4.7 Article

Simple property of heterogeneous aspiration dynamics: Beyond weak selection

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 98, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.98.062124

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSFC [61603049, 61751301, 61533001]
  2. Fundamental Research Funding for the Central Universities in China [2017RC19]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201606010270]
  4. U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [D17AC00005]
  5. National Science Foundation [GEO-1211972]
  6. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal [PTDC/MAT-STA/3358/2014, PTDC/EEI-SII/5081/2014]
  7. Levin Lab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How individuals adapt their behavior in cultural evolution remains elusive. Theoretical studies have shown that the update rules chosen to model individual decision making can dramatically modify the evolutionary outcome of the population as a whole. This hints at the complexities of considering the personality of individuals in a population, where each one uses its own rule. Here, we investigate whether and how heterogeneity in the rules of behavior update alters the evolutionary outcome. We assume that individuals update behaviors by aspiration-based self-evaluation and they do so in their own ways. Under weak selection, we analytically reveal a simple property that holds for any two-strategy multiplayer games in well-mixed populations and on regular graphs: the evolutionary outcome in a population with heterogeneous update rules is the weighted average of the outcomes in the corresponding homogeneous populations, and the associated weights are the frequencies of each update rule in the heterogeneous population. Beyond weak selection, we show that this property holds for public goods games. Our finding implies that heterogeneous aspiration dynamics is additive. This additivity greatly reduces the complexity induced by the underlying individual heterogeneity. Our work thus provides an efficient method to calculate evolutionary outcomes under heterogeneous update rules.

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