1: %&biglatex
2:
3: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
4: % DEPENDENCIES
5: %
6: \input{header.article}
7: \usepackage{longtable,subfigure,endnotes,xcolor}
8: \usepackage{multirow,html,pst-node}
9: \usepackage{setspace,dcolumn}
10: \usepackage[sort,authoryear,round]{natbib}
11:
12: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
13: % DEFINITIONS
14: %
15: \linespread{1.0}
16: \def\ftns{\footnotesize}
17: \def\DP{\eta}
18: \def\R{m}
19: \def\N{\mbf N}
20: \newcommand{\mcol}[1]{\multicolumn{2}{c}{\centering #1}}
21: \newcommand{\mrow}[1]{\multirow{2}{0cm}{\centering #1}}
22: \newcommand{\mmrow}[1]{\multirow{4}{0cm}{\centering #1}}
23: \newcommand{\mmcol}[1]{\multicolumn{3}{c}{#1}}
24: \newcommand{\node}[1]{{\large $\left({\color{#1}\bullet}\right)$}}
25:
26: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
27: % TITLING
28: %
29: \title{\Large\sc
30: Cooperation Networks: Endogeneity \& Complexity\footnote{%
31: This work was initiated at the Santa Fe Institute Graduate Workshop on
32: Computational Social Sciences and Complexity, Santa Fe, New Mexico. My
33: sincere thanks go to John Miller and Scott Page and the other
34: participants for their input, advice and tuition over this stimulating
35: time; in particular, to John, for his warm guidance on this project.
36: All errors in this work, whether factual, computational, or other, are
37: solely the responsibility of the author.}%
38: }% title
39: \author{\sc
40: Simon Angus\thanks{%
41: {\it Post: School of Economics, John Goodsell Building, the University
42: of New South Wales, 2052 NSW, Australia;
43: ~\mbox{E-mail (preferred): ~\myemail};
44: ~\mbox{Phone +61 2 9385 3334};
45: ~\mbox{Fax +61 2 9313 6337}.
46: }% it
47: }% thanks
48: }% author
49: \date{July 2006\\
50: \vspace{1em}
51: {\Large\fbox{Manuscript Only (Under Review)}}
52: \vspace{1em}}
53:
54: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
55: % TITLE PAGE
56: %
57: \begin{document}
58: \pagestyle{headings}
59: \maketitle
60: \begin{abstract}
61: \input{abstract.txt}% cut to <= 150 words
62:
63: Keywords: {\it cooperation; networks; prisoners' dilemma; Artificial Adaptive
64: Agents; Finite State Automata; complexity science; self-organized criticality}
65:
66: JEL codes: C71, C73, D83, D85
67: \end{abstract}
68: \clearpage
69:
70:
71: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
72: % MAIN DOC
73: %
74: \linespread{1.0}
75: \section{Introduction}
76:
77: The strategic literature has seen a long-standing interest in the nature of
78: cooperation, with many contributions considering the simple but insightful
79: two-player Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) game,
80: \input{figs/misc/pdgame.tex}
81: where $c > a > d > b$ and $a > (b+c)/2$.\footnote{As in \cite{054_Axe_evo}.}
82: Traditionally,\footnote{%
83: See for example, within an evolutionary game theoretic
84: framework,~\cite{166_Kan_soc}.}
85: such games were analysed under an uniform interaction specification such that
86: agents met equiprobably to play a single (or repeated) two-player game such as
87: in \eqref{eq:pdgame}.\footnote{%
88: In the following discussion, we shall refer to this case as `uniform
89: interaction'.}
90: In graph-theoretic terms, such matching can be thought of as a choice of one
91: edge out of $n(n-1)/2$ edges in a complete graph of size $n$
92: (Fig.~\ref{fg:n4complete}).\fighere{fg:n4complete} More recently however,
93: authors have relaxed this condition, and have analysed strategic games of
94: cooperation and coordination under both non-uniform interaction and
95: non-uniform learning environments. Here, some form of topological imposition,
96: other than the complete graph, such as uni-dimensional play on a line, circle,
97: or higher-dimensional interaction on a regular graph (e.g. a torus) is
98: usually applied, with more recent contributions allowing for richer
99: (statistical) graph environments such as so-called `small-world'
100: graphs.\footnote{%
101: For example, ~\cite{148_Mas_spa,152_Elg_mod,082_Kir_spa,193_Sto_net}.}
102: The topological significance of the interacting space has been stressed by
103: these authors as it appears to influence the degree to which cooperation can
104: be sustained. For instance, \cite{076_And_Pat} and \cite{089_And_lea} find
105: that different actions of a pure coordination game survive in the long-run at
106: different locations on the interaction space; whilst \cite{082_Kir_spa}
107: computationally studies interacting agents on a torus playing the PD and
108: coordination games, with cooperation and non-risk-dominant coordination
109: outcomes observed respectively. Consequently, and reflecting a burgeoning
110: interest in networks of all kinds, much attention has been paid to the study
111: of realistic social networks~\citep{173_Bar_evo,150_Bau_whe}, with statistical
112: network
113: characterisation~\citep{118_Wat_col,195_Whi_net} and clique analysis similarly
114: receiving interest~\citep{117_Gir_com,112_Tyl_ema}.
115:
116: However, apart from a few exceptions\footnote{%
117: See for
118: example~\cite{155_Bal_non,137_Jac_evo,081_Mit_evo,%
119: 160_Ely_loc,203_Sli_net,202_Dut_lin}.},
120: authors have not allowed the interaction environment itself to vary, either
121: (for example) due to some exogenous schedule or as a result of processes
122: endogenous to the model. Clearly, such modelling features comprise an highly
123: desirable step towards treating realistic economic and social
124: networks.\footnote{%
125: Consider, for example, the {\it guanxi} business network in China
126: documented in \citep{143_Sta_tra} and \citep{144_Fan_que}.}
127: In this vein, two directions of causality are apparent, first with respect to
128: how a changing interaction environment might affect strategic outcomes for
129: agents (the `topological' effect); and second, how agents \emph{through their
130: own strategic actions} might impact on the very interaction space itself (the
131: `agency' effect).
132:
133: Such a system of interacting agents, with heterogeneity in agent behaviour
134: \emph{and} interaction profiles fits well into the so-called `science of
135: complexity'.\footnote{%
136: Non-technical introductions can be found in (for example)
137: ~\cite{269_Lew_com} or \cite{270_Cov_fro}, or a survey of economic
138: applications is found in~\cite{197_Tes_age}.}
139: This approach seeks to identify and study systems whose components interact in
140: some non-uniform, (and usually) non-linear manner. In particular, due to the
141: inherent unpredictability of such non-equilibrium systems, agent-based
142: computational modeling techniques provide an extremely useful method of
143: enquiry especially where non-rational learning based behavior is also
144: suspected~\citep{178_Hol_art,175_Art_ind}.\footnote{%
145: See also applications of artificial adaptive agents to organizational
146: problems in \cite{193_Sto_net,191_Cho_pla,194_Mar_ris}.}
147:
148: The current paper reflects such an approach. Specifically, both constraints
149: concerning agent rationality and rigid agent interactions are relaxed within
150: a fundamentally agent-based modelling framework. Moreover, in contrast to one
151: related approach in the literature (see below), agents are given
152: \emph{strategic} abilities to change the interaction space \emph{themselves}
153: (i.e. to change interaction probabilities) during pair-wise game-play. It is
154: in this sense that a `network' arises in the model, and hence, such a network
155: is said to be a truly \emph{endogenous} feature of the modelling framework;
156: a feature which to my knowledge has not been previously handled with boundedly
157: rational agents.
158:
159: The key insights of the present work can be summarised as follows: first, an
160: analytic analysis without network formation reveals that the modification to
161: the standard iterated PD (IPD) framework introduced below does not change the
162: canonical behaviour of the system; second, that when network formation is
163: afforded, stable cooperation networks are observed, but only if both
164: a type-selection and enhanced `activity' benefit of the network is present;
165: third, that the extended system under certain interaction lengths is
166: inherently self-defeating, with both cooperation and defection networks
167: transiently observed in a long-run specification; and fourth, that the network
168: formation process displays self-organized criticality and thus appears to
169: drive the complex dynamics observed in the long-run.
170:
171: The rest of the paper is organised as follows: first, a discussion of related
172: literature is presented; second, the model is introduced, paying particular
173: attention to the modelling of agents and incorporation of network forming
174: behaviour; third, analysis is performed analytically on the basic (non-network
175: forming) model before extension to incorporate network formation is performed
176: on both a short- and long-run time horizon; and finally, some concluding
177: observations and a discussion of possible extensions is made.
178:
179:
180: \section{Related Literature}
181:
182: The current specification, where a non-uniform interaction structure is
183: allowed, is related in intention to the preferential partner selection
184: (\emph{choice}) and optional rejection of an offer to interact
185: (\emph{refusal}) literature (or IPD/CR when the game is the IPD). Here, the
186: emphasis is on how the added mechanism of choice and refusal affects the
187: emergence of cooperation in IPD games. Such a mechanism is seen as more
188: realistic, from both a biological, and social perspective\footnote{%
189: See the introduction to \cite{201_Smu_ana} on such observations.}.
190: For example, Ashlock and co-workers~\citeyear{145_Ash_pre} construct
191: a computational model (see below) to consider the effects on cooperative
192: behaviour with varying levels of preferential selection, finding that most
193: ecologies converge to full cooperative behaviour but that `wallflower'
194: ecologies are possible if intolerance to defection is high, or costs to social
195: exclusion is low.\footnote{%
196: See also, Tesfatsion's work on trading games with endogenous partner
197: selection~\citep{198_Tes_tra}.}
198: Such findings are supported to some extent by the experimental work
199: of~\cite{199_Hau_cho} who find that cooperative behaviour increases over time
200: under unilateral choice of partners (opponent must accept to play).
201:
202: Similarly, authors have considered cooperation (or corruption) arising in
203: informal networks. In these studies, a `network' is used to describe
204: a (proper) subset of agents in the population who are then distinguished from
205: the majority in some way. Taylor's `old-boy network' model~\citep{095_Tay_old}
206: studies networked agents to be those of a certain type -- the
207: qualified/competent type. Membership of this network is conferred upon the
208: individual after `showing their colours' in an interaction. The mixing of
209: agents is population-wide, and therefore, in this model, the `network',
210: although giving important \emph{type} information for future transactions,
211: plays no more part in the interaction space, nor does the actual topology of
212: the network matter.\footnote{%
213: As is perhaps clear, this is not a network in the sense of a formal graph
214: with an edge set, but can be thought of as a disjoint graph with the
215: `network' comprising a complete connected component.}
216: Since there is no network exit criterion, nor behavioural dynamic, Taylor
217: finds that networks are rarely socially optimal (as opposed to anonymous
218: transactions) since a bleeding of the `good' types from the general population
219: ensues (compare \citep{092_Kal_end}).
220:
221: However, these approaches suffer from the constraints imposed by the analytic
222: framework, thus only allowing one (informal) connected component to form with
223: such formation not endogenised; authors assume that where networks are
224: sustainable they will form.
225:
226: Perhaps the closest work to the current paper, and bridging the IPD/CR --
227: endogenous network literature, is a second paper by \cite{201_Smu_ana}. Here,
228: a similar computational model to that previously mentioned is used, but in
229: addition to considering the strategic implications of various levels of choice
230: and refusal, they also perform some characterisation of the evolving network
231: of interactions. In the SSA model, agents are modeled as 16 state Moore
232: machines\footnote{%
233: [As in \cite[p.91]{177_Mil_coe}] A Moore machine is defined by the
234: four-tuple $\{Q,q_{o},\l,\d\}$ where $Q$ is the set of \emph{internal
235: states}; $q_{o}$ is the initial state; $\l$ is a mapping from each state
236: to the subsequent action to be played $\l: Q \lra S_{i}$, for example, in
237: the PD, $S_{i} \in \{C,D\}$; and $\d$ is the \emph{transition function}
238: that maps from the current internal state of the machine to the new
239: internal state, contingent on the \emph{opponent's} reported move, $\d
240: : Q \times S_{\sim i} \lra Q$, $S_{\sim i}\in\{C,D\}$ being the opponent's
241: reported move last period (in this case, for the PD).}
242: who are programmed to play the IPD. However, and significantly for the present
243: study, the `network' in the SSA model is defined by a simple global rule -- if
244: the number of interactions between two players is (statistically)
245: significantly larger than the mean interaction count for the whole population,
246: then an edge is assigned between these players. Thus, for SSA, the `network'
247: is more a record of `acceptable payoff outcomes' rather than a functional
248: entity which shapes future interactions. This is an acknowledged limitation
249: of the work.
250:
251: The present work aims to address many of the mentioned shortcomings of the
252: literature. First, by implementing network formation as a strategic and
253: therefore inherently endogenous process; second, and following on from the
254: first, by allowing for multiple networks to form simultaneously (rather than
255: one connected component only); and third, by implementing agent strategies as
256: finite state automata, both bounded rationality and learning are
257: incorporated.
