Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 84 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 32 tok/s
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 75 tok/s
GPT OSS 120B 459 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 213 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Frequency-dependent returns in nonlinear public goods games (2404.13728v3)

Published 21 Apr 2024 in q-bio.PE

Abstract: When individuals interact in groups, the evolution of cooperation is traditionally modeled using the framework of public goods games. These models often assume that the return of the public good depends linearly on the fraction of contributors. In contrast, in real life public goods interactions, the return can depend on the size of the investor pool as well. Here, we consider a model in which the multiplication factor (marginal per capita return) for the public good depends linearly on how many contribute, which results in a nonlinear model of public goods. This simple model breaks the curse of dominant defection found in linear public goods interactions and gives rise to richer dynamical outcomes in evolutionary settings. We provide an in-depth analysis of the more varied decisions by the classical rational player in nonlinear public goods interactions as well as a mechanistic, microscopic derivation of the evolutionary outcomes for the stochastic dynamics in finite populations and in the deterministic limit of infinite populations. This kind of nonlinearity provides a natural way to model public goods with diminishing returns as well as economies of scale.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (46)
  1. K. Sigmund. The Calculus of Selfishness. Princeton Univ. Press, 2010.
  2. M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund. The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoner’s dilemma. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 20:247–265, 1990.
  3. R. M. Dawes. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31:169–193, 1980.
  4. Synergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239:195–202, 2006.
  5. R. Sugden. The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. Blackwell, Oxford and New York, 1986.
  6. C. Hauert and M. Doebeli. Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature, 428:643–646, 2004.
  7. M. Doebeli and C. Hauert. Models of cooperation based on the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game. Ecology Letters, 8:748–766, 2005.
  8. C. Hauert and G. Szabó. Prisoner’s dilemma and public goods games in different geometries: compulsory versus voluntary interactions. Complexity, 8:31–38, 2003.
  9. A. McAvoy and C. Hauert. Structure coefficients and strategy selection in multiplayer games. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 72(1):203–238, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00285-015-0882-3.
  10. M. Travisano and G. J. Velicer. Strategies of microbial cheater control. TREE, 12:72–78, 2004.
  11. H. C. Neu. The Crisis in Antibiotic Resistance. Science, 257:1064–1073, 1992.
  12. S. B. M. Kraak. Exploring the ‘public goods game’ model to overcome the tragedy of the commons in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 12:18–33, 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00372.x.
  13. Subsidies, public goods, and external benefits in fisheries. Marine Policy, 45:222–227, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.11.002.
  14. S. Niggol Seo. The Behavioral Economics of Climate Change. Elsevier, 2017. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811874-0.00001-5.
  15. M Archetti and I Scheuring. Co-existence of cooperation and defection in public goods games. Evolution, 65(4):1140–1148, 2010.
  16. M. Bagnoli and M. McKee. Voluntary contribution games: efficient private provision of public goods. Economic Inquiry, 29:351–366, 1991. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1991.tb01276.x.
  17. The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105(7):2291–2294, 2008.
  18. Economies of scale: The physics basis. Journal of Applied Physics, 121:044907, 2017. doi: 10.1063/1.4974962.
  19. S. L. Brue. The law of diminishing returns. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3):185–192, 1993. doi: 10.1257/jep.7.3.185.
  20. R. Smead and P. Forber. The evolutionary dynamics of spite in finite populations. Evolution, 67(3):698–707, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01831.x.
  21. B. Skyrms. The Stag-Hunt Game and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
  22. J. C. Harsanyi. A New Theory of Equilibrium Selection for Games with Complete Information. Games and Economic Behavior, 8:91–122, 1995.
  23. Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature, 428:646–650, 2004.
  24. The one-third law of evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 249:289–295, 2007.
  25. Intriguing effects of selection intensity on the evolution of prosocial behaviors. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(11):e1009611, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009611.
  26. C. Hauert and J. Miȩkisz. Effects of sampling interaction partners and competitors in evolutionary games. Physical Review E, 98:052301, 2018.
  27. C. H. Wagner. Simpson’s Paradox in Real Life. The American Statistician, 36(1):46–48, Feb 1982.
  28. Towards a mechanistic foundation of evolutionary theory. eLife, 6(e23804), 2017. doi: 10.7554/eLife.23804.
  29. P. A. P. Moran. Random processes in genetics. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 54:60–71, 1958.
  30. Stochastic differential equations for evolutionary dynamics with demographic noise and mutations. Physical Review E, 85:041901, 2012.
  31. Exploration dynamics in evolutionary games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106:709–712, 2009.
  32. Coevolutionary dynamics in large, but finite populations. Physical Review E, 74:011901, 2006a.
  33. J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139173179.
  34. P. D. Taylor and L. Jonker. Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences, 40:145–156, 1978.
  35. J. Maynard Smith. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
  36. Coevolutionary dynamics: From finite to infinite populations. Physical Review Letters, 95:238701, 2005.
  37. Unifying evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 219:93–98, 2002.
  38. Stochasticity and evolutionary stability. Physical Review E, 74:021905, 2006b.
  39. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454:213–216, 2008.
  40. A. Traulsen and C. Hauert. Stochastic evolutionary game dynamics. In Heinz Georg Schuster, editor, Reviews of Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity, volume II, pages 25–61. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2009.
  41. Volunteering as red queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science, 296:1129–1132, 2002.
  42. E. Fehr and S. Gächter. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868):137–140, 2002.
  43. The long-run benefits of punishment. Science, 322:1510, 2008.
  44. T. Yamagishi. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51:110–116, 1986.
  45. E. Ostrom. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
  46. B. Metcalfe. Metcalfe’s Law after 40 Years of Ethernet. Computer, 46(12):26–31, 2013. ISSN 0018-9162. doi: 10.1109/mc.2013.374.
Citations (1)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

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

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Paper Prompts

Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube