Volume 111, Number 6, September 2015
|Number of page(s)||6|
|Published online||30 September 2015|
Role of mutual punishment in the snowdrift game
1 Department of Physics, Fuzhou University - Fuzhou 350108, China
2 School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University - Xi'an 710072, China
3 Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University - Fukuoka, 816-8580, Japan
Received: 14 July 2015
Accepted: 8 September 2015
The effects of punishment on cooperation have drawn increasing attention. In this paper, we propose a new mechanism of punishment, in which an individual will punish each neighbor if their strategies are different, and vice versa. We incorporate the mutual punishment into the snowdrift game. Results for well-mixed and structured populations have shown that, for no punishment or small values of punishment fine, the fraction of cooperators continuously decreases with the temptation to defect. However, for large values of punishment fine, there exists an abrupt transition point, at which the fraction of cooperators suddenly drops from 1 to 0. Compared to no punishment, mutual punishment promotes cooperation when the temptation to defect is small but inhibits cooperation when the temptation to defect is large. For weak (strong) temptation to defect, the cooperation level increases (decreases) with the punishment fine. For moderate temptation to defect, there exists an optimal value of the punishment fine that leads to the highest cooperation level.
PACS: 02.50.Le – Decision theory and game theory / 89.75.Hc – Networks and genealogical trees
© EPLA, 2015
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.