Structural Heterogeneity and Evolutionary Dynamics on Complex Networks

Cooperation in regular lattices

“…Classic examples reviewed in [14] include kin selection [22], direct and indirect reciprocity [23,24], network reciprocity [25][26][27][28][29][30][31], as well as group selection [32,33]. Diffusion and mobility have also been studied prominently [34][35][36], as were various coevolutionary models [10] involving network topology, noise [37][38][39], heterogeneity [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] and aspiration [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. Among the mechanisms that promote cooperation, perhaps one of the most well-studied is the reciprocity that emerges from the spatial distribution of players.…”

Acculturation and the evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods games

“…However, if mechanisms like spatial structure are present, cooperators may have a chance depending on the cost to benefit ratio of participating in the PGG [12][13][14][15][16]. Besides spatial structure, that gives rise to network reciprocity, other major mechanisms that help cooperation are the punishment of defectors, the rewarding of cooperators and the ability to not participate in the game [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In spatial PGG, cooperation can thrive if the multiplicative factor is high enough.…”

Criticality and Griffiths phases in random games with quenched disorder

“…Among the most famous, we have kin selection [27], direct and indirect reciprocity [28,29], network reciprocity [30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and group selection [37]. Specifically, heterogeneity (sometimes deemed as diversity) have recently gained a lot of interest as another mechanism that allows emergent phenomena to help increase cooperation [26,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46].…”