258:
259:
260: \section{The Model}
261:
262: \subsection{Overview}
263:
264: Agents are modeled as finite state automata (FSA) with a maximum number of
265: feasible states. As with normal renditions of these automata, each agent has
266: an initial state which is not contingent on the opponent they are playing, and
267: each state describes both their action for that state, and their state
268: transition contingent on the play of their opponent.
269:
270: Agents begin with a uniform interaction environment (a null-graph) and within
271: a period undergo at least some minimum number of interactions with other agents
272: to play the IPD. Within each interaction, agents are able to influence the
273: interaction environment by signaling to their opponent that they wish to break
274: the interaction and reveal their positive or negative response to their
275: opponent. If both players play positive signals, an edge is assigned between
276: them, and the two agents will meet each other with higher probability in the
277: future. The exact value of this probability is contingent on how many other
278: agents each has already formed a link with.
279:
280: In this way, the concept of `partner-scarcity' is incorporated: though
281: link-formation increases the probability that two agents will meet again, it
282: does not guarantee it. Consequently, successful agents must either protect
283: themselves completely from exploitative players through link formation, or
284: display a depth of complexity in their strategy that can manage playing
285: against undesirable opponents (or a combination of the two).
286:
287: At the end of a period, total payoffs are determined for each agent, and an
288: `elite' fraction of the population is retained for the next period, with the
289: remainder being replaced by new agents.\footnote{%
290: Alternatively, one can think of this as a stead-state \emph{strategy}
291: framework, whereby the stock of agents is constant between periods, but
292: some fraction decide to update their strategies. In what follows we shall
293: continue to think in terms of `entrants' (new agents), though either
294: interpretation is equally valid.}
295: New agents are generated from a combination of existing elite behaviours and
296: new behaviours (a type of learning) followed by mistake-making/innovation.
297: Elite agents retain their links between periods (so long as they are to fellow
298: elites) whereas entrants begin with no links, befitting the concepts of
299: incumbency and network dynamism.
300:
301: In this way, links are established within a period by mutual agreement between
302: two agents. However, links can only be broken when an agent leaves the
303: population after selection, severing all pre-existing links.
304:
305:
306: \subsection{Details}
307:
308: Let $\N = \{1,\dots,n\}$ be a constant population of agents and denote by $i$
309: and $j$ two representative members of the population. Initially, members of
310: the population are uniformly paired to play the modified IPD game $\G$
311: described below. When two agents are paired together, they are said to have
312: an \emph{interaction}. Within an interaction, agents play the IPD for up to
313: a maximum of $\t$ iterations, receiving a payoff equal to the sum of the
314: individual payoffs they receive in each iteration of the IPD. An interaction
315: ends prematurely if \emph{either} player plays a `signal' thus unilaterally
316: stopping the interaction. A strategy for a player $s$ describes a complete
317: plan of action for their play within an interaction, to be explained
318: presently. In addition to the normal moves of cooperate ($C$) and defect
319: ($D$), an agent can also play one of two signal actions, $\#_{s}$ and $\#_{w}$
320: respectively. Thus, in any one iteration of the IPD, the action-set for an
321: agents is $\{C,D,\#_{s},\#_{w}\}$. As mentioned above, the playing of
322: a signal by either player leads to the interaction stopping, possibly prior to
323: $\t$ iterations being reached. The playing of a signal can thus serve as an
324: exit move for a player.
325:
326: The interpretation of the two types of signal is as follows. Although initial
327: pairing probabilities between all players are uniform random, agents can
328: influence these interaction probabilities through the use of the signals.
329: Formally, let some agent $i$ maintain a preference vector,
330: \beq
331: \left \{f^{i} \, : \, f^{i}_{j} \in \{p_{s},p_{0},p_{w}\} \,\, \forall
332: \,\, j \in \N/{i} \right\}
333: \eeq
334: where $f^{i}_{j}$ is the preference status of agent $i$ towards agent $j$ and
335: $p_{s} > p_{0} > p_{w}$ are natural and denote \emph{strengthen},
336: \emph{untried} and \emph{weaken} preferences respectively. Initially all
337: entries are set to $p_{0}$ for all $j \in \N/\{i\}$. A probability vector
338: $r_{i}$ for each agent is constructed from the preference vector by simple
339: normalisation onto the real line,
340: \beq
341: \left \{r^{i} : r^i_j = \frac{f^{i}_{j}}{\sum f^{i}} \quad \,\, \forall
342: \,\, j\in \N / \{i\}\right\} \,\, ,
343: \eeq
344: such that each opponent occupies a finite, not-zero length on the line $[0,1]$
345: with arbitrary ordering. Since we study here a model of mutual network/trust
346: formation, preferences can be strengthened only by \emph{mutual} agreement.
347: Specifically, if agents $i$ and $j$ are paired to play the IPD, then when the
348: interaction ends in iteration $t \leq \t$,
349: \beq
350: f^{i}_{j} = f^{j}_{i} =
351: \begin{cases}
352: p_{s}& \text{if } \, \, s^{i}_{t} = s^{j}_{t} = \#_{s} \,\, , \\
353: p_{w} & \text{else} \,\, ,\\
354: \end{cases}
355: \eeq
356: where $s^{i}_{t}$ denotes the play of agent $i$ in iteration $t$. That is, in
357: all cases other than mutual coordinated agreement, the two agents will lower
358: their relative likelihood of being paired again (though the playing of
359: $\#_{w}$ might cause the interaction to end prematurely with the same result).
360: Payoffs for each iteration of the PD are given by \eqref{eq:ipdgame} below.
361: \input{figs/misc/ipdgame.tex}
362: The playing of signals, is costly: the instantaneous cost for that period is
363: the foregone payoff from a successful iteration of the IPD.
364:
365: \subsection{Example}
366:
367: Let two agents $i$ and $j$ be chosen to play \eqref{eq:ipdgame} in some period
368: and let maximum interaction length $\t=3$. Consider the following interaction,
369: \[
370: \small
371: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
372: Iteration & $P_{i}$ & $P_{j}$ & $\pi_{i}$ & $\pi_{j}$ \\
373: \hline
374: 1 & $C$ & $C$ & 3 & 3 \\
375: 2 & $D$ & $C$ & 5 & 0 \\
376: 3 & $\#(s)$ & $C$ & 0 & 0 \\
377: \hline
378: $\sum\pi_{x}$ & & & 8 & 3 \\
379: \end{tabular}\normalsize
380: \]
381: note that $i$ played an unrequited strengthen signal in the third (last)
382: iteration; both players' interaction preference entries would be set to $p_{w}$.
383:
384: \subsection{Game Play}
385:
386: In a \emph{period} each agent is addressed once in uniformly random order to
387: undergo $m$ interactions with players drawn from the rest of the population
388: ($\N/\{i\}$). An agent is paired randomly in accordance with their
389: interaction probability vector $r^{i}$ with replacement after each
390: interaction. Preference and probability vectors are updated after every
391: interaction.
392:
393: Thus, it is possible that, having previously interacted with all agents, an
394: agent retains only one preferred agent, whilst all others are non-preferred,
395: causing a high proportion (if not all) of their $m$ interactions to be
396: conducted with their preferred partner. However, it is to be noted that the
397: value of $m$ is only a \emph{minimum} number of interactions for an agent in
398: one period, since they will be on the `receiving end' of other agents'
399: interactions in the same period. In this way, agents who incur an immediate
400: cost of tie strengthening (foregoing iteration payoffs) can gain a long-term
401: benefit through further preferential interactions.
402:
403: At the end of $T$ periods, the population undergoes selection. A fraction
404: $\theta$ of the population is retained (the `elites'), whilst the remainder
405: $(1-\theta)$ are replaced by new agents as described below. Selection is based
406: on a ranking by total agent payoffs over the whole period. Where two agents
407: have the same total payoff in a period, the older player remains.\footnote{%
408: Following SSA~\cite{201_Smu_ana}.}
409:
410:
411: \subsection{Agent Modeling}
412:
413: Each agent is modeled as an $k$ (maximum) state FSA.\footnote{%
414: To facilitate the computational modeling of this environment, agent
415: strategies were encoded into binary format. See \cite{146_Mil_com} for an
416: analogous description of this method for FSA.}
417: Since the interaction will stop immediately after either player plays the
418: signal $\#$ each state must include two transition responses only: $R(C)$ and
419: $R(D)$. For example, an agent's first three states might take the form
420: (schematic representation given in Fig.~\ref{fg:ex-tft})\fighere{fg:ex-tft},
421: \[
422: \begin{tabular}{c|c|cc}
423: State & $P$ & $R(C)$ & $R(D)$ \\
424: \hline
425: 1 & C & 1 & 3 \\
426: 2 & C & 2 & 1 \\
427: 3 & D & 1 & 3 \\
428: \end{tabular}
429: \]
430: where the first state could be read as,
431: \begin{quote}
432: \it `play $C$ next, if the opponent plays $D$, go to state 3; else, stay
433: in state 1.'
434: \end{quote}
435: An agent will have $k$ such states as part of their `strategy'. By convention,
436: the first state is taken as the initial one.
437:
438: It can be shown\footnote{%
439: Consider a single-rooted logic tree where each node is a state, and each
440: branch some transition. Without any re-use of states, the tree can be at
441: most $\t-1$ nodes deep. Now observe that after the initial node (call this
442: layer $t=0$) each new layer will produce $r^{t}$ new nodes. The result
443: follows.}
444: that the maximum number of states $\t$ possible for an FSA playing some game
445: with count $|R|$ feasible transition responses lasting at most $\t$ rounds is
446: simply,
447: \beq\label{eq:maxstates}
448: k(R,\t) = \sum_{t=0}^{\t-1} |R|^{t} \,\, ,
449: \eeq
450: hence, under this regime, the maximum interaction length $\t$ and the number
451: of opponent plays requiring a response defines the maximal FSA length.
452: However, it is to be noted that there is no guarantee that all $k$ states for
453: a given agent will be accessed (consider the example given immediately above,
454: state 2 is present but is strategically redundant). In this way, FSA give
455: a tangible sense of `strategic complexity' when it comes to individual
456: strategies. An agent who uses all of their $k > 1$ states as part of their
457: strategy will no-doubt display a deeper strategy in action, than an agent who
458: is playing merely (say) \textsc{all-c}. Of course, such complexity of
459: strategy may or may not correspond to relative success in the
460: population.\footnote{%
461: For example, it has been shown countless times before that the humble
462: \textsc{tit-for-tat} (play $C$ until the opponent plays $D$, then switch
463: to $D$ until the opponent plays $C$, then switch back to $C$, and so on.)
464: strategy (and its variants) is often an extremely effective one against
465: all manner of opponents, even though it can be represented by just two
466: states!}
467:
468: After each period, a fraction $\theta$ will stay in the population, with the
469: remaining agents being filled by new entrants. Here, the process of imitation
470: and innovation/mistake-making is implemented via two foundational processes
471: from the \emph{genetic algorithm} (GA) literature.\footnote{%
472: See, for example, \cite{271_Gol_des} or for a non-technical introduction,
473: \cite{184_Hol_gen}.}
474: Initially, two agents are randomly selected (with replacement) from the elite
475: population. A one-point crossover operator is applied to each agent, and two
476: new agents are formed. The strategy encoding (bit-strings) of these new
477: agents then undergo point mutations at a pre-determined rate (5 bits per
478: 1000). This process (random selection, crossover and mutation) continues until
479: all the remaining spots are filled.
480:
481:
482: \section{Results \& Discussion}
483:
484: \subsection{Uniform interactions}\label{sc:theory}
485:
486: To begin, we study a static uniform interaction space to check any unwanted
487: outcomes due to the modified IPD set-up. In this situation, rather than
488: agents upgrading their preference vector after each interaction, the
489: preference vector is uniform and unchanged throughout the model. In this way,
490: the effect of the modification to the standard IPD framework can be analysed.
491: Under such a scenario, the action set for each agent reduces to $\{C, D, \#\}$
492: since the signal action $\#$ has no interaction space interpretation, but
493: still provides a means of prematurely ending the interaction (thus we may drop
494: the sub-script).
495:
496: To keep matters simple, we consider a model in which the maximum interaction
497: length $\t = 2$, which by \eqref{eq:maxstates} yields a maximum FSA state
498: count of $k=3$. Under these conditions, a strategy will be composed simply of
499: a first play, and response plays to $C$ and $D$.
500:
501: With uniform interaction probabilities, this model can be thought of as
502: a modified evolutionary game theoretic framework. The probability of
503: interacting with a certain agent type is directly equal to the proportional
504: representation in the population of that type. Modification of the standard
505: framework is due to the genetic algorithm approach, the crossover operator
506: providing for imitation in addition to the more standard `random' mutation
507: operator. However, in terms of evolutionary stable strategies, this
508: modification is insignificant.
509:
510: In this setting, no evolutionary stable strategy will include $\#$ as a first
511: play, since the payoff for such a strategy with any other agent is
512: 0.\footnote{%
513: The interaction would end after the first iteration, and $\G(\#_{x}|y)
514: = 0$ for all $x\in \{s,w\}$ and $y \in \{C,D,\#(s),\#(w)\}$.}
515: This leaves strategies in the form of a triplet,
516: \[
517: s : \{ P_{1}, R(C), R(D)\} \,\, ,
518: \]
519: where $P_{1} \in \{C,D\}$ and $R(.)$ indicate subsequent plays in response to
520: either $C$ or $D$ plays by the opponent $R(.) \in \{C,D,\#\}$. In all, 18
521: unique strategies can be constructed.
522:
523: It is instructive to consider whether cooperative strategies might be
524: evolutionary stable in this scenario. Clearly, a strategy $s_{C}: \{C,C,C\}$
525: will yield strictly worse payoffs than the strategy $s_{D}: \{D,D,D\}$ in
526: a mixed environment of the two. It can be shown\footnote{%
527: See Lemma~\ref{rm:uinlateral} in Appendix.}
528: that the strategies $s_{C\#}: \{C,C,\#\}$ and $s_{CD}: \{C,C,D\}$
529: (Figs.~\ref{fg:chash}\fighere{fg:chash} and \ref{fg:cd}\fighere{fg:cd},
530: constitute the only two ESSs in an environment of $s_{D,D,D}$ only. However,
531: both $s_{C\#}$ and $s_{CD}$ are themselves susceptible to attack by a `mimic'
532: agent such as $s_{M} = \{C,D,D\}$, which itself will yield to the familiar
533: $s_{D}$.
534: In this way, even with the added facility of being able to end the interaction
535: prematurely, the only evolutionary stable strategy with respect to the full
536: strategy space is that of $s_{D,D,D}$. Any intermediate resting place for the
537: community will soon falter and move to this end
538: (Fig.~\ref{fg:autocycle}).\fighere{fg:autocycle}
539:
540: \subsection{Uniform Interactions: Computational Results}
541:
542: Computational experiments were run under uniform mixing as described above as
543: a method of model validation. Given the maximum interaction length of $\t=2$,
544: results for strategies present as a fraction of the total population are given
545: in Figure~\ref{fg:uniform}\fighere{fg:uniform}.\footnote{%
546: Modelling notes: each plot-line represents the average result from 20
547: modelling runs where in each run: $n=100$ and $\R=20$ with 20 agents
548: replaced after each period, under roulette-wheel type selection of elites
549: (with replacement) and $p(mutation) = 0.5\%$. Results were unchanged in
550: substance for $m \in \{2,5,10\}$.}
551: As predicted above, the model shows the clear dominance of $s_D$ under uniform
552: mixing. Additionally, as predicted, the initial `shake-out' periods ($t<30$)
553: gave rise to interesting wave-like strategic jostling. Agents playing
554: cooperation first, and replying to $D$ with $\#$ were the first to have an
555: early peak, if short-lived, which is not unexpected, since playing the signal
556: is not the best-response to any subsequent play. Thereafter {\sc tft}-nice
557: ($C$) peaked, but were soon overcome by the turn-coat type (who dominates {\sc
558: tft}-nice). However, as the stock of $C$ players diminish, `turn-coat' too,
559: yields to the $D$-resp type strategies (such as {\sc tft}-nasty ($D$)).
560:
561: We may conclude then, that the presence of the signal play ($\#$) does little
562: to affect \emph{strategic} outcomes in the standard IPD set-up; defection
563: still reigns supreme in the uniform IPD environment.
564:
565:
566: \subsection{Non-uniform Interactions: Network Formation}
567:
568: From the preceding analysis, a natural question arises: under what
569: circumstances, if any, do networks emerge? Whilst it is possible to think of
570: the network formation process as an aid to certain dominated behaviour (e.g.
571: mutual cooperation), it is not obvious to what degree the network must shield
572: certain players from hostile behaviour before their interaction community can
573: be self-supporting.
574:
575: Two factors that will clearly affect the propensity for cooperative networks
576: to arise, are:
577: \ben
578: \item The `impact' of the network on the interaction space; to what extent
579: a strengthening signal actually changes mixing probabilities -- formally,
580: the values of the preference set $\{p_{0},p_{s},p_{w}\}$; and
581: \item The minimum number of interactions \emph{within} a period over which
582: two agents can exploit a beneficial relationship -- formally, the value of
583: $m$.
584: \een
585: These two factors are related, since a low interaction impact may be
586: compensated for by an high absolute number of interactions within a period.
587:
588: The impact of network formation decisions by agents was parametrised in the
589: computational experiments as follows,
590: \begin{eqnarray}
591: p_{w} &=& (1-\DP)^2 \quad \text{and} \label{eq:pw} \\
592: p_{s} &=& (1+\DP)^2 \,\, , \label{eq:ps}
593: \end{eqnarray}
594: where $\DP \in [0,1)$. The choice of the expression is somewhat arbitrary,
595: however, the current specification retains symmetry about $p_{0} = 1$ for all
596: values of $\DP$ and by taking the squared deviation from 1, the ratio
597: $p_{s}/p_{w}$ could be easily varied over a wide range. For example, by
598: choosing $\DP=0.8$, we yield $p_{w} = 0.04$ and $p_{s} = 3.24$, which gives
599: a ratio of preferences in $f^{i}$ for agent $i$ for two agents with such
600: values of 81. That is, the preferred agent (where an edge is assigned for the
601: purposes of visualisation) will be met around 80 times more regularly than the
602: less preferred agent when $i$ is being addressed.
603:
604: To determine what conditions are favourable for network formation, a second
605: computational experiment was conducted, this time `turning up' the
606: \emph{interaction space impact} of any signalling play by the agents.
607: Specifically, the network tuning parameter $\DP$ was varied in the range
608: $[0.2,0.95]$ together with the minimum interaction parameter $\R$ over
609: $[2,20]$.
610:
611: It was found that necessary conditions for sustainable network formation were
612: $\DP \gtrsim 0.8$ and $\R \gtrsim 10$. In terms of the population, these
613: accord with a ratio of $p_{s}$ to $p_{w}$ (by \eqref{eq:pw} and \eqref{eq:ps})
614: of around 80 times,\footnote{%
615: That is, an agent is 80 times more likely to interact with a preferred
616: agent rather than a disliked agent in a given period.}
617: and a minimum fraction of interactions per period of around 10\% of the
618: population.
619: %%% TABLE figs/tables/net_on01cd.tex
620: \input{figs/tables/net_on01cd.tex}
621: Further, the fraction of mutual cooperative plays (of all PD plays) moved in
622: an highly correlated way with degree (see Table~\ref{tb:netoncd} and
623: Fig.~\ref{fg:fccdscatter}\fighere{fg:fccdscatter}). It would appear,
624: therefore, that network formation in this model is due to agents who play $C$
625: first, and $P[R(C)] = \#_s$.\footnote{%
626: Recall, agents are free to form networks with any kind of behavioural
627: basis.}
628: A closer look at the dynamics of prevalent strategies under network forming
629: conditions confirms this conclusion (see Fig.~\ref{fg:netr20dp080strats}).
630:
631: We study here an example ($\R,\DP$) combination at $\R=20$, and $\DP=0.8$ (see
632: Fig.~\ref{fg:netr20dp080strats}\fighere{fg:netr20dp080strats}). Four agent
633: types are of interest (along with the summed $D$-responder types): the
634: cooperative network forming type ({\tt C-NET}); the defection network forming
635: type ({\tt D-NET}); and two types which engage in an highly asymmetric
636: relationship -- the opportunist ({\tt D-OPP}) and so-called `sucker' ({\tt
637: C-SCK}) types. Again, the periodic rise and fall of strategy types is evident,
638: but importantly, it can be seen that although {\tt C-NET}, {\tt D-NET} and
639: {\tt D-OPP} appear to co-exist for a time, it is only the cooperative network
640: forming type who prevails in the long run.
641:
642: To better understand these dynamics, a series of network snapshots for one
643: representative network formation trial under the above conditions is shown in
644: Figs.~\ref{fg:netdynamics1}\fighere{fg:netdynamics1} and
645: \ref{fg:netdynamics2}\fighere{fg:netdynamics2}. Here, at least four distinct
646: phases are discernible.
647: \paragraph{%
648: Phase 1: Amorphous connected
649: (Figs.~\ref{fg:netdyn10} and \ref{fg:netdyn12}) }
650: The existence of many sucker types leads to a super network with high average
651: degree. In this case, almost all of the cooperative types have formed links to
652: at least one sucker type, whilst the opportunists are largely integrated into
653: the super network, with a range of agent types as adjacent nodes.
654: \paragraph{%
655: Phase 2: Segregated connected
656: (Figs.~\ref{fg:netdyn13} and \ref{fg:netdyn16}) }
657: The network remains super connected, but clear segregation begins to occur,
658: such that agent-to-agent edges become highly assortative. Fewer sucker types
659: means that opportunists become competitive for activity in the network (e.g.
660: Fig.~\ref{fg:netdyn16}). Cooperative and defection communities subsequently
661: establish themselves (higher intra-community connectivity).
662: \paragraph{%
663: Phase 3: Segregated disjoint
664: (Figs.~\ref{fg:netdyn17}, \ref{fg:netdyn18} and \ref{fg:netdyn18}) }
665: The sucker type disappears, leading to a `shake-out' in the population -- the
666: over-supply of opportunist types is rectified, with only those who were able
667: to integrate with the defective community able to survive. The network is now
668: dis-joint, with highly defined community characteristics. Further agent
669: survival depends on raw mutual payoff characteristics.
670: \paragraph{%
671: Phase 4: Homogeneous connected
672: (Figs.~\ref{fg:netdyn35} and \ref{fg:netdyn40}) }
673: With the significantly higher intra-community payoffs yielded to the
674: cooperative community, edges here become highly dense, approaching a complete
675: component graph. The defective community disappears, with no possibility of
676: infiltration into the cooperative community (see discussion below). New agents
677: of cooperative network forming type are able to join and be integrated. Some
678: sucker--opportunist relationships arise on margins but are short lived only.
679:
680:
681: \subsubsection{Network Agent Types}
682:
683: A dissection of the prominent strategies that arose in the above experiment
684: was conducted on period 13 (Fig.~\ref{fg:netdyn13})\fighere{fg:yr13autos}.
685: A comparison of the network itself with the agent autopsies given in
686: Fig.~\ref{fg:yr13autos} makes clear the difference between each agent's
687: activity in the network. Clearly, the interaction of the opportunist and
688: sucker types (Fig.~\ref{fg:yr13autos92} and \ref{fg:yr13autos85} respectively)
689: will lead to tie-strengthening conditions, but with highly asymmetric payoff
690: outcomes.
691:
692: Importantly, however, the `robust-C' type (agent 10 in period 13) is immune to
693: this play by responding with $D$ to the opportunist's $D$ opening;
694: a transition that works equally well for agent 10 when facing the robust-D
695: type (agent 79 in period
696: 13). For this reason, as can be seen in the agent networks presented so far,
697: the cooperative types avoid tie-strengthening with either the robust-D or
698: the opportunist types, which in both cases ensures adequate
699: type-selection, but in the latter case, protects the cooperative network
700: forming types from the opportunist shake-out that was inevitable with the
701: decline of the sucker types in periods 13 to 17.
702:
703: At the statistical level, these interactions are borne out in the periodic
704: struggle of the initial network dynamics (see
705: Fig.~\ref{fg:netr20dp080strats}). The initial rise of the sucker types
706: (establishing network ties to any other tie-strengthening agent) provides
707: fertile ground for the opportunist types, who in turn, support the defection
708: network types. However, over time, as each loses its respective `feed-stock',
709: network dynamics resolve in favour of the cooperative network forming types.
710:
711: It is important to note that within this boundedly-rational framework, robust
712: network formation is highly dependent on `purity' of network structures. As
713: can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fg:agepaysstrats}\fighere{fg:agepaysstrats},
714: connected components that experience longevity must be able to attain more
715: than the going `outside' payoff rate of 2 per interaction.\footnote{%
716: The payoff yield between two {\sc All-D} types (for example) who play
717: a two-iteration IPD game, gaining 1 in each iteration.}
718:
719: As can be identified, connected components that have a high proportion of
720: sucker or opportunist types will yield large mean payoffs, but are very
721: short-lived (rarely having mean agent ages greater than 5 periods) due to the
722: volatile nature of payoff asymmetries. On the other hand, the cooperative
723: networks who can overcome the short-term heterogeneous phase are very likely
724: to retain higher than 2 average payoffs and so be positively selected for in
725: the end-of-period strategy revision phase. Clearly, ensuring good `discipline'
726: within a cooperation network must be an high priority for the sustainability
727: for the agents therein.
728:
729: Interestingly, it appears from the data presented, that although predominantly
730: defection type networks can yield very high payoffs, they will also suffer
731: a type differentiation problem, mixing easily with the opportunist types. In
732: the early stages of population dynamics, this a positive attribute since it
733: will provide these types with high period payoffs through greater `activity'
734: (more plays of the IPD), ensuring their individual survival. However, over
735: time, with the propensity for opportunist types to lose valuable payoff
736: opportunities with sucker types, the defection networks yield strictly worse
737: average payoffs than the `outside' defection population, since they are
738: necessarily sacrificing a unit of payoff every time they re-affirm/establish
739: a link with a fellow defection network type.
740:
741:
742: \subsection{Multiple Equilibria \& the Long Run}
743:
744: In the previous section, conditions were identified in which stable networks
745: were formed under parsimonious agent specification ($\t=2$ implying $k=3$) to
746: enable correlation with established results in the analytic literature. Here,
747: this constraint is relaxed and instead agents interactions of up to four
748: iterations of the IPD game ($\t = 4$) are considered and their long-run
749: dynamics studied. Recall, by increasing the length of the IPD game, the
750: maximal FSA state count increases markedly: for $\t = \{3,4\}$ maximum state
751: count $k = \{7,15\}$.
752:
753: Previous conditions were retained, with $\DP=0.8$ and $\R=20$, and each trial
754: allowed to run for 1000 periods. Since a full description of the state is not
755: feasible\footnote{%
756: Consider that each time period, a population constitutes
757: $n \times |s| $
758: bits, where $|s|$ is the length of a string needed to represent each
759: agent's strategy, and the network $n(n-1)/2$ bits; taken together, gives
760: rise to a possible
761: $2^{n(n-1)/2 + n|s|}$
762: states, which for $\t=2$ is $2^{9 \times 10^{6}}$! (It is possible to
763: reduce this number by conducting automata autopsies, but the problem
764: remains.)}
765: we consider an aggregate description of two fundamental state characteristics,
766: $f(C,C)$ -- the fraction of plays in a period where mutual cooperation is
767: observed (strategic behaviour); and $\mean{d}$ -- mean agent degree (network
768: formation). Results are presented for five long-run trials in
769: Fig.~\ref{fg:dyn}.\fighere{fg:dyn} Under low interaction length the system
770: moves within 100 steps to one of two stable equilibria -- either a stable
771: cooperation network is formed (as was studied in the previous section) or no
772: network arises and a stable defection population sets in. However, as the
773: interaction length increases (and so the associated complexity of behaviour
774: that each agent can display), the dynamics become increasingly erratic, with
775: multiple, apparently stable, equilibria visible in each case, but transient
776: \emph{transitions} between these equilibria observed. This situation is
777: synonymous with that of \emph{complex} system dynamics.
778:
779:
780: To better see this transition, the locations of the system in
781: $f(C,C)-\mean{d}$ state-space were plotted (see
782: Fig.~\ref{fg:states}).\fighere{fg:states} Here the transition from relatively
783: well-defined attractors for $\t=2$ to complex dynamics at $\t > 2$ is clear.
784: Indeed, five stationary locations are visible in Fig.~\ref{fg:states:3} with
785: location I, II and V appearing to be transiently stable, with state
786: trajectories both entering \emph{and} leaving these locations, whilst
787: locations III and IV appear to be absorbing for the system. Interestingly,
788: these absorbing locations give rise to relatively similar average network
789: formation, but different levels of cooperation, being low and moderate
790: respectively.
791:
792: Similarly, but with greater clarity, the dynamics of $\t=4$ shows very erratic
793: behaviour (Fig.~\ref{fg:states:4}), appearing to have only two absorbing
794: locations, IV and V, whilst each of I, II, and III appear to be transient. In
795: this case, the absorbing locations are very different in character, being an
796: almost complete graph, but similarly defection-based in the first case, or again,
797: with high participation, but markedly cooperative in the second.
798:
799: Surprisingly, such complex dynamics arise in a relatively simple model of
800: network formation. Recall, that the longest that any of the agent interactions
801: can be in these studies was just two, three or four iterations of the modified
802: Prisoner's Dilemma given in \eqref{eq:ipdgame}. To be very sure that such
803: dynamics are not a consequence of the encoding of the automata themselves, an
804: identical study was run with $\t=4$, but setting $\DP=0$ such that all
805: interactions would continue to be of uniform probabilities. However, in all
806: cases, the system moved to a zero cooperation regime within the first
807: 100 periods and remained there. Clearly then, we conclude that endogeneity of
808: network formation is driving such complex dynamics as observed above.
809:
810:
811: \subsection{Network Formation \& Self-Organized Criticality}
812:
813: Next, given that the system displays complex dynamics for given values of $\t$
814: and that network endogeneity is critical to such dynamics, it is natural to
815: study the dynamics of network formation itself. For these purposes, the size
816: (node count) of the principle (largest) network component that exists at the
817: end of each period is studied. Example time-series for one $\t = 4$ run are
818: given in Fig.~\ref{fg:timeseries}.\fighere{fg:timeseries} In the first figure,
819: the size of the network itself is shown, whilst in the second, the first
820: differences are given (i.e. $S_{t} - S_{t-1}$). It can be seen from this
821: example, that changes in network size occur both on many time-scales and to
822: various degrees. Such phenomena is synonymous with systems exhibiting
823: critical behaviour~\citep{227_Bak_sel}; perturbations to the system cause
824: mostly small, damped outcomes, but can occasionally have dramatic effects,
825: likened to a `domino-effect'.
826:
827: To investigate this feature, frequency distributions of average network
828: fluctuation sizes $D(\Delta S)$ were prepared for each interaction length. As
829: can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fg:fractal}\fighere{fg:fractal} the distributions
830: appear to follow a power-law behaviour, that is of the form,
831: \beq
832: D(\Delta S) \sim \Delta S^{-\alpha} \,\, .
833: \eeq
834: Such a relationship is often termed `scale-free' since it indicates that the
835: same overall systemic dynamics are operating on all spatial scales; small
836: deviations build up over time and lead to large deviations in the long-run due
837: to connectivity within the system.
838:
839: Spatial self-similarity is one feature of critical systems, the second is that
840: similar power-law scaling is observed in the temporal domain as well; normally
841: manifesting as so-called `$1/f$' noise, which appears ubiquitous in
842: nature.\footnote{Examples from the introduction to \citep{227_Bak_sel}
843: include: light from quasars, the intensity of sunspots, the current through
844: resistors, the flow of sand in an hour glass, the flow of the Nile river, and
845: stock exchange price indexes.}
846: A power spectrum was therefore prepared of the time-series network size to
847: study this possibility.\footnote{%
848: Suppose $s(t)$ is the (discrete) times-series of some network size data
849: (as per Fig.~\ref{fg:timeseries}(a)), then using {\sc Matlab}
850: a Fast-Fourier-Transform, $F(s)$ was performed with $N = 2^8$ points,
851: followed by the standard power-function, $F F'/ N$, where $F'$ is the
852: complex conjugate of $F$. Figures show the resultant power spectra
853: without the first constant-shift term $f(0)$, and are cut below $S(f)\leq
854: 5 \times 10^{-4}$.}
855: Fig~\ref{fg:spectra}\fighere{fg:spectra} gives the outcome of this analysis,
856: showing clear power-law scaling behaviour. Linear fits were prepared for the
857: first 10 data points\footnote{%
858: Fitting power-law models has received some interesting study in recent
859: times due to difficulties in forming goodness-of-fit tests etc. Here we
860: follow \cite{265_Gol_pro} in form, fitting the linear specification to
861: only a selection of the primary points, thus avoiding undue bias in the
862: tails (which represent a very small mass of the spectrum).}
863: with good agreement in all cases. Exponents of the relationship,
864: \beq
865: S(f) \sim f^{-\alpha} \,\, ,
866: \eeq
867: were found all found to be $-1.8 \pm 0.1$.
868:
869: Taken together, the spatial and temporal fingerprints of criticality observed
870: in the network formation dynamics, indicate that the system is indeed very
871: capable of the kind of complex dynamics observed and discussed above, and that
872: the network formation appears to be a key factor in such behaviour.
873: Furthermore, as has been proposed by various authors, rather than such
874: criticality arising from fine tuning of system parameters such as occurs in
875: designed critical industrial systems (e.g. nuclear fission reactors), the
876: system appears to naturally move towards this critical state, and keep
877: returning to it over time. It is for this property that authors such as
878: \cite{227_Bak_sel} have termed such phenomena `self-organized criticality'.
879: Indeed, it appears that such phenomena is a strong indicator of complex
880: dynamics, and may indeed be the necessary system state to give rise to the
881: kind of non-equilibrium processes observed in various dissipative
882: systems.\footnote{%
883: See for example, \cite{255_Lan_art} for a discussion on this point.}
884:
885: The existence of such dynamics in economic systems has recently received
886: growing interest.\footnote{See for example, \cite{272_Kru_sel}.} Indeed,
887: power-law behaviour on both a macro~\citep{249_Can_sca,248_Dev_pow} and micro-
888: interactions scale \citep{163_Are_sel,228_Sch_sel} has been incorporated into
889: both models and empirical evidence, and some assert is fundamental to our
890: understanding and thus modelling of economic systems~\citep{175_Art_ind}.
891: Hence, the existence of such dynamics and features in the present model is
892: a pleasing indication that significant features of realistic network formation
893: contexts has been incorporated.
894:
895:
896: \section{Conclusions}
897:
898: In contrast to previous attempts at capturing the dynamics of strategic
899: network formation, the present model provides a relatively simple foundation,
900: but powerfully rich behavioural and topological environment within which to
901: study the dynamics of strategic network formation. Moreover, in contrast to
902: previous dynamic and strategic network models, by incorporating the network
903: formation decision-process into individual agent strategies, a rich ecology of
904: agent types and consequent network topologies was observed. Significantly,
905: this model suggests that the network formation process must deliver relatively
906: symmetric payoffs to network members. If this is not true, networks formed
907: will likely be heterogeneous in nature, with disruptive edge formation and
908: breaking sequences which can effectively destroy any benefits that the network
909: might have conferred on members (e.g. the opportunist-sucker network
910: volatility of phases I and II mentioned above).
911:
912: Analytical and subsequent computational components of the present paper
913: indicate that in this simple modified IPD set-up, cooperation is not
914: sustainable without the additional benefits conferred by the type-selection
915: and type-protection network externalities. Specifically, agents require at
916: least some level of repetition of interaction within the current population to
917: gain sufficient incentives to form the network; and secondly, the `impact' of
918: the network on the interaction space was found to be a necessary condition for
919: cooperative network formation, with network emergence only observed when the
920: network allows for relatively high (though not complete) discrimination
921: (probabilistically) from the wider population.
922:
923: Furthermore, the dynamical properties of the present model have been
924: investigated and indicate that even with parsimonious descriptions of
925: boundedly-rational agent strategies, complex dynamics are observed, with
926: multiple and transient stationary locations a feature of the state space.
927: These dynamics increased in complexity with increasing interaction length.
928: Additionally, evidence on the fluctuations in the size of networks over time
929: indicates that the network formation and decay processes themselves are likely
930: the main driving force behind the complex system dynamics, with both spatial
931: and temporal scaling behaviour indicating the existence of so-called
932: `self-organized criticality'. To this author's knowledge, this is the first
933: strategic network formation model to produce and study such complex dynamics.
934: Such observations clearly raise tantalising avenues for future work; I shall
935: raise a selection in finishing: do realistic cooperative networks display
936: complex dynamics? if not, what mechanism of agency overcomes such
937: instability? if networks can be shown to have such dynamics (admittedly these
938: data are still largely out of reach) what are the implications for supporting
939: cooperative institutions? and finally, given an autonomous, locally
940: interacting world, how should the social planner intervene in such networks to
941: pursue welfare maximizing aims?
942: %\endnote{%
943: % \it This research was made possible by the generous support of the
944: %Australian Government's Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scheme and the
945: %School of Economics APA award stipend.}
946:
947: %\renewcommand{\endnotesep}{\hline{5cm}}
948: %\theendnotes
949:
950: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
951: % FIGURES
952: %
953: \newpage
954: \linespread{1.0}
955: \pagestyle{empty}
956: \input{parts/figures.tex}
957: \clearpage
958:
959: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
960: % APPENDIX
961: %
962: \pagestyle{headings}
963: \section*{Appendix 1}
964: \input{parts/proof_unilateral.tex}
965: \clearpage
966:
967: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
968: % REFERENCES
969: %
970: \bibliographystyle{apalike}
971: \bibliography{%
972: /home/sangus/clocks-clouds/literature/BibTeXfiles/games.bib}
973: \end{document}
974: