ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2016
Ordering structured populations in multiplayer cooperation games.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of cooperation in social dilemmas on higher-order networks.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- The rules of multiplayer cooperation in networks of communities.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- The role of evolutionary game theory in spatial and non-spatial models of the survival of cooperation in cancer: a review.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Review
- Volatile social environments can favour investments in quality over quantity of social relationships.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Fixation probabilities in evolutionary dynamics under weak selection.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- Learning enables adaptation in cooperation for multi-player stochastic games.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Generalized Social Dilemmas: The Evolution of Cooperation in Populations with Variable Group Size.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2019Article
- Evolutionary multiplayer games on graphs with edge diversity.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Spatial organization of a model 15-member human gut microbiota established in gnotobiotic mice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Antisocial rewarding in structured populations.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Evolutionary Games of Multiplayer Cooperation on Graphs.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Evolving synergetic interactions.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial structure greatly affects the evolution of cooperation. While in two-player games the condition for cooperation to evolve depends on a single structure coefficient, in multiplayer games the condition might depend on several structure coefficients, making it difficult to compare different population structures. We propose a solution to this issue by introducing two simple ways of ordering population structures: the containment order and the volume order. If population structure S1 is greater than population structure S1 in the containment or the volume order, then S1 can be considered a stronger promoter of cooperation. We provide conditions for establishing the containment order, give general results on the volume order, and illustrate our theory by comparing different models of spatial games and associated update rules. Our results hold for a large class of population structures and can be easily applied to specific cases once the structure coefficients have been calculated or estimated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.