Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Adaptive coordination promotes collective cooperation in repeated social dilemmas (2403.03497v1)

Published 6 Mar 2024 in cs.GT

Abstract: Direct reciprocity based on the repeated prisoner's dilemma has been intensively studied. Most theoretical investigations have concentrated on memory-$1$ strategies, a class of elementary strategies just reacting to the previous-round outcomes. Though the properties of "All-or-None" strategies ($AoN_K$) have been discovered, simulations just confirmed the good performance of $AoN_K$ of very short memory lengths. It remains unclear how $AoN_K$ strategies would fare when players have access to longer rounds of history information. We construct a theoretical model to investigate the performance of the class of $AoN_K$ strategies of varying memory length $K$. We rigorously derive the payoffs and show that $AoN_K$ strategies of intermediate memory length $K$ are most prevalent, while strategies of larger memory lengths are less competent. Larger memory lengths make it hard for $AoN_K$ strategies to coordinate, and thus inhibiting their mutual reciprocity. We then propose the adaptive coordination strategy combining tolerance and $AoN_K$' coordination rule. This strategy behaves like $AoN_K$ strategy when coordination is not sufficient, and tolerates opponents' occasional deviations by still cooperating when coordination is sufficient. We found that the adaptive coordination strategy wins over other classic memory-$1$ strategies in various typical competition environments, and stabilizes the population at high levels of cooperation, suggesting the effectiveness of high level adaptability in resolving social dilemmas. Our work may offer a theoretical framework for exploring complex strategies using history information, which are different from traditional memory-$n$ strategies.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (56)
  1. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396 (1981). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.7466396.
  2. The further evolution of cooperation. Science 242, 1385–1390 (1988). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.242.4884.1385.
  3. What is altruism? Trends in Ecology &\&& Evolution 19, 135–140 (2004). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534703003185.
  4. Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17, 413–425 (2013). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661313001216.
  5. The effect of environmental information on evolution of cooperation in stochastic games. Nature Communications 14, 4153 (2023). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39625-9.
  6. Social dilemmas among unequals. Nature 572, 524–527 (2019). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1488-5.
  7. Social goods dilemmas in heterogeneous societies. Nature Human Behaviour 4, 819–831 (2020). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0881-2.
  8. Reproductive variance can drive behavioral dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (2023). URL https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216218120.
  9. Evolution of prosocial behaviours in multilayer populations. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 338–348 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01241-2.
  10. When stochasticity leads to cooperation. Physical Review E 106, 014112 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.106.014112.
  11. Allen, B. et al. Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure. Nature 544, 227–230 (2017). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21723.
  12. Coevolutionary dynamics of phenotypic diversity and contingent cooperation. PLOS Computational Biology 13, e1005363 (2017). URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005363.
  13. Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks. Physical Review E 78, 026117 (2008). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.78.026117.
  14. Dynamical organization of cooperation in complex topologies. Physical Review Letters 98, 108103 (2007). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.108103.
  15. Promotion of cooperation induced by appropriate payoff aspirations in a small-world networked game. Physical Review E 77, 017103 (2008). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.017103.
  16. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature 364, 56–58 (1993). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/364056a0.
  17. Cooperation in alternating interactions with memory constraints. Nature Communications 13, 737 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28336-2.
  18. Emergence of fairness in repeated group interactions. Physical Review Letters 108, 158104 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.158104.
  19. Partners and rivals in direct reciprocity. Nature Human Behaviour 2, 469–477 (2018). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0320-9.
  20. Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35–57 (1971). URL https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/406755.
  21. Win–stay, lose–shift in language learning from peers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 18053–18057 (2004). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0406608102.
  22. Win-stay-lose-shift as a self-confirming equilibrium in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, 20211021 (2021). URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.1021.
  23. Tit-for-tat or win-stay, lose-shift? Journal of Theoretical Biology 247, 574–580 (2007). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519307001439.
  24. Li, J. et al. Evolution of cooperation through cumulative reciprocity. Nature Computational Science 2, 677–686 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00334-w.
  25. Fischer, I. et al. Fusing enacted and expected mimicry generates a winning strategy that promotes the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 10229–10233 (2013). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1308221110.
  26. Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 10409–10413 (2012). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1206569109.
  27. New winning strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 20 (2017). URL http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/4/12.html.
  28. The effect of memory size on the evolutionary stability of strategies in iterated prisoner’s dilemma. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 18, 819–826 (2014). URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6642072/.
  29. Simple adaptive strategy wins the prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology 218, 261–272 (2002). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519302930729.
  30. Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: a numerical approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 264, 513–519 (1997). URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1997.0073.
  31. Cooperation and control in multiplayer social dilemmas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 16425–16430 (2014). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1407887111.
  32. Small groups and long memories promote cooperation. Scientific Reports 6, 26889 (2016). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26889.
  33. Coevolutionary dynamics of aspiration and strategy in spatial repeated public goods games. New Journal of Physics 20, 063007 (2018). URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aac687.
  34. Evolution of all-or-none strategies in repeated public goods dilemmas. PLOS Computational Biology 10, e1003945 (2014). URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003945.
  35. Memory-n strategies of direct reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 4715–4720 (2017). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1621239114.
  36. Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1133755.
  37. Evolution of cooperation in stochastic games. Nature 559, 246–249 (2018). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0277-x.
  38. Cooperation and competition between pair and multi-player social games in spatial populations. Scientific Reports 11, 12101 (2021). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91532-5.
  39. Evolutionary dynamics under partner preferences. Journal of Theoretical Biology 557, 111340 (2023). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519322003319.
  40. Evolutionary games and spatial periodicity. Journal of Automation and Intelligence 2, 79–86 (2023). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S294985542300014X.
  41. Volunteering as red queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science 296, 1129–1132 (2002). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1070582.
  42. Emergence of social cooperation in threshold public goods games with collective risk. Physical Review E 80, 016101 (2009). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.016101.
  43. Outlearning extortioners: unbending strategies can foster reciprocal fairness and cooperation. PNAS Nexus 2, 1–12 (2023). URL https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/doi/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad176/7179485.
  44. Evolutionary dynamics of zero-determinant strategies in repeated multiplayer games. Journal of Theoretical Biology 549, 111209 (2022). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519322002077.
  45. The intricate geometry of zero-determinant strategies underlying evolutionary adaptation from extortion to generosity. New Journal of Physics 24, 103001 (2022). URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ac932d.
  46. The replicator equation and other game dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 10810–10817 (2014). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1400823111.
  47. Optimal strategies of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma problem for multiple conflicting objectives. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13, 554–565 (2009). URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5089891/.
  48. From extortion to generosity, evolution in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 15348–15353 (2013). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306246110.
  49. Stochastic evolutionary dynamics of direct reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277, 463–468 (2010). URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2009.1171.
  50. The logic of contrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology 185, 281–293 (1997). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519396903264.
  51. Combination with anti-tit-for-tat remedies problems of tit-for-tat. Journal of Theoretical Biology 412, 1–7 (2017). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519316303149.
  52. Using a theory of mind to find best responses to memory-one strategies. Scientific Reports 10, 17287 (2020). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74181-y.
  53. In and out of equilibrium i: Evolution of strategies in repeated games with discounting. Journal of Economic Theory 161, 161–189 (2016). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002205311500201X.
  54. Comparing reactive and memory-one strategies of direct reciprocity. Scientific Reports 6, 25676 (2016). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25676.
  55. No strategy can win in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma: Linking game theory and computer simulations. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018). URL https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frobt.2018.00102/full.
  56. Direct reciprocity between individuals that use different strategy spaces. PLOS Computational Biology 18, e1010149 (2022). URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010149.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.