1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{Emergence of cooperation induced by preferential learning}

9: \author{Jie Ren$^{1}$}

10: \author{Wen-Xu Wang$^{2}$}

11: \author{Gang Yan$^{3}$}

12: \author{Bing-Hong Wang$^{2}$}

13: \email{bhwang@ustc.edu.cn}

14: \affiliation{$^{1}$Department of Physics,

15: \\$^{2}$Department of Modern Physics,

16: \\$^{3}$Department of Electronic Science and Technology, \\University of

17: Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, PR China }

18: 

19: \date{\today}

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22: The evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG) and the Snowdrift

23: Game (SG) with preferential learning mechanism are studied in the

24: Barab\'asi-Albert network. Simulation results demonstrate that the

25: preferential learning of individuals remarkably promotes the

26: cooperative behavior for both two games over a wide range of

27: payoffs. To understand the effect of preferential learning on the

28: evolution of the systems, we investigate the time series of the

29: cooperator density for different preferential strength and

30: payoffs. It is found that in some specific cases two games both

31: show the $1/f$-scaling behaviors, which indicate the existence of

32: long range correlation. We also figure out that when the large

33: degree nodes have high probability to be selected, the PDG

34: displays a punctuated equilibrium-type behavior. On the contrary,

35: the SG exhibits a sudden increase feature. These temporary

36: instable behaviors are ascribed to the strategy shift of the large

37: degree nodes.

38: 

39: 

40: \end{abstract}

41: 

42: \pacs{87.23.Kg, 02.50.Le, 87.23.Ge, 89.75.CC}

43: 

44: \maketitle

45: \section{Introduction}

46: 

47: Cooperation is ubiquitous in real world, ranging from biological

48: systems to economic and social systems \cite{cooperation}.

49: However, the unselfish, altruistic actions apparently contradict

50: Darwinian selection. Thus, understanding the conditions for the

51: emergence and maintenance of cooperative behavior among selfish

52: individuals is a central problem \cite{gene}. Game theory together

53: with its extensions \cite{von,nash,smith,axelrod,sigmund,http},

54: considered to be an important approach, provides a useful

55: framework for investigating this problem. Two simple games,

56: Prisoners' Dilemma Game (PDG) \cite{PD} and Snowdrift Game (SG)

57: \cite{SG}, as metaphors for characterizing the evolution of

58: cooperative behavior have drawn much attention from not only

59: social but also biological and physical scientists

60: \cite{bio1,bio2,Nowak1,Nowak2,Nowak3,Kim,Szabo1,Szabo2,Szabo3,Szabo4,Szabo5,Szabo6,Hauert,Doebeli,prl}.

61: In the original PDG, each of two players may chose either to

62: cooperate or defect in any one encounter. If they both cooperate,

63: both obtain a payoff of $R$, whereas mutual defection results in

64: pay-off $P$ for both players. If one player defects while the

65: other cooperates, defector gains the biggest pay-off $T$, while

66: cooperator gets $S$. The ranking of four pay-off values is

67: $T>R>P>S$. The SG is a game of much biologically interesting. This

68: game differs from the PDG mainly in the order of $P$ and $S$, as

69: $T>R>S>P$, which are more favorable to sustain cooperative

70: behavior.

71: 

72: However, in these two games, the unstable cooperative behavior is

73: opposite to the observations in the real world. This disagreement

74: thus motivates a variety of suitable extensions of basic model rules

75: to explain the emergence of cooperation. Some previous works have

76: suggested that the introduction of ``tit-for-tat"

77: \cite{axelrod,Nowak2} strategy can remarkably enhance the

78: cooperative behavior. More recently, Nowak and May \cite{Nowak1}

79: found that the PDG with simple spatial structure can induce the

80: emergence of cooperation, and in particular, spatial chaos is

81: observed. In contrast, the work of Hauert and Doebeli \cite{Hauert}

82: demonstrates the spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of

83: cooperation in the SG. Inspired by the idea of spatial game, much

84: attention has been given to the interplay between evolutionary

85: cooperative behavior and the underlying structure

86: \cite{Szabo1,Szabo2,Szabo3,Szabo6,Kim,prl}. Since the surprising

87: discovery of ``small world" \cite{SW} and ``scale-free" \cite{BA}

88: structural properties in real networked systems, evolutionary games

89: are naturally considered on the networks with these two kinds of

90: structural features \cite{Szabo4,Szabo5,Szabo6,Kim,prl}.

91: Interestingly, it is found that comparing with the square lattices,

92: Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergency

93: of cooperation \cite{prl}.

