2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2008.01.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution of cooperation in well-mixed N-person snowdrift games

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Essentially, however, all mentioned social dilemmas can consider either pairwise or group interactions, as was suggested in Refs. [3,4]. Indeed, it is expected that the possibility of multi-player interactions can bring about phenomena that cannot be observed in case of pairwise interactions, especially when the underlying topology of players is structured rather than well-mixed [5,6].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Essentially, however, all mentioned social dilemmas can consider either pairwise or group interactions, as was suggested in Refs. [3,4]. Indeed, it is expected that the possibility of multi-player interactions can bring about phenomena that cannot be observed in case of pairwise interactions, especially when the underlying topology of players is structured rather than well-mixed [5,6].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also derive the condition for the existence of an AllC state. In contrast, an AllC state is missing for all non-vanishing values of c/b in NESG [29,30]. Results are summarized in Section 4.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Following the replicator dynamics [10] for the evolutionary process, the steady state and time evolution of the cooperative behavior in a well-mixed population as a function of the ratio c/b and group size N were studied analytically and numerically [29,30]. The model has also been extended to agents connected via a scale-free complex network [31].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both gain the reward R (punishment P) for mutual cooperation (defection). If however, one defector meets a cooperator, the former gets the temptation T and the latter is left with the sucker's payoff S. The payoffs satisfy the ranking T > R > P > S and 2R > T + S, from which it is clear that defection is the best (i.e., Nash Equilibrium) irrespective of the fact that mutual cooperation can bring higher collective benefit [4][5][6]. On the other hand, the snowdrift game, as an alternative of the prisoner's game, takes places if there is a slight change of payoff ranking T > R > S > P, where individual's best strategy depends on his opponent's action.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%