Researcher profile

Joshua B. Plotkin

Joshua B. Plotkin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Selfish optimization and collective learning in populations

A selfish learner seeks to maximize their own success, disregarding others. When success is measured as payoff in a game played against another learner, mutual selfishness typically fails to produce the optimal outcome for a pair of individuals. However, learners often operate in populations, and each learner may have a limited duration of interaction with any other individual. Here, we compare selfish learning in stable pairs to selfish learning with stochastic encounters in a population. We study gradient-based optimization in repeated games like the prisoner's dilemma, which feature multiple Nash equilibria, many of which are suboptimal. We find that myopic, selfish learning, when distributed in a population via ephemeral encounters, can reverse the dynamics that occur in stable pairs. In particular, when there is flexibility in partner choice, selfish learning in large populations can produce optimal payoffs in repeated social dilemmas. This result holds for the entire population, not just for a small subset of individuals. Furthermore, as the population size grows, the timescale to reach the optimal population payoff remains finite in the number of learning steps per individual. While it is not universally true that interacting with many partners in a population improves outcomes, this form of collective learning achieves optimality for several important classes of social dilemmas. We conclude that naïve learning can be surprisingly effective in populations of individuals navigating conflicts of interest.

preprint2021arXiv

Evolution of prosocial behavior in multilayer populations

Human societies include diverse social relationships. Friends, family, business colleagues, and online contacts can all contribute to one's social life. Individuals may behave differently in different domains, but success in one domain may engender success in another. Here, we study this problem using multilayer networks to model multiple domains of social interactions, in which individuals experience different environments and may express different behaviors. We provide a mathematical analysis and find that coupling between layers tends to promote prosocial behavior. Even if prosociality is disfavored in each layer alone, multilayer coupling can promote its proliferation in all layers simultaneously. We apply this analysis to six real-world multilayer networks, ranging from the socio-emotional and professional relationships in a Zambian community, to the online and offline relationships within an academic University. We discuss the implications of our results, which suggest that small modifications to interactions in one domain may catalyze prosociality in a different domain.

preprint2020arXiv

The natural selection of good science

Scientists in some fields are concerned that many, or even most, published results are false. A high rate of false positives might arise accidentally, from shoddy research practices. Or it might be the inevitable result of institutional incentives that reward publication irrespective of veracity. Recent models and discussion of scientific culture predict selection for false-positive publications, as research labs that publish more positive findings out-compete more diligent labs. There is widespread debate about how scientific practices should be modified to avoid this degeneration. Some analyses suggest that "bad science" will persist even when labs are incentivized to undertake replication studies, and penalized for publications that later fail to replicate. Here we develop a framework for modelling the cultural evolution of research practices that allows labs to expend effort on theory - enabling them, at a cost, to focus on hypotheses that are more likely to be true on theoretical grounds. Theory restores the evolution of high effort in laboratory practice, and it suppresses false-positive publications to a technical minimum, even in the absence of replication. In fact, the mere ability choose between two sets of hypotheses - one with greater chance of being correct than the other - promotes better science than can be achieved by having effortless access to the better set of hypotheses. Combining theory and replication can have a synergistic effect in promoting good scientific methodology and reducing the rate of false-positive publications. Based on our analysis we propose four simple rules to promote good science in the face of pressure to publish.