4.6 Article

Heterogeneity of allocation promotes cooperation in public goods games

Journal

PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Volume 389, Issue 21, Pages 4708-4714

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2010.06.002

Keywords

Evolution of cooperation; Public goods game; Heterogeneity

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [10476019, 60674050, 60736022, 60528007]
  2. National 973 Program [2002CB312200]
  3. National 863 Program [2006AA04Z258]
  4. 11-5 project [A2120061303]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the effects of heterogeneous investment and distribution on the evolution of cooperation in the context of the public goods games. To do this, we develop a simple model in which each individual allocates differing funds to his direct neighbors based upon their difference in connectivity, because of the heterogeneity of real social ties. This difference is characterized by the weight of the link between paired individuals, with an adjustable parameter precisely controlling the heterogeneous level of ties. By numerical simulations, it is found that allocating both too much and too little funds to diverse neighbors can remarkably improve the cooperation level. However, there exists a worst mode of funds allocation leading to the most unfavorable cooperation induced by the moderate values of the parameter. In order to better reveal the potential causes behind these nontrivial phenomena we probe the microscopic characteristics including the average payoff and the cooperator density for individuals of different degrees. It demonstrates rather different dynamical behaviors between the modes of these two types of cooperation promoter. Besides, we also investigate the total link weights of individuals numerically and theoretically for negative values of the parameter, and conclude that the payoff magnitude of middle-degree nodes plays a crucial role in determining the cooperators' fate. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available