Paper detail

Rock-paper-scissors played within competing domains in predator-prey games

We consider (N,r) games of predation with N species and r < N prey and predators, acting in a cyclic way. Further basic reactions include reproduction, decay and diffusion over a regular grid, without a hard constraint on the occupation number per site, so in a "bosonic" implementation. For special combinations of N and r and appropriate parameter choices we observe games within games, that is, different coexisting games, depending on the spatial resolution. As concrete and simplest example we analyze the (6,3) game. Once the players segregate from a random initial distribution, domains emerge, which effectively play a (2,1)-game on the coarse scale of domain diameters, while agents inside the domains play (3,1) (rock-paper-scissors), leading to spiral formation with species chasing each other. As the (2,1)-game has a winner in the end, the coexistence of domains is transient, while agents inside the remaining domain coexist, until demographic fluctuations lead to extinction of all but one species in the very end. This means that we observe a dynamical generation of multiple space and time scales with emerging re-organization of players upon segregation, starting from a simple set of rules on the smallest scale and changed rules from the coarser perspective. These observations are based on Gillespie simulations. We discuss the deterministic limit derived from a van Kampen expansion. The linear stability analysis predicts the number of forming domains, their composition in terms of species; it also explains the instability of interfaces between domains, which drives their extinction; spiral patterns are identified as motion along heteroclinic cycles. The numerical solutions reproduce the observed patterns of the Gillespie simulations including even extinction events, so that the mean-field analysis here is very conclusive, which is due to the specific implementation of rules.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 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.