1: \documentclass[doublecol]{epl2}
2: % or \documentclass[page-classic]{epl2} for one column style
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4:
5: \title{Influence of initial distributions on robust cooperation in evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma}
6: \shorttitle{Influence of initial distributions etc.} %Insert here a short version of the title if it exceeds 70 characters
7:
8: \author{X.-J. Chen\inst{1,2} \and F. Fu\inst{1,2} \and L. Wang\inst{1,2}\thanks{E-mail: \email{longwang@pku.edu.cn}}}
9: \shortauthor{X.-J. Chen \etal} %Insert here the first author if authors exceed 70 characters
10:
11: \institute{
12: \inst{1} Intelligent Control Laboratory, Center for Systems and Control, Department of Mechanics and Space Technologies, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871,
13: China\\
14: \inst{2} Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
15: }
16: \pacs{89.75.Hc}{Networks and genealogical trees}
17: \pacs{02.50.Le}{Decision theory and game theory}
18: \pacs{87.23.Ge}{Dynamics of social systems}
19:
20:
21: \abstract{We study the evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma game on
22: scale-free networks for different initial distributions. We
23: consider three types of initial distributions for cooperators and
24: defectors: initially random distribution with different
25: frequencies of defectors; intentional organization with defectors
26: initially occupying the most connected nodes with different
27: fractions of defectors; intentional assignment for cooperators
28: occupying the most connected nodes with different proportions of
29: defectors at the beginning. It is shown that initial
30: configurations for cooperators and defectors can influence the
31: stationary level of cooperation and the evolution speed of
32: cooperation. Organizations with the vertices with highest
33: connectivity representing individuals cooperators could exhibit
34: the most robust cooperation and drive evolutionary process to
35: converge fastest to the high steady cooperation in the three
36: situations of initial distributions. Otherwise, we determine the
37: critical initial frequencies of defectors above which the
38: extinction of cooperators occurs for the respective initial
39: distributions, and find that the presence of network loops and
40: clusters for cooperators can favor the emergence of cooperation.}
41:
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \maketitle
46:
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: Evolutionary game theory has become an important tool for
51: investigating cooperative behavior of biological, ecological,
52: social and economic systems \cite{1,2}. The Prisoner' Dilemma game
53: (PDG) is one of the most commonly employed games for this purpose.
54: Originally, in the PDG, two individuals adopt one of the two
55: available strategies, cooperate or defect; both receive $R$ under
56: mutual cooperation and $P$ under mutual defection, while a
57: cooperator receives $S$ when confronted to a defector, which in
58: turn receives $T$, where $T>R>P>S$ and $T+S<2R$. Under these
59: conditions it is best to defect for rational individuals in a
60: single round of the PDG, regardless of the opponent strategy.
61: However, mutual cooperation would be preferable for both of
62: individuals. Thus, the dilemma is caused by the selfishness of the
63: individuals.
64:
65: However, the unstable cooperative behavior is opposite to the
66: observations in the real world. This disagreement thus motivates
67: to find under what conditions the cooperation can emerge on the
68: PDG. Graph theory provides a natural and very convenient framework
69: to study the evolution of cooperation in structured populations.
70: In well-mixed populations, each individual interacts with each
71: other individual. The average payoff of defectors is greater than
72: the average payoff of cooperators and the frequency of cooperators
73: asymptotically vanishes. In other structured populations, each
74: individual occupies one vertex and individuals only interact with
75: their neighbors in a social network. Several studies have reported
76: the cooperation level on different types of networks
77: \cite{3,4,5,6,7}. Nowak and May introduced a spatial evolutionary
78: PDG model in which individuals located on a lattice play with
79: their neighbors, and found that the spatial effect promotes
80: substantially the emergence of cooperation \cite{3}. Santos
81: \textit{et al}. have studied the PDG and Snowdrift game (SG) on
82: scale-free networks and found that comparing with the regular
83: networks, scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the
84: emergence of cooperation \cite{6}. Notably, scale-free networks
85: where the degree distribution follows a power law form are highly
86: heterogeneous, and the heterogeneity of the network structure can
87: promote cooperation. However, the puzzle of cooperation on social
88: networks is unanswered yet. Recently, the roots of the diverse
89: behavior observed on scale-free networks are explored \cite{8,9}.
90: Cooperators can prevail by forming network clusters, where they
91: help each other on heterogeneous networks \cite{10}. In scale-free
92: networks, the majority of nodes have only a few links, while a
93: small number of nodes with high connectivity (hubs) are well
94: connected to each other. This extremely inhomogeneous connectivity
95: distribution results in the robustness of scale-free networks
96: \cite{11}. As a result, the presence of hubs and relative
97: abundance of small loops for cooperators in scale-free networks
98: can promote the level of cooperation.
99:
100: From these results on scale-free networks, it seems that
101: cooperation can be affected by the initial distribution for
102: cooperators (C) and defectors (D), such as randomly or
103: intentionally distributions, individuals initially assigned with
104: equal or unequal probability to be C or D. Similarly, a special
105: initial distribution for C and D may exhibit a robust cooperation
106: on scale-free networks. However, in most literature, initial
107: strategies of individuals are randomly assigned with the same
108: probability to be C or D. Here, we remove the setting and are
109: interested in investigating the evolution of cooperation for
110: different initial distributions on scale-free networks. The paper
111: is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the
112: evolutionary game model as well as networks in detail. And then
113: simulation results and analysis are provided in the third section.
114: Finally, conclusions are given in the fourth section.
115:
116: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;
117: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections
118: % \appendix
119:
120: \section{The model}
121:
122: Firstly, we construct scale-free networks using the Barab\'{a}si
123: and Albert model (BA) which is considered to be the typical model
124: of the heterogeneous networks \cite{12}. Starting from $m_0$
125: vertices which are connected to each other, at each time step one
126: adds a new vertex with $m$ ($m\leq m_0$) edges that link the new
127: vertex to $m$ different vertices already present in the system.
128: When choosing the vertices to which the new vertex connects, one
129: assumes that the probability $P_i$ that a new vertex will be
130: connected to vertex $i$ depends on the degree $k_i$ of vertex $i$:
131: $P_i=k_i/\sum_jk_j$. After $t$ time steps this algorithm produces
132: a grape with $N=t+m_0$ vertices and $mt$ edges. Here, we set
133: $m=m_0=2$ and network size $N=3000$ for all the simulations. Thus,
134: the average degree of this network model can be given
135: $\bar{k}=2m=4$.
136:
137: After constructing networks, each site of the network is occupied
138: by an individual. Each individual who is a pure strategist can
139: only follow two simple strategies: cooperate and defect. In one
140: generation, each individual plays a PDG with its neighbors
141: simultaneously, and collects payoffs dependent on the payoff
142: matrix parameters. The total payoff of a certain individual is the
143: sum over all interactions in one generation. Following common
144: practice \cite{3,13}, we use a simplified version of PDG, make
145: $T=b$, $R=1$ and $P=S=0$, where $b$ represents the advantage of
146: defectors over cooperators, being typically constrained to the
147: interval $1<b<2$. Let us represent the individuals' strategies
148: with two-component vector, taking the value $s=(1, 0)^T$ for
149: C-strategist and $s=(0, 1)^T$ for D-strategist. Therefore, the
150: total payoff $P_x$ of a certain individual $x$ can be written as
151: \begin{equation}
152: P_x=\sum_{y\in \Omega_x} s_x^T As_y, \label{eq1}
153: \end{equation}
154: where the sum runs over all the neighboring sites of $x$, and
155: $\Omega_{x}$ is the set of neighbors of element $x$.
156: %The total payoff of each individual can be calculated by
157: %Eq.~(\ref{eq1}).
158:
159: During the evolutionary process, each individual is allowed to
160: learn from one of its neighbors and update its strategy in each
161: generation. Following previous works \cite{13,14}, each individual
162: chooses one individual randomly from its neighbors. After choosing
163: a neighbor $y$, the individual $x$ adopts the selected $y$
164: neighbor's strategy in the next generation with a probability
165: depending on their total payoff difference as
166: \begin{equation}
167: W_{s_x\leftarrow s_y}=\frac{1}{1+\exp{[(P_x -P_y)/K]}},\label{eq2}
168: \end{equation}
169: where $K$ characterizes the noise effects, including fluctuations
170: in payoffs, errors in decision, individual trials, etc. And $P_x$,
171: $P_y$ denote the total payoffs of individuals $x$ and $y$,
172: respectively. Here, $K$ is set to $0.125$ for the total payoffs.
