Paper detail

Heterogeneous aspirations promote cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game

To be the fittest is central to proliferation in evolutionary games. Individuals thus adopt the strategies of better performing players in the hope of successful reproduction. In structured populations the array of those that are eligible to act as strategy sources is bounded to the immediate neighbors of each individual. But which one of these strategy sources should potentially be copied? Previous research dealt with this question either by selecting the fittest or by selecting one player uniformly at random. Here we introduce a parameter $u$ that interpolates between these two extreme options. Setting $u$ equal to zero returns the random selection of the opponent, while positive $u$ favor the fitter players. In addition, we divide the population into two groups. Players from group $A$ select their opponents as dictated by the parameter $u$, while players from group $B$ do so randomly irrespective of $u$. We denote the fraction of players contained in groups $A$ and $B$ by $v$ and $1-v$, respectively. The two parameters $u$ and $v$ allow us to analyze in detail how aspirations in the context of the prisoner's dilemma game influence the evolution of cooperation. We find that for sufficiently positive values of $u$ there exist a robust intermediate $v \approx 0.5$ for which cooperation thrives best. The robustness of this observation is tested against different levels of uncertainty in the strategy adoption process $K$ and for different interaction networks. We also provide complete phase diagrams depicting the dependence of the impact of $u$ and $v$ for different values of $K$, and contrast the validity of our conclusions by means of an alternative model where individual aspiration levels are subject to evolution as well. Our study indicates that heterogeneity in aspirations may be key for the sustainability of cooperation in structured populations.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.