4.7 Article

Automata representation of successful strategies for social dilemmas

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70281-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEXT
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (JSPS KAKENHI) [18H03621]
  3. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2020R1I1A2071670]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H03621] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a social dilemma, cooperation is collectively optimal, yet individually each group member prefers to defect. A class of successful strategies of direct reciprocity were recently found for the iterated prisoner's dilemma and for the iterated three-person public-goods game: By a successful strategy, we mean that it constitutes a cooperative Nash equilibrium under implementation error, with assuring that the long-term payoff never becomes less than the co-players' regardless of their strategies, when the error rate is small. Although we have a list of actions prescribed by each successful strategy, the rationale behind them has not been fully understood for the iterated public-goods game because the list has hundreds of entries to deal with every relevant history of previous interactions. In this paper, we propose a method to convert such history-based representation into an automaton with a minimal number of states. Our main finding is that a successful strategy for the iterated three-person public-goods game can be represented as a 10-state automaton by this method. In this automaton, each state can be interpreted as the player's internal judgement of the situation, such as trustworthiness of the co-players and the need to redeem oneself after defection. This result thus suggests a comprehensible way to choose an appropriate action at each step towards cooperation based on a situational judgement, which is mapped from the history of interactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据