1: \documentclass[twocolumn,rmp,showpacs]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{dcolumn,graphicx,amsmath,amssymb}
4: \usepackage{txfonts}
5:
6: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Dynamics of networking agents competing for high centrality and
11: low degree}
12: \author{Petter Holme}
13: \author{Gourab Ghoshal}
14: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
15: MI 48109, U.S.A.}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We model a system of networking agents that seek to optimize their
19: centrality in the network while keeping their cost, the number of
20: connections they are participating in, low. Unlike other game-theory
21: based models for network evolution, the success of the agents is
22: related only to their position in the network. The agents use
23: strategies based on local information to improve their chance of
24: success. Both the evolution of strategies and network structure are
25: investigated. We find a dramatic time evolution with cascades of
26: strategy change accompanied by a change in network structure. On
27: average the network self-organizes to a state close to the transition
28: between a fragmented state and a state with a giant
29: component. Furthermore, with increasing system size both the average
30: degree and the level of fragmentation decreases. We also observe that
31: the network keeps on actively evolving, although it does not have to,
32: thus suggesting a Red Queen-like situation where agents have to keep
33: on networking and responding to the moves of the others in order to
34: stay successful.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \pacs{87.23.Ge, 89.75.Fb, 89.75.Hc}
38: % 87.23.Ge -- Dynamics of social systems
39: % 89.75.Fb -- Structures and organization in complex systems
40: % 89.75.Hc -- Networks and genealogical trees
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: % MOTIVATION
47: Game theory conceptualizes many of the circumstances that drive the
48: dynamics of social and economic systems. If such systems consist of
49: many pair-wise interacting agents they can be modeled as networks. In
50: such networks one can relate the function of a vertex to its position.
51: For example, in business connections an agent would presumably like to
52: be close, in network distance, to the average other
53: agent~\cite{harary,wf}. This ensures the information received from
54: other agents to be up to date~\cite{rosvall1} and will likely increase
55: the agent's sphere of influence. At the same time the agent would
56: seek to limit the work load by minimizing its degree (number of
57: connections). In this paper we define an iterative $N$-player game
58: where agents try simultaneously to obtain high centrality and low
59: degree. Agents remove and add edges by individual
60: strategies. Furthermore they update the strategies throughout the game
61: by imitating successful agents. We assume the agents have only
62: information about their immediate surroundings. As a result an agent
63: can only re-link to, or observe and mimic the strategies of, other
64: agents a fixed distance away.
65: % HISTORY
66: Most recent studies of games on networks, have considered a static
67: underlying network defining the possible competitive
68: encounters~\cite{vukov:pd,our:realpd,our:pd,wu:pd,santos:pd}.
69: In other models where the network co-evolves with the
70: game~\cite{egui:pre,egui:ajs,ebelbornholdt:coevo},
71: the agents are assigned additional variables which serve as the basis
72: of the game. In our model however, the score of an agent is determined
73: by the network dynamics alone. This setting, apart from being
74: conceptually simpler, makes the relation between the game and network
75: dynamics more transparent.
76: % OUTLINE
77: The rest of the paper contains a precise definition of the model, an
78: investigation of the time evolution of the strategies and network
79: structure, and an investigation of the dependence on model
80: parameters.
81:
82: \hfill
83:
84: \section{Definition of the game}
85:
86: \subsection{Score and moves}
87:
88: % BASICS & INITIAL CONDITION
89: In our model $N$ agents are synchronously updated over
90: $t_\mathrm{tot}$ iterations. The initial configuration is an
91: Erd\H{o}s-R\'{e}nyi network~\cite{er:on} of $M_0$ edges. All steps of
92: the dynamics keep the network simple so that as multiple edges or
93: self-edges do not occur.
94: % SCORE
95: The score, in our game, is an effective score taking into account both
96: the benefit of centrality and the inevitable cost of maintaining the
97: network ties. We want the score of a vertex $i$ to increase with
98: centrality and decrease with its degree $k_i$. Of many centrality
99: concepts~\cite{harary,wf} we choose to base our score on the simplest
100: non-local centrality measure---closeness centrality (the reciprocal
101: average path-length from one vertex to the rest of the
102: graph). Furthermore, if the network is disconnected we would like the
103: score to increase with the number of vertices reachable from $i$. To
104: incorporate this we use a slight modification of closeness
105: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cent}
106: c(i)=\sum_{j\in H(i)\setminus\{i\}} \frac{1}{d(i,j)},
107: \end{equation}
108: where $H(i)$ is the connected subgraph $i$ belongs to and $d(i,j)$ is
109: the graph distance between $i$ and $j$. The number of elements in the
110: sum of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cent}) is proportional to the number of vertices
111: of $i$'s connected component. We use the average reciprocal distance,
112: rather than the reciprocal average distance. The former gives a
113: higher weight on the count of closer vertices, but captures similar
114: features as the original closeness does. We define a score function
115: that incorporates the desired properties mentioned above:
116: \begin{equation}\label{eq:score}
117: s(i) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}c(i)/k_i & \mbox{if
118: $k_i>0$}\\ 0 & \mbox{if $k_i=0$}\end{array}\right. .
119: \end{equation}
120: % MOVES
121: In addition we assume the accessible information is restricted to a
122: close neighborhood of a vertex. To be precise, the moves allowed to a
123: vertex is to delete or add edges to agents up to two steps
124: away. Our assumption is motivated by the fact that in real world
125: systems, agents are more likely to have knowledge of a restricted
126: fraction than the whole network itself.
127:
128: \subsection{Strategies}
129:
130: % STRATEGIES
131: When a vertex $i$ updates its position, it selects another vertex
132: in a set $X$ (the neighborhood $\Gamma(i)$ if an edge is to be
133: removed, or the second neighborhood $\Gamma_2(i)=\{j:d(i,j)=2\}$ if an
134: edge is to be added). This is done by successively applying six
135: tiebreaking \textit{actions}:
136: \begin{itemize}
137: \item Choose vertices with maximal (minimal) degree (MAXD / MIND).
138: \item Choose vertices with maximal (minimal) centrality in the
139: sense of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cent}) (MAXC / MINC).
140: \item Pick a vertex at random (RND).
141: \item Do not add (or remove) any edge (NO).
142: \end{itemize}
143: % STRATEGY VECTORS
144: The strategies of a vertex is encoded in two six-tuples
145: $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{add}=(s^\mathrm{add}_1,\cdots,s^\mathrm{add}_6)$
146: and $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{del}$ representing a priority ordering of the
147: addition and deletion actions respectively. If $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{add}(i)=
148: (\mathrm{MAXD},\mathrm{MINC}, \mathrm{NO},\mathrm{RND},
149: \mathrm{MIND},\mathrm{MAXC})$ then $i$ tries at first to attach an
150: edge to the vertex in $\Gamma_2(i)$ with highest degree. If more than
151: one vertex has the highest degree, then one of these is selected by
152: the MINC strategy. If still no unique vertex is found, nothing is
153: done (by application of the NO strategy). Note that such a vertex
154: is always found after strategies NO or RND are applied. If
155: $X=\varnothing$ no edge is added (or deleted).
156:
157: \begin{figure}
158: \resizebox*{\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{evo.eps}}
159: \caption{ An example run for a 200-agent system with
160: $p_r=0.012$. (a) and (b) show the fraction of vertices having a
161: certain leading strategy for addition (a) and deletion (b)
162: respectively. (c) show the average score, (d) the average degree and
163: (e) the number of vertices in the system.
164: }
165: \label{fig:evo}
166: \end{figure}
167:
168: \subsection{Strategy updates and relinking errors}
169:
170: % STRATEGY VECTOR UPDATE
171: The strategy vectors are initialized to random permutations of the six
172: actions. Every $t_\mathrm{strat}$'th time step a vertex $i$ updates
173: its strategy vectors by identifying the vertex in
174: $\Gamma_i\cup\{i\}=\{j:d(i,j)\leq 1\}$ with highest accumulated score
175: since the last strategy update. Then $i$ copies the parts of
176: $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{add}(j)$ and $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{del}(j)$ that $j$
177: used the last time step, and let the remaining actions come in the
178: same order as the strategy vectors prior to the update.
179: % STRATEGY VECTOR MUTATION
180: For the purposes of making the set of strategy vectors ergodic,
181: drive the strategy optimization~\cite{nowak:wsls,lindgrennordahl} and
182: model irrational moves by the
183: agents~\cite{kah:bounded_rationality} we swap, with probability $p_s$,
184: two random elements of $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{add}(j)$ and
185: $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{del}(j)$ every strategy vector update.
186: % RANDOM RELINKING
187: Like the strategy space we also want the network space to be ergodic
188: (i.e.\ that the game can generate all $N$-vertex graphs from all initial
189: configurations). In order to ensure ergodicity disconnected clusters should
190: be able to be re-connected. We obtain this by letting a vertex $i$
191: attach to a random vertex (not just a second neighbor) with
192: probability $p_r$ every $t_\mathrm{rnd}$'th time step. This is also
193: plausible in real socioeconomic networks---even if agents are more
194: influenced by their network surrounding, long-range links can form by
195: other mechanisms (cf.\ Ref.~\cite{wattsstrogatz}).
196:
197: \subsection{The entire algorithm}
198:
199: The outline of the algorithm is thus:
200: \begin{enumerate}
201: \item\label{step:init_nwk} Initialize the network to an
202: Erd\H{o}s-R\'{e}nyi network with $N$ vertices and $M$ edges.
203: \item\label{step:init_s} Use random permutations of the six actions
204: as $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{add}$ and $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{del}$ for all
205: vertices.
206: \item\label{step:score} Calculate the score for all vertices.
207: \item\label{step:rewi} Update the vertices synchronously by adding
208: and deleting edges as selected by the strategy vectors. With
209: probability $p_r$ an edge is added to a random vertex instead of a
210: neighbor's neighbor.
211: \item\label{step:strat} Every $t_\mathrm{strat}$'th time step, update
212: the strategy vectors. For each vertex, with probability $p_s$, swap
213: two elements in a vertex' strategy vector.
214: \item\label{step:iter} Increment the simulation time $t$ and, if
215: $t<t_\mathrm{tot}$, go to step~\ref{step:score}.
216: \end{enumerate}
217: $n_\mathrm{avg}$ averages over different realizations of the algorithm
218: are performed. We will use parameter values $M_0=3N/2$, $p_s=0.005$,
219: $t_\mathrm{strat}=10$, $t_\mathrm{tot}=10^5$ and $n_\mathrm{avg}=100$
220: throughout the paper (the conclusions will not depend sensitively on
221: these values).
222:
223: \section{Time evolution}
224:
225: A part of the time evolution of a run of the game is displayed in
226: Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}. Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}(a) and (b) show the fraction
227: of the agents having a specific main addition ($s^\mathrm{add}_1$) and
228: deletion action ($s^\mathrm{del}_1$) respectively. As we can see, the
229: time evolution can be very complex, having sudden cascades of
230: strategy changes. We do not display actions with lower priorities
231: ($s_2,\cdots,s_6$), but we note that they
232: are less clear-cut as they experience a lower selection pressure.
233: Typically the time evolution shows rather lengthy
234: quasi-stable periods punctuated by outbursts of strategy changing
235: cascades (in both the addition and deletion strategies) as seen in
236: Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}(a) and (b). Not all strategies, as we will see
237: later, invade the population. As illustrated in this example, MAXC is the most
238: frequent main action for most parameter values, whereas MINC and
239: MIND (and NO for addition) are rare. From the definition of the
240: actions we anticipate differences in the network structure for time
241: frames of different dominating strategies. This is indeed the case as
242: evident from panels (c), (d) and (e) of Fig.~\ref{fig:evo} which display
243: the average score $\langle s\rangle$, degree $\langle
244: k\rangle$ and number of vertices in the largest connected cluster
245: $n_1$. The average score fluctuates wildly suggesting that states of
246: global prosperity are unstable. Likewise the degree has an
247: intermittent time evolution with sudden high-degree spikes and periods
248: of sparseness. Unsurprisingly, the high-degree spikes are located at
249: the outbursts of the NO deletion strategy where edges are not deleted,
250: but only added. The size of the largest connected cluster has an even more
251: dramatic time evolution, fluctuating between fully connected and
252: fragmented states. Note that there need not be a dramatic change in
253: degree to initiate a drop in $n_1$---this leads us to conclude that the
254: phenomenon probably arises from network topological effects.
255:
256: \begin{table*}
257: \begin{ruledtabular}
258: \begin{tabular}{r|cccccc|cccccc}
259: & \multicolumn{6}{c}{addition} &
260: \multicolumn{6}{c}{deletion} \\
261: & MAXC & MINC & MAXD & MIND & RND & NO & MAXC & MINC & MAXD & MIND &
262: RND & NO\\\hline
263: MAXC & 1 & 0.0164(3) & 0.0088(2) & 0.0107(4) & 0.0151(5) & 0.0010(0) &
264: 1 & 0.0100(2) & 0.0131(4) & 0.0094(2) & 0.0266(3) & 0.0126(3)\\
265: MINC & 0.0169(3) & 1 & 0.0113(6) & 0.036(2) & 0.025(2) & 0.0017(3) &
266: 0.0098(2) & 1 & 0.0070(3) & 0.010(1) & 0.0105(4) & 0.0050(3) \\
267: MAXD & 0.0093(3) & 0.0104(7) & 1 & 0.0103(6) & 0.0206(9) & 0.0003(0) &
268: 0.0133(4) & 0.0067(3) & 1 & 0.0055(2) & 0.0124(3) & 0.0062(2)\\
269: MIND & 0.0115(4) & 0.030(2) & 0.0130(7) & 1 & 0.059(5) & 0.0020(2) &
270: 0.0087(2) & 0.011(1) & 0.0054(2) & 1 & 0.0101(2) & 0.0055(3)\\
271: RND & 0.0157(5) & 0.024(2) & 0.020(1) & 0.064(5) & 1 & 0.0023(5) &
272: 0.0269(3) & 0.0094(4) & 0.0128(3) & 0.0083(2) & 1 & 0.0072(3)\\
273: NO & 0.0007(0) & 0.0031(2) & 0.0009(0) & 0.0036(2) & 0.0042(4) & 1 &
274: 0.0097(3) & 0.0076(3) & 0.0053(2) & 0.0078(3) & 0.0131(3) & 1\\
275: \end{tabular}
276: \end{ruledtabular}
277: \caption{Values for the $\mathbf{\Theta}$ matrices for addition and
278: deletion. ($\Theta_{ij}$ is the deviation from the expected value in
279: a model of random transitions given the diagonal values.)
280: The values are averaged over 100 realizations of the
281: algorithm. All digits are significant to one s.d. The parameter
282: values are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}. Numbers in parentheses
283: are the standard errors in units of the last decimal.}
284: \label{tab:trans}
285: \end{table*}
286:
287: Note that in Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}(b) the
288: strategies seem to differ in their ability to invade one another,
289: e.g.\ MAXC is followed by a peak in RND. We investigate this
290: qualitatively by calculating the ``transition matrix'' $\mathbf{T}$
291: with elements $T(s_1,s_1')$ giving the probability of a vertex with
292: the leading action $s_1$ to have the leading action $s_1'$ at the
293: next time step. However note that the dynamics is not fully determined
294: by $\mathbf{T}$, and is thus not a transition matrix in the sense of
295: other physical models. If that were the case (i.e.\ the current strategy is
296: independent of the strategy adopted in the previous time step) we would have
297: the relation $T_{ij}=\sqrt{T_iT_j}$. So we measure the deviation from
298: such a null-model by assuming the diagonal (i.e.\ the frequencies of
299: the strategies) and calculating
300: $\mathbf{\Theta}$ defined by
301: \begin{equation}\label{eq:theta}
302: \Theta_{ij} = T_{ij} / \sqrt{T_iT_j}.
303: \end{equation}
304: The values of $\mathbf{\Theta}$ for the parameters defined in
305: Fig.~\ref{fig:evo} are displayed in Tab.~\ref{tab:trans}. The
306: off-diagonal elements are much lower than $1$ (the average off-diagonal
307: $\Theta$ values are $0.014$ for addition strategies and $0.010$ for
308: deletion). This reflects the contiguous periods of one dominating
309: action. Note that transitions between MAXC and RND are
310: over-represented: $\Theta^\mathrm{del}_{\mathrm{MAXC},
311: \mathrm{RND}}\approx \Theta^\mathrm{del}_{\mathrm{RND},
312: \mathrm{MAXC}}\approx 0.027$, which is more than twice the value of
313: any other off-diagonal element involving MAXC or RND. To add to the
314: complexity, the matrix is not completely symmetric
315: $\Theta^\mathrm{del}_{\mathrm{RND}, \mathrm{NO}}$ is twice ($\sim 3$
316: s.d.)\ as large as $\Theta^\mathrm{del}_{\mathrm{NO}, \mathrm{RND}}$
317: meaning that it is easier for RND to invade NO as a leading deletion
318: action, than vice versa.
319:
320: \begin{figure}
321: \resizebox*{\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{d.eps}}
322: \caption{ The structure of the network with MAXC as the leading
323: addition action. Parameter values are the same as in
324: Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}. Part (a) shows the degree distribution for time steps
325: where more than a half of the agents use MAXC as leading
326: action. The curves are log-binned for large degrees. Errors are
327: smaller than the symbol size. Part (b) shows an example graph for
328: $N=200$. We emphasize that this is only one
329: of a great variety on network topologies that emerge from the
330: dynamics. The colors of the vertices represent the addition actions
331: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}.
332: }
333: \label{fig:d}
334: \end{figure}
335:
336: \section{Degree distributions and the influence of degree on score}
337:
338: To get a more detailed view of the relation between the preferred
339: actions and the structure of the network, we investigate the degree
340: distribution $p(k)$ for different leading actions. In
341: Fig.~\ref{fig:d}(a) we plot the degree distribution for the MAXC
342: dominating addition action. It is conspicuously wide---so despite the
343: fact that the vertex strategies are similar, the network structure
344: evolves into a highly inhomogeneous state. There are peaks in the
345: degree distribution close to $k\approx 0.4 N$ and $k\approx 0.8 N$,
346: meaning that the network has at least one or more hubs of extremely
347: high degree. A snapshot of the network with two hubs, each with degree
348: close to $N/2$ is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:d}(b). Such a situation can
349: indeed be rather stable: The most central vertices (the vertices
350: between the hubs) have rather low degree, and thus have a very high
351: score. Since these are in $\Gamma_2$ (but not in $\Gamma$) of most
352: vertices, these will be the hubs of the next time step, and the old
353: hub will likely be between these. Thus the property of being a hub
354: will effectively oscillate between members of two sets of vertices.
355:
356: \begin{figure}[b]
357: \resizebox*{\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{r_fixed.eps}}
358: \caption{ The system's dependence on the fraction of random
359: rewirings $p_r$ and system size $N$. Parts (a), (b) and (c) show the
360: fraction of preferred addition actions $\langle
361: \sigma_1^\mathrm{add} \rangle$ for systems of 200, 400 and 800
362: agents respectively. Parts (d), (e) and (d) show the fraction of preferred
363: deletion actions for the same three system sizes, while (g) shows the
364: average degree and (h) the average size of the largest connected
365: component.}
366: \label{fig:r}
367: \end{figure}
368:
369: \section{Dependence on system size and error rates}
370:
371: Next we turn to the scaling of the strategy preferences and structural
372: measures with respect to model parameters. In Fig.~\ref{fig:r} we tune
373: the fraction of random attachments $p_r$ for three system sizes. In
374: panels (a)-(c) we display the fraction of leading addition actions
375: among the agents $\langle \sigma_1^\mathrm{add} \rangle$ (averaged over $\sim
376: 100$ runs and $10^5$ time steps). As observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}(a)
377: the dominant strategy is MAXC followed by MAXD and RND. The leading
378: deleting actions, as seen in panels (d)-(f), are ranked similarly
379: expect that MAXD has a larger (and increasing) presence. There are
380: trends in the $p_r$-dependences of $\langle \sigma_1^\mathrm{add}
381: \rangle$, but apparently no incipient discontinuity. This observation
382: (which also seems to hold for $p_s$ scaling) is an indication that the
383: results above can be generalized to a large parameter range. We also
384: note that although the system has the opportunity to be passive (i.e.\
385: agents having $s_1^\mathrm{add} = s_1^\mathrm{del} =\mbox{NO}$), it
386: does not. This is reminiscent of the ``Red Queen hypothesis'' of
387: evolution~\cite{redqueen}---organisms need to keep evolving to
388: maintain their fitness. The average degree, plotted in
389: Fig.~\ref{fig:evo}(g) is monotonously increasing with $p_r$ and
390: decreasing with $N$ (if $p_r\gtrsim 0.12$). For all network models
391: that we are aware of (allowing for fragmented networks) decreasing
392: average degree implies a smaller giant component. In our model the
393: picture is the opposite, as the system grows the giant component spans
394: an increasing fraction of the network. This also means that the agents
395: collectively reach the twin goals of keeping the degree low and the
396: graph connected.
397:
398: \section{Summary and conclusions}
399:
400: To summarize, we have investigated an $N$-player game of networking
401: agents. The success of an agent $i$ increases with the closeness
402: centrality and the size of the connected component $i$ belongs to, while it
403: decreases with $i$'s degree. Such a situation may occur in diplomacy,
404: lobbying or business networks, where an agent wants to be central in
405: the network (for the purpose of having as new information as possible
406: and be more actively involved in the decision making process) but not
407: at the expense of having too many direct contacts. The dynamics
408: proceed by the agents deleting edges and attaching new edges to their
409: second-neighbors according to strategies based on local
410: information. Once in a while (every tenth time step in our simulation)
411: the agents evaluate the strategies of the neighborhood and imitate the
412: best performing neighbor to optimize their strategy. As the vertices
413: of our model have no additional traits---their competitive situation
414: is completely determined by their network position---the time
415: evolution of strategies is immediately tied to the evolution of network
416: structure. These evolutionary trajectories are strikingly complex
417: having long periods of relative stability followed by sudden
418: transitions, spikes, or chaotic periods visible in both the
419: strategies and the network structure. One such instability is
420: manifested in a transient fragmentation of the network, this occurs
421: more rarely as the network size increases. In fact the network gets more
422: connected as size is increased, interestingly this is accompanied with
423: a decreasing fraction of links---thus, with a growing number of actors
424: the system gets better at achieving the common goal of being connected
425: and keeping the degree low. We also observe that the network dynamics
426: never reaches a fixed point of passivity (where the network is largely
427: static), this suggests situation similar to the Red Queen
428: hypothesis---agents have to keep on networking to maintain their
429: success. We believe network positional games will prove to be a useful
430: framework for modeling dynamical networks, and anticipate much future
431: work in this direction.
432:
433: \begin{acknowledgements}
434: The authors thank Mark Newman for comments. P.H. acknowledges
435: financial support from the Wenner-Gren foundations.
436: \end{acknowledgements}
437:
438:
439: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
440:
441: \bibitem{harary}
442: F.~Buckley and F.~Harary.
443: \newblock {\em Distance in graphs}.
444: \newblock Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1989.
445:
446: \bibitem{ebelbornholdt:coevo}
447: H.~Ebel and S.~Bornholdt.
448: \newblock Coevolutionary games on networks.
449: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 66:056118, 2002.
450:
451: \bibitem{egui:ajs}
452: V.~M. Egu\'{\i}luz, M.~G. Zimmermann, C.~J. Cela-Conde, and M.~{San Miguel}.
453: \newblock Cooperation and the emergence of role differentiation in the dynamics
454: of social networks.
455: \newblock {\em American Journal of Sociology}, 110:977--1008, 2005.
456:
457: \bibitem{er:on}
458: P.~Erd\H{o}s and A.~R\'{e}nyi.
459: \newblock On random graphs {I}.
460: \newblock {\em Publ. Math. Debrecen}, 6:290--297, 1959.
461:
462: \bibitem{our:realpd}
463: P.~Holme, A.~Trusina, B.~J. Kim, and P.~Minnhagen.
464: \newblock Prisoners' dilemma in real-world acquaintance networks: Spikes and
465: quasiequilibria induced by the interplay between structure and dynamics.
466: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 68:030901(R), 2003.
467:
468: \bibitem{kah:bounded_rationality}
469: D.~Kahneman.
470: \newblock Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics.
471: \newblock {\em The American Economic Review}, 93:1449--1475, 2003.
472:
473: \bibitem{our:pd}
474: B.~J. Kim, A.~Trusina, P.~Holme, P.~Minnhagen, J.~S. Chung, and M.~Y. Choi.
475: \newblock Dynamic instabilities induced by asymmetric influence: Prisoners'
476: dilemma game in small-world networks.
477: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 66:021907, 2002.
478:
479: \bibitem{lindgrennordahl}
480: K.~Lindgren and M.~G. Nordahl.
481: \newblock Evolutionary dynamics of spatial games.
482: \newblock {\em Physica D}, 75:292--309, 1994.
483:
484: \bibitem{nowak:wsls}
485: M.~Nowak and K.~Sigmund.
486: \newblock A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in
487: the prisoner's dilemma game.
488: \newblock {\em Nature}, 364:56--58, July 1992.
489:
490: \bibitem{rosvall1}
491: M.~Rosvall and K.~Sneppen.
492: \newblock Modelling dynamics of information networks.
493: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 91:178701, 2003.
494:
495: \bibitem{santos:pd}
496: F.~C. Santos and J.~M. Pacheco.
497: \newblock Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of
498: cooperation.
499: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 95:098104, 2005.
500:
501: \bibitem{redqueen}
502: L.~M. {van Valen}.
503: \newblock A new evolutionary law.
504: \newblock {\em Evolutionary Theory}, 1:1--30, 1973.
505:
506: \bibitem{vukov:pd}
507: J.~Vukov and G.~Szab\'{o}.
508: \newblock Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game on hierarchical lattices.
509: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 71:036133, 2005.
510:
511: \bibitem{wf}
512: S.~Wasserman and K.~Faust.
513: \newblock {\em Social network analysis: Methods and applications}.
514: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
515:
516: \bibitem{wattsstrogatz}
517: D.~J. Watts and S.~H. Strogatz.
518: \newblock Collective dynamics of {`small-world'} networks.
519: \newblock {\em Nature}, 393:440--442, 1998.
520:
521: \bibitem{wu:pd}
522: Z.-X. Wu, X.-J. Xu, Y.~Chen, and Y.-H. Wang.
523: \newblock Spatial prisoner's dilemma game with volunteering in {N}ewman-{W}atts
524: small-world networks.
525: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 71:037103, 2005.
526:
527: \bibitem{egui:pre}
528: M.~G. Zimmermann and V.~M. Egu\'{\i}luz.
529: \newblock Cooperation, social networks, and the emergence of leadership in a
530: prisoner's dilemma with adaptive local interactions.
531: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 72:056118, 2005.
532:
533: \end{thebibliography}
534:
535: \end{document}
536: