351: and open symbols correspond to the cases of random selection and
352: preferential selection, respectively.} \label {fig1}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: \begin{figure}
356: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{fig2.eps}} \caption{(color
357: online). Average density of cooperators, $\rho_{c}$, as a function
358: of the multiplication factor, $\alpha$, for three special values
359: of $b$ (colored symbols). The colored lines correspond to random
360: selection cases $(\alpha=0.0)$: dashed (black) for $\phi=0.0$,
361: dotted (red) for $\phi=0.1$, and dash-dotted (blue) for
362: $\phi=1.0$, respectively.} \label {fig2}
363: \end{figure}
364:
365: \begin{figure}
366: \centerline{\epsfxsize=9cm \epsffile{fig3.eps}} \caption{(color
367: online). Histograms (over $10^5$ time steps) of impact weights of
368: players in the equilibrium state. Only the data which fall into
369: the region $[10^{-16}, 10^{16}]$ are shown. The power-law decaying
370: behavior determined by the intrinsic nature of Eq. (\ref{rule2})
371: is visible in both the very large limit and the very small limit
372: of the impact weights.} \label {fig3}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: In Fig. \ref{fig2}, we show the plots of $\rho_C$ as a function of
376: $\alpha$ for three special values of $b$, to emphasize the changes
377: in behaviors as the lattice varies. The colored dashed lines
378: correspond to the results obtained for the random selection case
379: and the symbols for the DPS case. Different colors denote
380: different disordered degree of the lattice: black for $\phi=0.0$,
381: red for $\phi=0.1$ and blue for $\phi=1.0$, respectively. Note
382: that only the curves for $\phi=0.0$ have a clear sensitivity to
383: the values of $\alpha$ (black squares in Figs. \ref{fig2}(a) and
384: \ref{fig2}(b)). The temptation to defect, $b$, has also an
385: influence on the results. In the cases of small $\alpha$ with
386: $\phi=0.0$, for low temptation ($b=1.48$), the cooperation level
387: is slightly higher for the DPS case than that for the random
388: selection case; whereas for high temptation ($b=1.75$), the
389: phenomenon is reversed. The Similar discrepancy can also be found
390: for large values of $\alpha$ with $\phi=0.0$: the spatial
391: structure promotes slightly the cooperation level for $b=1.48$
392: (see Fig. \ref{fig2}(a)), and yet inhibits that for $b=1.75$ (see
393: Fig. \ref{fig2}(b)). The transition point seems to be around
394: $\alpha \approx 0.06$. Since regular lattices are not realistic
395: representations of most actual population structures
396: \cite{Newman}, especially human (because of the mobility and
397: dispersal ability of the individuals), we do not comment further
398: on these trivial results and focus our attention on those issues
399: where disordered structures are present ($\phi=0.1$ and $1.0$).
400:
401: Now taking a look at Figs. \ref{fig2}(a), (b) and (c), we clearly
402: observe that for any finite values of $\alpha$ we are interested
403: in, given fixed values of $b$ and $\phi$, the cooperation level is
404: almost independent of $\alpha$, and the relative deviation of the
405: results is less than $5\%$. Despite of this point, we would like
406: to point out that the enhancement of cooperation appears also
407: insensitive to the special values of $\phi$, i.e., more disordered
408: structures have little essential influence on the evolutionary
409: results, at least, for the case of $0.1<\phi<1.0$. This problem
410: should deserve to make further investigations in the future work.
411:
412: To end up this section, let us review the novel features of the
413: results obtained by computer simulations. When introducing the DPS
414: to the evolutionary PDG, we have found that the cooperative
415: behavior in the populations is substantially enhanced with respect
416: to the random selection case. The enhancement is robust against
417: whether the underlying lattice is well structured or disordered.
418: Though the evolutionary results depend on both $\phi$ and
419: $\alpha$, as long as the underlying lattice is finitely disordered
420: and the multiplication factor $\alpha$ is also sufficiently large
421: (e.g., $\alpha>0.003$ in the present studied cases \cite{Note_2}),
422: the resulting cooperation level seems insensitive to both $\phi$
423: and $\alpha$ for fixed values of $b$.
424:
425: \begin{figure*}
426: \centerline{\epsfxsize=15cm \epsffile{fig4.eps}} \caption{(color
427: online). Persistence function $P_{c}(t,t_w)$ and correlation
428: function $Q_{c}(t,t_w)$ for different combinations of $b$, $\phi$
429: and $\alpha$ as a function of time interval $t-t_w$ where
430: $t_w=95000$. Inset: time evolution of the persistence function
431: $P(t,t_w)$ for both strategies $C$ and $D$. That the persistence
432: $P_{c}(t,t_w)$ goes to zero in the long time limit indicates the
433: random walk and annihilation of cooperators, whereas the non-zero
434: plateau of it implies the stable maintenance of the communities of
435: the cooperators. The plots of $Q_{c}(t,t_w)$ also give the same
436: hints, which sustains the level of the datum time $t_w$ for the
437: stable maintenance case, and displays the mean-field behavior for
438: the random walk case. See the text for details.} \label {fig4}
439: \end{figure*}
440:
441: \section{analysis and discussion}
442: Before discussing the further details as to why the above
443: evolutionary results may occur, we briefly review those results
444: obtained for the evolutionary PDG performed on the regular
445: lattice. Generally, we are more interested in the region near the
446: extinction threshold of cooperators, from which we can figure out
447: clearly cooperators' evolution and surviving in the sea of
448: defectors. For this issue, Hauert \textit{et al.} \cite{Szabo_1,
449: Hauert_1} have found that cooperators can survive by forming
450: large, compact clusters which minimize the exploitation by
451: defectors. Along the boundary, cooperators can outweigh their
452: losses against defectors by gains from interactions within the
453: cluster . Similar phenomena were observed earlier by Szab\'{o} and
454: T\H{o}ke \cite{Szabo_0}. The compact clusters composing of
455: cooperators do random walks and spread out in the background of
456: defectors. Though, occasionally a cluster splits into two or two
457: clusters collide, merge, or annihilate and vanish \cite{Szabo_1},
458: the compact structures of the surviving clusters can remain in
459: principle unchanged.
460:
461: The problem can be viewed more explicitly: when the players'
462: strategy update is implemented by randomly selecting a neighbor to
463: compare with according to Eq. (\ref{rule2}), the compact
464: structures favor those internal cooperators to forming a stable
465: core, since the components interact only with players taking over
466: strategy $C$. The existence of this core enables those cooperators
467: on surface to have enough channels to collect payoffs so that they
468: can resist the invading of defectors, which in return reinforce
469: the stability of the core. The mutual protection (or reciprocity)
470: of the cooperators enables the compact structures to sustain
471: stably, and hence contributes to the persistence of cooperation.
472:
473: Motivated by the above interpretations, some conjecture on the
474: origin of those results of our model with the presence of DPS
475: depicted in Sec. III may be appropriate here. We think that the
476: DPS could induce the emergence of pairs of influential co-players,
477: and when some of them are cooperators, they will \lq\lq
478: always\rq\rq refer to their influential neighbors' strategies in
479: the subsequent generations, then communities consisting of their
480: neighbors and themselves may form and survive stably in the
481: background of defectors, which would contribute to the persistence
482: of cooperation. Those influential co-players taking over strategy
483: $C$ can be regarded as the core of the communities (or clusters).
484: To test this speculation, we check the probability distribution of
485: $A_{ij}(t)$ in the equilibrium state, which is expected to have a
486: broad distribution so that there could arise a large enough
487: fraction of influential co-players (being cooperators) to form
488: stable core in populations.
489:
490: \begin{figure*}
491: \centerline{\epsfxsize=13cm \epsffile{fig5.eps}} \caption{Right
492: panel: illustration of cooperators and defectors at time $t=9.5
493: \times 10^4$. Middle panel: snapshot showing players that remain
494: unchanged between MC time $t=9.5 \times 10^4$ and $10^5$: the
495: \emph{pinned} cooperators, defectors, and the \emph{active}
496: players are denoted by dark gray boxes, light gray boxes, and
497: white vacancy, respectively. Right panel: only the \emph{pinned}
498: cooperators are shown. Parameters: $\phi=0.0, b=1.75,
499: \alpha=0.1$.} \label{fig5}
500: \end{figure*}
501:
502: In Figure \ref{fig3}, we plot probability distributions of
503: $A_{ij}(t)$ for four different combinations of $b$ and $\phi$ and
504: with corresponding three values of $\alpha$: $b=1.48$, $\phi=0.0$
505: (Fig. \ref{fig3}(a)); $b=1.75$, $\phi=0.0$ (Fig. \ref{fig3}(b));
506: $b=1.9375$, $\phi=0.1$ (Fig. \ref{fig3}(c)); and $b=2.0$,
507: $\phi=1.0$ (Fig. \ref{fig3}(d)), respectively. As indicated, there
508: are very large broad distributions of $A_{ij}(t)$ except for two
509: combinations, ($b=1.48$, $\phi=0.0$, $\alpha=0.01$) and ($b=1.75$,
510: $\phi=0.0$, $\alpha=0.01$). These two combinations do not favor
511: the emergence of cooperation (see Fig. \ref{fig1}(a) for the
512: symbols of red circles) in contrast to other combinations, and
513: also do not provide sufficient conditions for players to form
514: stable clusters which can be seen in the following part. It is
515: worthy to point out that the combinations of well structured
516: populations with sufficiently large $\alpha$ values (Figs.
517: \ref{fig3}(a) and \ref{fig3}(b)) or disordered populations with
518: finite $\alpha$ values (Figs. \ref{fig3}(c) and \ref{fig3}(d))
519: resulting in broad histograms of $A_{ij}(t)$ indeed facilitate the
520: cooperative behavior compared with corresponding random selection
521: cases $(\alpha=0.0)$, which have been verified by previous
522: simulations (see Figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}).
523:
524: To prove that some fractional players may form stable clusters in
525: the presence of the DPS in a more detailed way, we measured the
526: persistence function $P_{C}(t,t_w)$, the fraction of cooperators
527: that do not change strategy between an initial waiting time $t_w$,
528: and the time $t\geq t_w$ \cite{Vainstein}. In addition, the
529: correlation function $Q_{C}(t,t_w)$, which characterizes the
530: fraction of cooperators at time $t$ that have arisen at time $t_w$
531: in spite of finitely many times flipping of the strategy during
532: the two time interval, is also explored. In a distinct view, the
533: results of these two quantities as a function of the time interval
534: $t-t_w$ (measured in MC steps, the time $t_w$ can be selected
535: arbitrarily as long as the systems had attained equilibrium) are
536: summarized in Fig. \ref{fig4} on a log-linear scale for
537: $t_w=95000$.
538:
539: For the cases of well structured populations with sufficiently
540: large $\alpha$ (Fig. \ref{fig4}(d)) or disordered populations with
541: finite $\alpha$ (Figs. \ref{fig4}(e) and \ref{fig4}(f)), after an
542: initial decrease, the persistence attains, for large time
543: intervals, a plateau whose value depends on the parameters $b$,
544: $\phi$ and $\gamma$. Interestingly, for a non-Hamiltonian model we
545: studied here, the decaying behavior of the persistence in the
546: equilibrium is exponential at large time intervals, just like that
547: has been observed commonly in Hamiltonian models and in site
548: diluted lattice model \cite{Note_3}. If the persistence does not
549: go to zero, there is a fraction of sites of cooperators that flip
550: only finitely many times (blocking), and domain wall movements are
551: constrained (pinning) \cite{Vainstein}. For the present systems we
552: studied, it indicates that communities of cooperators exist stably
553: in the background of defectors. In the cases of random selection
554: (no matter whether the populations are well structured or
555: disordered, Figs. \ref{fig4}(a) and \ref{fig4}(c)) or well
556: structured populations with very small $\alpha$ (Fig.
557: \ref{fig4}(b)), however, the persistence goes to zero in the long
558: time interval limit, which means that all the cooperators are
559: renewed completely after finite waiting time. This is reminiscent
560: of the random walk and annihilation \cite{Szabo_0}. The
561: persistence function $P(t,t_w)$ for both strategies $C$ and $D$
562: shown in insets also displays the similar characteristics.
563:
564: The time dependence of the correlation function $Q_{C}(t,t_w)$
565: also reflects the same evolving behavior of the systems. For well
566: structured populations with sufficiently large $\alpha$ (Fig.
567: \ref{fig4}(d)) or disordered populations with finite $\alpha$
568: (Figs. \ref{fig4}(e) and \ref{fig4}(f)), $Q_{C}(t,t_w)$ fluctuates
569: weakly around the average fraction of cooperators, $\rho_C$,
570: indicating the stable maintenance of the communities of
571: cooperators. For the random selection case (Figs. \ref{fig4}(a)
572: and \ref{fig4}(c)) or well structured populations with very small
573: $\alpha$ (Fig. \ref{fig4}(b)), the random walks and annihilation
574: of cooperators causes the long time correlation to be independent
575: of the initial state, which can be calculated roughly by a
576: mean-field method. Since the spread of cooperators can be regarded
577: as walking randomly in such cases, the probability of revisiting
578: those sites which had been visited before will be proportional to
579: the average density of cooperators. Assuming that the fraction of
580: cooperators is equal to $\rho(t_w)$ at time $t_w$ (the system has
581: already attained equilibrium before this time), the mean-field
582: approximation gives the relation, $Q_{C}(t,t_w)\approx
583: \rho_C\times \rho(t_w)$, in the long time limit,
584: $t\rightarrow\infty$. As shown in Figs. \ref{fig4}(a),
585: \ref{fig4}(b) and \ref{fig4}(c), the analysis is in well agreement
586: with numerical simulations.
587:
588: For an intuitive understanding of the surviving of cooperators, in
589: Fig. \ref{fig5} we present snapshots of the system in the
590: equilibrium state under the condition of $\phi=0, b=1.75,
591: \alpha=0.1$, showing both \emph{active} and \emph{pinned} players.
592: These snapshots are a $50 \times 50$ portion of the full $300
593: \times 300$ lattice. Cooperators and defectors are shown in dark
594: gray and light gray boxes, respectively. The white vacancy denotes
595: \emph{active} players. This typical configuration is almost stable
596: and the small amount of \emph{active} sites is confined to a few
597: regions. It is shown that most cooperator clusters remain
598: unchanged confirming previous analysis.
599:
600: At last, it should be pointed out that it is only qualitatively
601: depicted that the large broad distributions of the impact weights
602: favor the formation of stable clusters. The quantitative analysis
603: on this issue, however, is unimplemented. The work along this line
604: is in progress.
605:
606: \section{Conclusions}
607: In this work, we have explored the general question of cooperation
608: formation and sustainment from the perspective of the coevolution
609: between the dynamics of players' states and their
610: inter-influential relationships. By considering asymmetric and
611: heterogenous influential effects in many natural populations, we
612: defined impact weights for any pairs of neighboring individuals,
613: which describes the influence of one player on another and evolves
614: timely. Based on this quantity, a dynamic preferential selection
615: (DPS) mechanism was introduced to the dynamics of an evolutionary
616: PDG. To simulate the mobility and dispersal ability of
617: individuals, the disordered structure of populations was also
618: taken into account.
619:
620: Although disordered structure has been proved to favor the
621: emergence of cooperation, it was found that the DPS plays a
622: crucial role in determining the evolutionary results of the game.
623: In fact, for well structured populations with strong
624: multiplication effects (large $\alpha$) or disordered structural
625: populations with the presence of the DPS, the cooperative behavior
626: can be substantially promoted. These findings are presented for
627: some specific sets of parameter values of $b$, $\phi$ and
628: $\alpha$, but they are qualitatively the same for a broad range of
629: values. By analyzing the probability distribution of $A_{ij}(t)$
630: in the long time limit, the persistence function $P_{C}(t,t_w)$
631: and the correlation function $Q_{C}(t,t_w)$ for the cooperators in
632: the equilibrium state, we found that the DPS gives rise to very
633: large broad distributions of the impact weights, which favor the
634: influential cooperators to form stable communities, and thereby
635: contribute to the emergence and persistence of cooperation. One
636: interesting result is that the enhancement of cooperation, once
637: realized, is insensitive to some special values of $\phi$ and
638: $\alpha$. That is to say, the enhancement of cooperation in the
639: presence of the DPS is general and robust, especially for finitely
640: disordered structural populations. Another intriguing result is
641: that, given the appropriate multiplication factor $\alpha$,
642: cooperators can always persist in the whole range of $1.0<b<2.0$
643: for disordered structural populations, providing an escape hatch
644: out of states of mutual defection predicted by both classical and
645: evolutionary game theory. Thus, the DPS is capable of changing the
646: doomed fate of cooperators and ensuring them to persist even under
647: harsh conditions when $b\rightarrow2.0$. Although it is simple,
648: the present model offers an efficient way to simulate real social
649: behaviors, and might shed lights in understanding the evolution of
650: cooperation in complex social systems where \emph{asymmetry},
651: \emph{heterogeneity}, and \emph{feedback} are ubiquitous.
652:
653: This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Fund for
654: Physics and Mathematics of Lanzhou University under Grant No.
655: Lzu05008.
656:
657: \begin{references}
658:
659: \bibitem{Neumann}
660: J.von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, \emph{Theory of Games and
661: Economic Behavior } (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
662: 1953).
663:
664: \bibitem{Maynard}
665: J.M. Smith, \emph{Evolution and the Theory of Games} (Cambridge
666: University Press, Cambridge, 1982).
667:
668: \bibitem{Axelrod}
669: R. Axelrod, \emph{The Evolution of Cooperation} (Basic Books, New
670: York, 1984).
671:
672: \bibitem{Hofbauer}
673: J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, \emph{Evolutionary Games and
674: Population Dynamics}(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).
675:
676: \bibitem{Wahl}
677: L.M. Wahl and M.A. Nowak, J. Theor. Biol. \textbf{200}, 307
678: (1999).
679:
680: \bibitem{Fehr} E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher, Econom. J.
681: \textbf{112}, 478 (2002).
682:
683: \bibitem{Mesterton}
684: M. Mesterton-Gibbons and L.A. Dugatkin, Anim. Behav. \textbf{54},
685: 551 (1997).
686:
687: \bibitem{Nowak}
688: M.A. Nowak and R.M. May, Nature (London) \textbf{359}, 826 (1992);
689: Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. \textbf{3}, 35 (1993).
690:
691: \bibitem{Hubermann}
692: B.A. Hubermann and N.S. Glance, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
693: \textbf{90}, 7712 (1993).
694:
695: \bibitem{Nowak_1}
696: M.A. Nowak, S. Bonhoeffer, and R.M. May, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
697: U.S.A. \textbf{91}, 4877 (1994).
698:
699: \bibitem{Nowak_2}
700: M.A. Nowak S. Bonhoeffer, and R.M. May, Nature (London)
701: \textbf{379}, 125 (1996).
702:
703: \bibitem{Hauert_0}
704: C. Hauert, S.D. Monte, J.Hofbauer, and K. Sigmund, J. theor. Biol.
705: \textbf{218}, 187 (2002).
706:
707: \bibitem{Szabo_0}
708: G. Szab\'o and C. T\"{o}ke, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 69 (1998).
709:
710: \bibitem{Vainstein}
711: M.H. Vainstein and J.J. Arenzon, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{64}, 051905
712: (2001).
713:
714: \bibitem{Duran}
715: O. Duran and R. Mulet, e-print cond-mat/0305353.
716:
717: \bibitem {Abramson}
718: G. Abramson and M. Kuperman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{63}, 030901(R)
719: (2001).
720:
721: \bibitem {Ebel}
722: H. Ebel and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 056118 (2002).
723:
724: \bibitem{Kim}
725: B.J. Kim, A. Trusina, P. Holme, P. Minnhagen, J.S. Chung, and M.Y.
726: Choi, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 021907 (2002).
727:
728: \bibitem{Holme}
729: P. Holme, A. Trusina, B. J. Kim, and P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. E
730: \textbf{68}, 030901(R) (2003).
731:
732: \bibitem{Wu}
733: Z.X. Wu, X.J. Xu, Y. Chen, and Y.H. Wang, Phys. Rev. E
734: \textbf{71}, 037103 (2005).
735:
736: \bibitem{Szabo_1}
737: C. Hauert and G. Szab\'o, Am. J. Phys. \textbf{73}, 405 (2005); G.
738: Szab\'o and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 118101
739: (2002); Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 062903 (2002).
740:
741: \bibitem{Szabo_2}
742: G. Szab\'o and J. Vukov, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 036107 (2004);
743: J. Vukov and G. Szab\'o, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{71}, 036133 (2005).
744:
745: \bibitem{Zimmermann}
746: M.G. Zimmermann, V.M. Eguiluz, and M. SanMiguel, Phys. Rev. E
747: \textbf{69}, 065102(R) (2004); M.G. Zimmermann and V.M. Egui\'luz,
748: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 056118 (2005); H. Ebel and S. Bornholdt,
749: e-print cond-mat/0211666.
750:
751: \bibitem{Tomochi}
752: M. Tomochi and M. Kono, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65} 026112 (2002).
753:
754: \bibitem{Santos}
755: F.C. Santos and J.M. Pacheco, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{95} 098104
756: (2005); F.C. Santos, J.M. Pacheco, and Tom Lenaerts, Proc. Natl.
757: Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{103}, 3490 (2006).
758:
759: \bibitem{Szabo_3}
760: G. Szab\'o, J. Vukov, and A. Szolnoki, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}
761: 047107 (2005); J. Vukov, G. Szab\'o, and A. Szolnoki, e-print
762: cond-mat/0603419.
763:
764: \bibitem{Note_1}
765: For $\alpha>0.003$, $10^5$ MC steps are sufficient for the systems
766: to attain equilibrium. For smaller $\alpha$, a much longer
767: relaxation time is needed.
768:
769: \bibitem{Hauert_1}
770: C. Hauert and M. Doebeli, Nature (London) \textbf{428}, 643
771: (2004).
772:
773: \bibitem{Doebeli}
774: M. Doebeli, C. Hauert, and T. Killingback, Science \textbf{306},
775: 859 (2004).
776:
777: \bibitem{Newman}
778: M.E.J. Newman, SIAM Review \textbf{45}, 167 (2003).
779:
780: \bibitem{Note_2}
781: We have also simulated the PDG for the cases of $\alpha<0.003$.
782: The enhancement of cooperation and convergence have also been
783: verified. However, the MC time needed for the systems to attain
784: equilibrium increases dramatically.
785:
786: \bibitem{Note_3}
787: See, for example, Ref. \cite{Vainstein} and references therein.
788: \end{references}
789: \end{document}
790: