4.2 Article

Proper aspiration level promotes generous behavior in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B
卷 89, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2016-70286-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61273223, 61374053, 61473060, 11475074, 11575072]
  2. Research Foundation of UESTC
  3. Hong Kong Scholars Program [XJ2013019, G-YZ4D]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China [Y5KF201CJ1]
  5. National Social Science [12-ZD218]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zero-determinant strategies, which can unilaterally define a linear relationship between two individuals' long-term payoff, have drawn much attention to comprehend the emergence of cooperation among individuals with repeated interactions. A subset of zero-determinant strategies, extortion strategy, can let an extortioner's surplus exceed her opponent's by a fixed percentage. On the other hand, the dual generosity strategy can ensure that a complier's payoff is never larger than her opponent's. In the framework of the prisoner's dilemma game driven by payoff aspiration, we investigate in this paper the evolution of generosity strategy, in competition with extortion and unconditional defection strategies. We show that extortioners act as a catalyst to induce more defectors to change to compliers. Such influence will enhance when extortioners become more greedy. At a low aspiration level where individuals are easy to be satisfied with their current payoffs, different strategies can coexist. With the increase of aspiration level, unsatisfied individuals are likely to turn to compliers and build long-term reciprocity with their neighbors. However, at a high aspiration level, individuals are difficult to be satisfied with their payoffs and may randomly change their behaviors. Thus proper aspiration level promotes the emergence of generous behavior in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game.

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

4.2
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