4.4 Article

Group diversity promotes cooperation in the spatial public goods game

期刊

EPL
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/90/58003

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program ) [2006CB705500]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10975126, 10635040]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20093402110032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this letter, the group diversity which reflects the inhomogeneity of social communities is introduced into the spatial public goods game. The diversity is realized by rescaling the multiplication factor r to follow three distributions: uniform distribution, exponential distribution and power-law distribution. During the evolution, each individual selects one of its neighbors randomly, and then updates its strategy depending on the difference of their payoffs. We investigate how the cooperation is affected by the inhomogeneity of r at the noise level kappa = 0.1, and find that cooperation can be remarkably promoted for each distribution. Particularly, the uniform distribution enables the best cooperation level, while the power-law distribution induces the lowest cooperation level for most of the range of the parameters. Besides, it is shown that there exists an optimal value of A (the amplitude of the undulation of the three distributions) resulting in the highest cooperation for the exponential and power-law distributed cases. Moreover, the effect of noise on the cooperation is studied. It is represented that compared with the original version, the emergence of cooperation is remarkably promoted over a large range of noise level, and cooperation in the case of power-law distribution is most immune to the noise. Meanwhile, we also prove that the variation of cooperator density with kappa is closely dependent on the type of distribution of the multiplication factor r and its average value over all the groups. Copyright (C) EPLA, 2010

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

4.4
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