173: Furthermore, the results remain unaffected with different values
174: of the parameter $K$.
175:
176: \section{Simulations and discussion}
177:
178: In the following, we will show the simulation results carried out
179: for a population of $N=3000$ individuals occupying the vertices of
180: the scale-free networks with $\bar{k}=4$. The above model is
181: simulated with synchronous updating. Eventually, the system
182: reaches a dynamic equilibrium state. The equilibrium frequencies
183: of C are obtained by averaging over the last $1000$ generations
184: after a transient time of $10000$ generations. In what follows,
185: three situations of initial distributions for C and D will be
186: considered: (1) defectors are randomly distributed to occupy the
187: network vertices; (2) defectors on purpose occupy the highly
188: connected nodes; (3) defectors are intentionally assigned to
189: occupy the nodes with small connectivity. In these respective
190: situations, the effects of different initial frequencies of
191: defectors $f_{ID}$ on the emergence of cooperation are
192: subsequently investigated, too. In situations (2) [situation (3)],
193: nodes in the scale-free networks are sorted by decreasing
194: (increasing) number of links that each node contains. There are
195: instances where groups of nodes contain identical numbers of
196: links. Where this occurs, they are arbitrarily assigned a position
197: within that groups. For example, the node rank $r$ denotes the
198: position of a node on this ordered list and $1\leq r\leq N$
199: \cite{15}. Initially, when $r$ defectors occupy the highly
200: connected nodes, they just occupy the $r$ nodes with highest
201: connectivity in the networks ; while $r$ defectors occupy the
202: nodes with small connectivity, they just occupy the $r$ nodes with
203: smallest connectivity in the networks, and thus $f_{ID}=r/N$ is
204: the initial frequency of D. The evolution of the frequency of C as
205: a function of $b$ and $f_{ID}$ for different initial distributions
206: has been computed. To this end, each data point results from an
207: average over $30$ realizations of both the networks and same
208: initial distributions.
209: \begin{figure*}
210: \centering
211: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig1.eps}
212: \caption{(Color Online) Evolution of cooperation in scale-free
213: network with $\bar{k}=4$. Results for the fraction of C at
214: equilibrium in the population are plotted as a contour, drawn as
215: a function of two parameters: $b$ and $f_{ID}$. (a) random
216: distributions with different initial frequencies of D; (b)
217: different initial fractions of D which occupy nodes with high
218: connectivity; (c) different initial percentages of D which occupy
219: nodes with small connectivity.}
220: \label{fig.1}
221: \end{figure*}
222: \begin{figure*}
223: \centering
224: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig2.eps} \caption{(Color
225: Online) Frequency of C at equilibrium as a function of the
226: parameter $b$ for different distributions with different values of
227: $f_{ID}$.} \label{fig.2}
228: \end{figure*}
229: \begin{figure}
230: \centering
231: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig3.eps}
232: \caption{(Color Online) Frequency of C at equilibrium as a
233: function of evolution generations for different values of $b$ and
234: initial distributions with the same $f_{ID}$. (a) $b=1.4$ and
235: $60\%$ cooperators at the beginning; (b) $b=1.1$ and $90\%$
236: cooperators at the beginning.}
237: \label{fig.3}
238: \end{figure}
239: \begin{figure}
240: \centering
241: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig4.eps}
242: \caption{Critical frequency of D for cooperators to vanish in the
243: PDG as a function of the parameter $b$ for different situations.}
244: \label{fig.4}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247: Fig.~\ref{fig.1} shows the simulation results in the PDG for
248: different initial distributions as a contour plot. Clearly, in
249: fig.~\ref{fig.1}(a) we have found that the cooperation level
250: becomes poorer when the initial frequency of D increases for a
251: given fixed $b$. Especially, the cooperation level begins to
252: fluctuate and decreases intensively when initial frequency of D is
253: large and near one for high values of $b$. While cooperators
254: dominate over the most ranges of $b$ and $\rho_{ID}$ in this
255: situation. In fig.~\ref{fig.1}(b), cooperation strongly depends on
256: the values of $f_{ID}$, and defectors dominate over the most
257: ranges of $b$ and $f_{ID}$. In fig.~\ref{fig.1}(c), a certain
258: amount of cooperation can emerge and remain stable even for high
259: initial frequency of D, and cooperators prevail over the most
260: ranges of $b$ and $f_{ID}$. A comparison of the different results
261: for different initial frequencies of D is shown in
262: fig.~\ref{fig.2}. We depict the cooperation level as a function of
263: the parameter $b$. In fig.~\ref{fig.2}(a), we have found that the
264: equilibrium frequency of C begins to fluctuate and decrease for
265: high values of $b$ when the initial frequency of D is high. And
266: the cooperation level remains stable for small values of $b$.
267: Additionally, when $f_{ID}$ increases and approaches one,
268: cooperation fluctuates intensively and cooperators dies out
269: finally. As shown in fig.~\ref{fig.2}(b), cooperation is strongly
270: inhibited as $b$ increases when defectors are not wiped out. There
271: are larger oscillations and cooperation is sensitive to initial
272: frequency of D when defectors occupy the nodes with highest
273: connectivity at the beginning. Moreover, cooperators vanish when
274: the initial frequency of D is more than $50\%$ no matter what the
275: value of $b$ is. Fig.~\ref{fig.2}(c) exhibits a robust and
276: favorable cooperation for different initial frequencies of D. Even
277: if a small number of cooperators initially occupy the rich nodes,
278: it still leads to a high cooperation level. The frequency of C
279: decreases slowly for a high initial frequency of D over the whole
280: region of $b$. The cooperative behavior is robust against
281: defector's invasion in this situation. From fig.~\ref{fig.2}, we
282: know that different initial frequencies of D and distributions can
283: result in different levels of cooperation. In addition, in
284: comparison with the two other situations, the situation that
285: cooperators occupy the rich nodes, presents much more robust
286: cooperation in this respect that high cooperation remains for
287: almost any temptation. It is shown that the time evolution of
288: cooperation in PDG for different values of $b$ and initial
289: distributions with the same $f_{ID}$ in fig.~\ref{fig.3}. It is
290: found that situation (3) that cooperators occupy the most
291: connected nodes at the beginning makes evolutionary process
292: converge much fastest to the equilibrium state of $100\%$
293: cooperators in the three situations, while situation (2) that
294: defectors firstly occupy the nodes with highest connectivity
295: provides much harsher condition for the emergence of cooperation
296: than the two other situations and makes cooperation level drop
297: much fast. Situation (3) promotes the emergence of cooperation and
298: can speed up the evolution of cooperation. Fig.~\ref{fig.4} shows
299: the critical frequency of D for cooperators to vanish in the PDG
300: as a function of $b$ for the three types of initial distributions
301: and also illuminates these results. When the initial frequency of
302: D is higher than the critical frequency of D, cooperators vanishes
303: or decreases intensively to extinction. For an arbitrary value of
304: $b$, the critical frequency of D in situation (3) is always higher
305: than those in situation (1) and (2). Initial ratios of C in one
306: certain distribution for C and D can affect the cooperation level;
307: otherwise, initial distributions for C and D also influence the
308: emergence of cooperation and the evolution speed of cooperation.
309: \begin{figure}
310: \centering
311: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5.eps}
312: \caption{The total actual number of links among $r$ nodes against
313: $r/N$ with $N=3000$ and $m=m_0=2$ in scale-free networks, where
314: $r$ represents the node rank. (a) $r$ nodes with the highest
315: connectivity in the networks; (b) $r$ nodes with the smallest
316: connectivity in the networks. Each data point of the curves
317: results from 10 different network realizations.}
318: \label{fig.5}
319: \end{figure}
320:
321: These simulation results can be understood in the following way.
322: In scale-free networks, there are a large number of nodes which
323: have only a few links, and there are small number of links among
324: these less connected nodes; while there are a small number of
325: nodes with large numbers of links, these most connected nodes or
326: hubs are generally very well connected to each other (see
327: fig.~\ref{fig.5}). The connectivity between these hubs in the
328: networks can be crucial for the emergence of cooperation for the
329: PDG \cite{9,10,11,14,16}. Based on these results, some
330: corresponding explanations on our results can be provided. At
331: first, we discuss the random initial distribution with different
332: fractions of D. When the initial percentage of D is small, nodes
333: with high connectivity will be occupied by defectors with much
334: smaller probability. In this case, individuals using strategy C
335: representing highly connected nodes communicate with each other
336: and form loop and main cluster structures, and hence the high
337: levels of cooperation can emerge. Therefore, the probability, with
338: which most connected vertices are occupied by cooperators,
339: decreases when the initial fraction of D increases. Then clusters
340: of cooperators may be cut off (fragmented) from the main compact
341: cluster, but there are still some loops and fragments for
342: cooperators. In this state there is a systematic drop of
343: cooperation at the beginning, nevertheless it tends to rise again
344: in the long run, thereby, cooperation falls but can remain at a
345: high level. While the initial percentage of D is more than the
346: critical frequency, it is still possible for a small number of C
347: players to occupy the nodes with high connectivity although the
348: probability is so small, since strategies C and D are randomly
349: distributed among all the players. Thus, there are large
350: oscillations when the initial frequency of D approaches one,
351: because it is increasingly difficult for the cooperators occupying
352: most connected nodes to communicate with each other in this state.
353: And then we investigate the situation that defectors occupy the
354: nodes with highest connectivity at the beginning. In other words,
355: cooperators initially occupy vertices having only a few links. In
356: fig.~\ref{fig.5}(b), it shows that there are few actual links
357: among about half of the nodes which are almost the least connected
358: nodes. When the initial frequency of D is more than $50\%$ in
359: situation (2), it is not possible to form network clusters for
360: cooperators where cooperators can help each other, and defectors
361: are grouped in several clusters, then cooperators lose more and
362: more elements from their outer layer along with the increment of
363: evolution generations, therefore, cooperators can not survive no
364: matter what the value of $b$ is. Nevertheless, only small isolated
365: pieces can be formed for cooperators when the fraction of D is
366: less than the critical frequency, since defectors occupy the most
367: connected nodes. Thus, it results in that cooperation falls
368: intensively and can not remain stable. However, a high level of
369: cooperation is sustainable just for small values of $b$, because
370: in this case defectors have not much advantage over cooperators.
371: For $b\thicksim1$, cooperators are equivalent to defectors, then
372: the level of cooperation is not strongly susceptible to the
373: initial distribution for C and D. In fact, in all generations
374: cooperation falls rapidly at the beginning, then cooperators
375: sometimes recover but not always for small values of $b$ in
376: situation (2). For large $b$, cooperation always falls and never
377: recovers. Therefore, in this state cooperation drops rapidly and
378: it needs much time to revert cooperation if cooperation can
379: recover finally. Accordingly, cooperators vanish at the stationary
380: state over the most regions of $b$ and $f_{ID}$. The situation,
381: that individuals C intentionally assigned to represent the
382: vertices with high connectivity at the beginning, is analyzed
383: finally. In this case, it is easy for cooperators to form giant
384: compact network clusters and loops. Even if a small number of
385: cooperators occupy the most connected nodes, there are a large
386: number of loops and some tiny compact clusters for cooperators;
387: conversely, defectors are not organized in these clusters, where
388: cooperators can help each other and defectors can not invade. The
389: presence of clusters and loops in the connectivity structure for
390: cooperators sustains the high level of cooperation even for a high
391: value of $b$, and in all generations they can favor cooperation at
392: the beginning, and drive evolutionary process to converge fast to
393: the high stationary cooperation level. Therefore, cooperators
394: dominate over the entire ranges of $b$ and $f_{ID}$, and the
395: cooperative behavior is robust against defectors' invasion in this
396: situation.
397:
398: Scale-free networks have most of their connectivity clustered and
399: looped in a few nodes, therefore, initial assignments for C and D
400: can affect the cooperative behavior and the evolution speed of
401: cooperation. The configuration that cooperators initially occupy
402: the most connected nodes, presents the much more robust
403: cooperation than the two other ones and can speed up the evolution
404: of cooperation, in comparison with the two other different initial
405: configurations. Moreover, cooperators can prevail by forming
406: network clusters and loops, where they can assist each other.
407: These results are independent of the size of the populations $N$.
408:
409: \section{Conclusions}
410:
411: In summary, we have studied the cooperative behavior of the
412: evolutionary PDG on scale-free networks for different initial
413: distributions, and also found that the presence of network loops
414: and clusters for cooperators can favor cooperation. Cooperators
415: dominate over the most range of $b$ with different initial
416: frequencies of D when strategies C and D are randomly distributed
417: among the populations; a poor and unstable cooperation level can
418: be established at equilibrium in the state that the vertices with
419: high connectivity represent defectors at the beginning; while a
420: very robust and favorable cooperation can be exhibited in the
421: situation that the highly connected nodes are occupied by
422: cooperators at the beginning. The situation that cooperators
423: initially occupy the most connected nodes provides the most robust
424: cooperation in the three situations of initial distributions for C
425: and D. Additionally, it is found that the configuration that
426: cooperators occupy the most connected nodes at the beginning can
427: speed up the evolution of cooperation; while the situation that
428: defectors occupy the most connected nodes drives cooperation to
429: drop fast and difficultly recover. And the critical frequencies of
430: D for cooperators to vanish corresponding to initial distributions
431: have been respectively determined. Some qualified explanations
432: based on the property of scale-free networks are given for these
433: phenomenon. Therefore, our results shows that initial
434: configurations for C and D with different ratios of D at the
435: beginning can affect the levels of cooperation on heterogeneous
436: networks. Moreover, our work may be helpful in exploring the roots
437: of the emergence of cooperation on heterogeneous networks.
438:
439: \acknowledgments This work was supported by National Natural
440: Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant No. 60674050 and
441: No. 60528007, National 973 Program (Grant No. 2002CB312200),
442: National 863 Program (Grant No. 2006AA04Z258) and 11-5 project
443: (Grant No. A2120061303).
444:
445: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
446: \bibitem{1}
447: \Name{Smith~J.~M.}
448: \Book{Evolution and the Theory of Games}
449: \Publ{Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England}
450: \Year{1982}.
451: \bibitem{2}
452: \Name{Hofbauer~J. \and Sigmund~K.}
453: \Book{Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics}
454: \Publ{Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England}
455: \Year{1998}.
456: \bibitem{3}
457: \Name{Nowak~M.~A. \and May~R.~M.} \REVIEW{Nature
458: (London)}{359}{1992}{826}.
459: \bibitem{4}
460: \Name{Dur\'{a}n~O. \and Mulet~R.}
461: \REVIEW{Phys. D}{208}{2005}{257}.
462: \bibitem{5}
463: \Name{Santos~F.~C., Rodrigues~J.~F. \and Pacheco~J.~M.}
464: \REVIEW{Phys. Rev. E}{72}{2005}{056128}.
465: \bibitem{6}
466: \Name{Santos~F.~C. \and Pacheco~J.~M.}
467: \REVIEW{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{95}{2005}{098104}.
468: \bibitem{7}
469: \Name{Chen~X.~J., Fu~F. \and Wang~L.}
470: Phys. A (2007), doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.12.024.
471: \bibitem{8}
472: \Name{Garde~J.~G., Campillo~M., Flor\'{i}a~L.M. \and Moreno~Y.} preprint physics/0612108.
473: \bibitem{9}
474: \Name{Tomassini~M., Luthi~L. \and Pestelacci~E.}
475: preprint physics/0612225.
476: \bibitem{10}
477: \Name{Nowak~M.~A.}
478: \REVIEW{Science}{314}{2006}{1560}.
479: \bibitem{11}
480: \Name{Albert~R., Jeong~H. \and Barab\'{a}si~A.~L.}
481: \REVIEW{Nature (London)}{406}{2000}{378}.
482: \bibitem{12}
483: \Name{Barab\'{a}si~A.~L. \and Albert~R.}
484: \REVIEW{Science}{286}{1999}{509}.
485: \bibitem{13}
486: \Name{Szab\'{o}~G. \and T\H{o}ke~C.}
487: \REVIEW{Phys. Rev. E}{58}{1998}{69}.
488: \bibitem{14}
489: \Name{Vukov~J., Szab\'{o}~G. \and Szolnoki~A.}
490: \REVIEW{Phys. Rev. E}{73}{2006}{067103}.
491: \bibitem{15}
492: \Name{Zhou~S. \and Mondrag\'{o}n~R.~J.}
493: \REVIEW{IEEE Comm. Lett.}{8}{2004}{3}.
494: \bibitem{16}
495: \Name{Lieberman~E., Hauert~C. \and Nowak~M.~A.}
496: \REVIEW{Nature (London)}{433}{2005}{312}.
497: \end{thebibliography}
498:
499: \end{document}
500: