4.2 Article

Effects of inequality on a spatial evolutionary public goods game

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B
卷 94, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00177-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61866039, 62066045]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province [2019FB083]
  3. Open Foundation of the Key Lab in Software Engineering of Yunnan Province [2020SE201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article explores the effects of inequality and finds that aligned inequality can effectively promote cooperation. The promotion of cooperation mainly relies on the contribution ability of players, where cooperators with high contribution ability can maximize collective benefits, leading cooperators with low contribution ability to form compact clusters and resist invasion by defectors.
Over the past decade, inequality has become one of the most complex and troubling challenges in the global economy. Many scientists are determined to eliminate inequality to achieve full cooperation. However, our research shows that not all inequalities hinder cooperation. In this article, we study the effects of inequality by introducing the disassortative mixing of the investment amount and enhancement factor assigned to certain individuals in the public goods game. Compared with the traditional version, we find that cooperation can be effectively promoted by aligned inequality, which means that individuals with the highest (lowest) investment capabilities contribute the greatest (lowest) investment amounts. The promotion of cooperation mainly depends on the heterogeneous contribution ability of players. Specifically, cooperators with high contribution ability can maximize collective benefits, causing cooperators with low contribution ability to form compact clusters and resist invasion by defectors. Our research indicates that the diversity of individual endowment and productivity may have a non-negligible influence on the evolution of cooperation among selfish individuals.

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