» Articles » PMID: 31160674

Benefits of Asynchronous Exclusion for the Evolution of Cooperation in Stochastic Evolutionary Optional Public Goods Games

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Jun 5
PMID 31160674
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Mechanisms and conditions for the spontaneous emergence of cooperation in multi-player social dilemma games remain an open question. This paper focuses on stochastic evolutionary optional public goods games with different exclusion strategies. We introduce four strategy types in the population, namely, cooperation, defection, loner and exclusion. Synchronous and asynchronous exclusion forms have been compared in finite-sized, well-mixed and structured populations. In addition, we verify that the asynchronous exclusion mechanism is indeed better than the synchronous exclusion mechanism in all cases. The benefits of the asynchronous exclusion are measured by comparing the probability that the system chooses the cooperative states in the two situations. In the well-mixed population cases, only when the investment amplification factor is small and the probability of exclusion success is high will the asynchronous exclusion mechanism have a relatively large advantage in promoting cooperation. However, in the structured population cases, the range of the investment amplification factor, in which the asynchronous exclusion mechanism has relatively large advantages in promoting cooperation, is somewhat different and is mainly in the middle of the interval under our parameters. Our study further corroborated that when non-participation and exclusion strategies exist, a structured population does not necessarily promote cooperation compared with a well-mixed population for some parameter combinations. Thus, we acquire a good understanding of the emergence of cooperation under different exclusion mechanisms.

Citing Articles

Joint effects of voluntary participation and group selection on the evolution of altruistic punishment.

Shin H, Vallury S, Janssen M, Yu D PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0268019.

PMID: 35507605 PMC: 9067692. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268019.

References
1.
Milinski M, Hilbe C, Semmann D, Sommerfeld R, Marotzke J . Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion. Nat Commun. 2016; 7:10915. PMC: 4786683. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10915. View

2.
Sasaki T, Uchida S, Chen X . Voluntary rewards mediate the evolution of pool punishment for maintaining public goods in large populations. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:8917. PMC: 5390906. DOI: 10.1038/srep08917. View

3.
Szolnoki A, Szabo G, Czako L . Competition of individual and institutional punishments in spatial public goods games. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2011; 84(4 Pt 2):046106. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.046106. View

4.
Helbing D, Szolnoki A, Perc M, Szabo G . Defector-accelerated cooperativeness and punishment in public goods games with mutations. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2010; 81(5 Pt 2):057104. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.057104. View

5.
Rosas A . Evolutionary game theory meets social science: is there a unifying rule for human cooperation?. J Theor Biol. 2010; 264(2):450-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.02.015. View