94: 

95: In the two games with network structure, such as square lattices

96: (spatial structure), small world and scale-free structure, players

97: interact only with their immediate neighbors. In each round, the

98: score of each individual is the sum of the payoffs in the

99: encounters with its neighbors. At the next generation, all the

100: individuals could update their strategies (cooperate or defect)

101: synchronously according to either the deterministic rule

102: introduced by Nowak and May \cite{Nowak1} or the stochastic

103: evolutionary rule by Szab\'{o} and T\H{o}ke \cite{Szabo1}.

104: 

105: In this paper, we focus on the PDG and SG on scale-free networks

106: mainly according to the stochastic update rules. However, we argue

107: that such as in the social system, individual may not completely

108: randomly choose a neighbor to learn from it. ``Rich gets richer"

109: is a common feature in social and natural system, which reveals

110: the existence of preferential mechanism. It is indeed the

111: preferential attachment mechanism of Barab\'asi and Albert model

112: (BA for short) \cite{BA} leads to the scale-free structural

113: property in good accord with the empirical observations. Thus, in

114: the present work, we present a preferential learning rule, the

115: probability of  which is governed by a single parameter, for

116: better mimicking the evolution of real world system.  The

117: probability of choosing a neighbor for each individual depends on

118: the degree of that neighbor. This assumption takes into account

119: that the status of individuals can be reflected by the degree of

120: them in various communities in nature and society, e.g. the leader

121: usually interacts with large quantities of individuals.

122: Interestingly, we find that the preferential learning mechanism

123: promotes the cooperative behavior of both the PDG and SG. Several

124: attractive properties for some specific parameter values are

125: observed, such as the $1/f$-like noise of evolutionary cooperator

126: density for both two games, which indicates the long range

127: correlation of cooperation. In the SG, for some specific cases,

128: the degree of cooperation displays a punctuated equilibrium-type

129: behavior instead of steady state. In contrast, the PDG exhibits an

130: absolutely different property of sudden jumps of cooperation.

131: These two distinct behaviors are both attributed to the effect of

132: leaders, i.e. the individuals with large connectivity.

133: 

134: The paper is arranged as follows. In the following section we

135: describe the model in detail, in Sec. III simulations and analysis

136: are provided for both the PDG and SG , and in Sec. IV the work is

137: concluded.

138: 

139: \section{The model}

140: We first construct the scale-free networks using the BA model

141: which is considered to be the most simple and general one.

142: Starting from $m_0$ fully connected nodes, one node with $m$ links

143: is attached at each time step in such a way that the probability

144: $\Pi_i$ of being connected to the existing node $i$ is

145: proportional to the degree $k_i$ of that node, i.e.,

146: $\Pi_i=k_i/\sum_j k_j$ with summation over all the existing nodes.

147: Here, we set $m=m_0=2$ and network size $N=5000$ for all

148: simulations. The degree distribution of BA networks follows a

149: power law $P(k)\sim k^{-3}$\cite{BA}.

150: 

151: We consider the evolutionary PDG and SG on the networks. Without

152: losing generality, we investigate the simplified games with a

153: single payoff parameter following previous works

154: \cite{Nowak1,Szabo1,Hauert}. Figure (1) illustrates the encounter

155: payoffs of both the PDG and SG. Each individual is placed on a

156: node of the network and plays the games only with their immediate

157: neighbors simultaneously. The total payoff of each player is the

158: sum over all its encounters.

159: 

160: \begin{figure}

161: \scalebox{0.95}[0.95]{\includegraphics{sample.eps}}

162: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The payoffs: In the PDG, when two

163: cooperators $(C)$ encounter, both earn 1. While two defectors

164: $(D)$ encounter, both earn 0. When a cooperator encounters a

165: defector, the defector earns $b$ and the cooperator 0. In the SG,

166: it is the same as PDG when two cooperators or defectors encounter.

167: However, when a cooperator meets a defector the cooperator scores

168: $1-r$ and the defector scores $1+r$.}

169: \end{figure}

170: 

171: During the evolutionary process, each player is allowed to learn

172: from one of its neighbors and update its strategy in each round. As

173: mentioned early, each player chooses a neighbor according to the

174: preferential learning rule, i.e., the probability $P_{i\rightarrow

175: j}$ of $i$ selecting a neighbor $j$ is

176: \begin{equation}

177: P_{i\rightarrow j}=\frac{k_i^\alpha}{\sum_jk_j^\alpha},

178: \end{equation}

179: where $\alpha$ is a tunable parameter and the sum runs over the

180: neighbors of $i$. One can see when $\alpha$ equals zero, the

181: neighbor is randomly selected so that the game is reduced to the

182: original one. While in the case of $\alpha

183: >0$, the individuals with large degree have advantages to be

184: selected; Otherwise, the small degree individuals have larger

185: probability to be selected. In social and natural systems, some

186: individuals with high status and reputation may have much stronger

187: influence than others and the status of individuals can be reflected

188: by the degree of them. Thus, the introduction of the preferential

189: learning intends to characterize the effect of influential

190: individuals on the evolution of cooperation. In parallel, we also

191: investigate the performance of the systems with tendency of learning

192: from the individuals with small degree.

193: 

194: After choosing a neighbor $y$, the player $x$ will adopt the

195: coplayer's strategy with a probability depending on the normalized

196: total payoff difference presented in Ref. \cite{Szabo5} as

197: \begin{equation}

198: W=\frac{1}{1+\exp[(M_x/k_x-M_y/k_y)/T]},

199: \end{equation}

200: where $M_x$ and $M_y$ are the total incomes of player $x$ and $y$,

201: and $T$ characterizes the noise effects,including fluctuations in

202: payoffs, errors in decision, individual trials, etc. This choice

203: of $W$ takes into account the fact of bounded rationality of

204: individuals in sociology and reflects natural selection based on

205: relative fitness in terms of evolutionism. The ratio of total

206: income of individual and its degree, i.e., $M_x/k_x$ denotes the

207: normalized total payoff. This normalization avoids an additional

208: bias from the different degree of nodes. In the next section, we

209: perform the simulations of the PDG and SG respectively and our

210: goal is to find how the preferential learning affect the

211: evolutionary cooperative behaviors of both PDG and SG.

212: 

213: \begin{figure}

214: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{PD.eps}}

215: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (color online). The cooperator density

216: $rho_C$ of the PDG as a function of parameter $\alpha$ for

217: different value of $b$. }

218: \end{figure}

219: 

220: \section{simulation results}

221: The key quantity for characterizing the cooperative behavior of

222: the system is the density of cooperators $\rho_C$. Hence, we first

223: investigate $\rho_c$ as a function of the tunable parameter

224: $\alpha$ for different payoff parameter $b$ in the PDG, as shown

225: in Fig. 2. The simulation results were obtained by averaging over

226: last $10000$ time steps of entire $20,000$ time steps. Each data

227: point results from an average over $20$ simulations for the same

228: type of network structure. In the initial state, the strategies of

229: $C$ and $D$ are uniformly distributed among all the players. We

230: figure out that, comparing with the case of no preferential

231: learning, i.e.,$\alpha=0$, the cooperation is remarkably promoted

232: not only for positive value of $\alpha$, but also for negative

233: $\alpha$ in a wide range of $b$. For negative $\alpha$, the

234: $\rho_c$ monotonously increases with the decrease of $\alpha$ and

235: finally $\rho_c$ reaches a upper limit for very small $\alpha$. In

236: contrast, in the case of positive $\alpha$, we find that $\rho_C$

237: increases dramatically and there exists a maximal value of

238: $\rho_c$, which indicates that although the leaders with large

239: degree play a key role in the cooperation, very strong influence

240: of leaders will do harm to the persistence of cooperation and make

241: individuals to be selfish. One can also find that the larger the

242: value of $b$, the larger the value of $\alpha$ corresponding to

243: the maximal $\rho_c$. Moreover, an interesting phenomenon is

244: observed in Fig. 2, that is when $b$ is small, positive $\alpha$

245: leads to better cooperative behavior than the negative one;

246: However, for large $b$, the system performs better when choosing

247: negative $\alpha$. These results imply that if the income of

248: defectors is only little more than that of cooperators, the

249: leader's effect will considerably enhances the cooperation; While

250: if the selfish behavior is encouraged in the system (large $b$),

251: the influential individuals will leads to the imitation of selfish

252: behavior and reduce the cooperator density in a certain extent. On

253: the contrary, restriction of leader's influence (negative $\alpha$

254: decreases the selected probability of large degree individuals by

255: their neighbors) results in better cooperation.

256: 

257: \begin{figure}

258: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{SG.eps}}

259: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (color online). The cooperator density

260: $\rho_C$ of the SG as a function of parameter $\alpha$ for

261: different value of $r$.}

262: \end{figure}

263: 

264: In parallel, we investigate the effect of preferential learning

265: upon the SG. The simulation results are demonstrated in Fig. 3.

266: Similar to the PDG, $\rho_c$ is improved by the introduction of

267: preferential learning for nearly the entire range of $r$ from $0$

268: to $1$. In both sides of $\alpha=0$, $\rho_c$ reaches an upper

269: limit, which means that in the case of strong leader's influence

270: or without leaders, cooperation can be promoted to the highest

271: level for the wide middle range of $b$. Contrary to the PDG, for

272: very large $r$, the system still performs cooperative behavior,

273: which is attributed to the fact that the rule of SG favors the

274: cooperators, that is the cooperators yet gain payoff $1-r$ when

275: meeting defectors. Combining the above simulation results of both

276: the PDG and SG, we can conclude that the preferential learning

277: mechanism indeed plays an important role in the emergence of

278: cooperation.

279: 

280: \begin{figure}

281: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{PDnoise.eps}}

282: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (a) Time series of cooperator density

283: $rho_C$ of the PDG for $b=1.0$ and $\alpha=-1$. (b) Power spectrum

284: analysis of (a).}

285: \end{figure}

286: 

287: In the following, we analyze the time series of the cooperator

288: density to give detailed description of the systems' evolutionary

289: behavior. We first study the PDG for negative value of parameter

290: $\alpha$. Surprisingly, for some specific values of $b$ and

291: $\alpha$, $1/f$-like noise is found. A prototypical example is

292: exhibited in Fig. 4. The $1/f$-like noise is observed frequently

293: in real-world systems, including healthy physiologic systems

294: \cite{heathy1,heathy2,heathy3}, economical systems

295: \cite{voss,bak}, as well as traffic systems \cite{Tadic}. However,

296: as far as we know, $1/f$ pattern hasn't been reported in the study

297: of evolutionary games. The $1/f$ noise denotes that the power

298: spectrum of time series varies as a power-law $S(f)\sim f^{-\phi}$

299: with the slope $\phi=1$. The spectrum exponent $\phi$

300: characterizes the nature of persistence or the correlation of the

301: time series. $\phi=2$ indicates zero correlation associated with

302: Brownian motion, where as $\phi=0$ corresponds to a completely

303: uncorrelated white noise. $\phi>2$ indicates positive correlation

304: and persistence i.e., if the process was moving upward (downward)

305: at time $t$, it will tend to continue to move upward (downward) at

306: future times $t'$; $\phi<2$ represents negative correlation and

307: anti-persistence. The intermediate case, $S(f)\sim f^{-\phi}$, is

308: a ``compromise" between the small-time-scale smoothness and

309: large-time-scale roughness of Brownian noise. Figure 4 (a) shows

310: the time evolution for $b=1.0$ and $\alpha=-1$, i.e. the case of

311: restriction of leader's influence. In this case, the density of

312: cooperators remains stable with frequently fluctuations around the

313: average value. Figure 4 (b) is the power spectrum analysis of the

314: time series of cooperator density. A prototypical $1/f$-like noise

315: is found with the fitted slope $\phi=1.06$. This result indicates

316: when the small degree individuals have large probability to be

317: followed, i.e., suppress the influential leader's effect, the

318: nontrivial long range correlation of evolutionary cooperative

319: behavior emerges. The similar phenomenon is also observed in the

320: SG for the case of negative $\alpha$, as shown in Fig. 5. The

321: emergence of the $1/f$ scaling is associated with the parameter

322: values $\alpha=-1$ and $r=0.5$. The discovered $1/f$ noise for

323: both two games is partly ascribed to the lack of influence of

324: leaders. Suppose that if the individuals with large connectivity

325: are chosen with large probability, their strategy will be easily

326: followed by a large number of persons, because those leaders

327: usually gain very high income. Since the influential ones only

328: take the minority, the evolutionary cooperative behavior will

329: mainly determined by the minority. Besides, the strategies of

330: those leaders are usually fixed due to their very high score, the

331: long range correlation of the fluctuation of cooperator density is

332: broken.

333: 

334: \begin{figure}

335: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{SGnoise.eps}}

336: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (a) Time series of cooperator density

337: $rho_C$ of the SG for $r=0.5$ and $\alpha=-5$. (b) Power spectrum

338: analysis of (a).}

339: \end{figure}

340: 

341: Then we investigate the evolutionary behavior of both the SG and

342: PDG in the case of positive $\alpha$. For the SG, when the

343: parameter $\alpha$ is close to zero, for arbitrary $b$, the level

344: of cooperation remains stable with relatively small fluctuations

345: around the average value. This property is remarkably changed for

346: large value of $\alpha$, which means the influence of leaders

347: becomes strong. As shown in Fig. 6, for $\alpha=5$ and $r=0.5$,

348: the equilibrium is punctuated by sudden drops of cooperator

349: density. After a sudden drop, the cooperation level $\rho_C$ will

350: gradually increase until $\rho_C$ reaches the average value. The

351: occurrence of these punctuated equilibrium-type behavior is

352: ascribed to the strong influence of a small amount of leaders. As

353: we have mentioned, the leader nodes usually get large payoffs,

354: thus they tend to hold their own strategies and are not easily

355: affected by their neighbors. However, those influential

356: individuals still have small probability to follow their

357: neighbors' strategies. If an event that a leader shift his

358: strategy to defector occasionally happens, the successful defector

359: strategy will rapidly spread from the leader to his vicinities.

360: Due to the connection heterogeneity of the scale-free networks,

361: i.e., the leaders have large amount of neighbors, the imitation of

362: a successful selfish behavior of the leader triggers the rapidly

363: decrease of cooperator density. After the occurrence of a sudden

364: drop, defectors become the majority and the selfish leader nearly

365: gain nothing. Then under the influence of the other leaders with

366: cooperate strategies, the cooperator density will slowly recover

367: to the steady state.

368: 

369: \begin{figure}

370: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{Breakdown.eps}}

371: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The time evolution of cooperator

372: density of the SG with $r=0.5$, $\alpha=5$ exhibits the punctuated

373: equilibrium-type behavior.}

374: \end{figure}

375: 

376: \begin{figure}

377: \scalebox{0.80}[0.80]{\includegraphics{jump.eps}}

378: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The sudden increase of cooperator

379: density of the PDG with $b=1.5$, $\alpha=1$.}

380: \end{figure}

381: 

382: The evolutionary behavior of the PDG for the positive $\alpha$

383: also exhibits nontrivial feature as shown in Fig. 7. Contrast to

384: the SG, the cooperation level shows some sudden increases. The

385: mechanism that induces the temporary instability of cooperator

386: density is the same as that of the sudden drops of the SG. The

387: strategy shift of influential nodes plays the main role in the

388: occurrence of the sudden increase. Opposite to the SG, the payoff

389: matrix of the PDG favors the defect behavior, thus the cooperation

390: level is quite low. An occasional strategy shift from defect to

391: cooperate of a leader will lead to the imitation of its neighbors

392: and a sudden increase occurs. However, the high cooperator density

393: is instable in the PDG for large $b$, hence the sudden increase

394: will rapidly decrease to the average value.

395: 

396: 

397: 

398: 

399: \section{conclusion and discussion}

400: We have investigated the cooperative behavior of the evolutionary

401: games resulting from the preferential mechanism. Comparing with

402: the cases of random selection, i.e., $\alpha=0$, preferentially

403: selecting large degree nodes or small degree ones can promote the

404: cooperator density of both the PDG and the SG over a wide range of

405: payoffs. For the cases of negative value of $\alpha$, the systems

406: perform the behavior of long range correlation, which is

407: quantified by the $1/f$ scaling of power spectrum. Interestingly,

408: in the case of positive value of $\alpha$, i.e., the large degree

409: nodes have high probability to be selected for imitation, the SG

410: exhibits a punctuated equilibrium-type behavior which is qualified

411: by the occasional occurrence of sudden drops. In contrast to the

412: SG, the PDG shows temporary instable behavior with the existence

413: of sudden increase. The mechanism that leads to the instabilities

414: of cooperation for both games are the strategy shift of

415: influential nodes and the imitation of their neighbors. The

416: instable behavior indicates that the strong influence of leader

417: individuals will do harm to the evolutionary cooperative behavior

418: of the systems. The present work implies that the existence of the

419: preferential learning mechanism plays an important role in the

420: emergence of cooperation in the heterogeneous networked systems.

421: 

422: 

423: 

424: 

425: \begin{thebibliography}{ref1}

426: \bibitem{cooperation} A. M. Colman, {\sl Game Theory and its Applications in the Social and Biological

427: Sciences} (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1995).

428: 

429: \bibitem{gene} R. Dawkins, {\sl The Selfish Gene} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989).

430: 

431: \bibitem{von} J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern,  {\sl Theory of Games and Economic

432: Behaviour} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944).

433: 

434: \bibitem{nash} J. Nash, Econometrica \textbf{18}, 155 (1950).

435: 

436: \bibitem{smith} J. Maynard Smith and G. Price, Nature (London) \textbf{246}, 15 (1973).

437: 

438: \bibitem{axelrod} R. Axelrod, {\sl The Evolution of Cooperation} (Basic books, New York,

439: 1984).

440: 

441: \bibitem{sigmund} J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund,  {\sl Evolutionary Games and Population

442: Dynamics} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.,

443:  1998).

444: 

445: \bibitem{http} C. Hauert, ``Virtuallabs: Interactive tutorials on evolutionary game

446:  theory", \href{http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs}{http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs}.

447: 

448: \bibitem{PD} R. Axelrod and W. D. Hamilton, Science \textbf{211}, 1390 (1981).

449: 

450: \bibitem{SG} R. Sugden, {\sl The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and

451: Welfare} (Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 1986).

452: 

453: \bibitem{bio1} P. E. Turner and L. Chao, Nature (London)

454: \textbf{398}, 441 (1999).

455: 

456: \bibitem{bio2} P. E. Turner and L. Chao, Am. Nat. \textbf{161}, 497 (2003).

457: 

458: \bibitem{Nowak1} M. Nowak and R. M. May, Nature (London) \textbf{359}, 826

459: (1992); Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. \textbf{3}, 35

460: (1993).

461: 

462: \bibitem{Nowak2} M. Nowak and K. Sigmund, Nature (London)

463: \textbf{355}, 250 (1992).

464: 

465: \bibitem{Nowak3} M. Nowak and K. Sigmund, Nature (London)

466: \textbf{364}, 56 (1993).

467: 

468: \bibitem{Kim} B. J. Kim, A. Trusina, P. Holme, P. Minnhagen, J. S.

469: Chung, and M. Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 021907 (2002).

470: 

471: \bibitem{Szabo1} G. Szab\'{o} and C. T\"{o}ke, Phys. Rev. E

472: \textbf{58}, 69 (1998).

473: 

474: \bibitem{Szabo2} G. Szab\'{o} and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett.

475: \textbf{89}, 118101 (2002).

476: 

477: \bibitem{Szabo3} G. Szab\'{o} and C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. E

478: \textbf{66}, 062903 (2002).

479: 

480: \bibitem{Szabo4} G. Szab\'{o} and J. Vukov, Phys. Rev. E

481: \textbf{69}, 036107 (2004).

482: 

483: \bibitem{Szabo5} J. Vukov and G. Szab\'{o}, Phys. Rev. E

484: \textbf{71}, 036133 (2005).

485: 

486: \bibitem{Szabo6} C. Hauert and G. Szab\'{o}, Am. J. Phys. \textbf{73}, 405 (2005).

487: 

488: \bibitem{Hauert} C. Hauert and M. Doebeli, Nature \textbf{428}, 643

489: (2004).

490: 

491: \bibitem{Doebeli} M. Doebeli, C. Hauert and T. Killingback, Science \textbf{306},

492: 859 (2004).

493: 

494: \bibitem{prl} F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco, Phys. Rev. Lett.

495: \textbf{95}, 098104 (2005).

496: 

497: \bibitem{SW} D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) \textbf{393}, 440

498: (1998).

499: \bibitem{BA} A.-L. Barab\'asi and R. Albert, Science

500: \textbf{286}, 509 (1999).

501: 

502: \bibitem{heathy1} C.-K. Peng, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L.

503: Goldberger, Chaos \textbf{5}, 82 (1995).

504: 

505: \bibitem{heathy2} P.C. Ivanov, L.A.N. Amaral, A.L. Goldberger, S.

506: Havlin, M.G. Rosenblum, Z.R. Struzik, and H.E. Stanley, Nature

507: (London) \textbf{399}, 461 (1999).

508: 

509: \bibitem{heathy3} L.A.N. Amaral, P.C. Ivanov, N. Aoyagi, I.

510: Hidaka, S. Tomono, A.L. Goldberger, H.E. Stanley, and Y. Yamamoto,

511: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 6026 (2001).

512: 

513: \bibitem{voss} R. F. Voss, {\sl 1/f noise and fractals in Economic time series} (Springer-Verlag, 1992).

514: 

515: \bibitem{bak} P. Bak, {\sl How Nature Works} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997).

516: 

517: \bibitem{Tadic} B. Tadi\'c, S. Thurner, and G. J. Rodgers, Phys.

518: Rev. E \textbf{69}, 036102 (2004)

519: 

520: \end{thebibliography}

521: 

522: \end{document}

523: