ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022
The ergodicity solution of the cooperation puzzle.
Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-ergodicity in ecology and evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Way More than the Sum of Their Parts: From Statistical to Structural Mixtures.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- The ergodicity solution of the cooperation puzzle.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Review
- From the origin of life to pandemics: emergent phenomena in complex systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When two entities cooperate by sharing resources, one relinquishes something of value to the other. This apparent altruism is frequently observed in nature. Why? Classical treatments assume circumstances where combining resources creates an immediate benefit, e.g. through complementarity or thresholds. Here we ask whether cooperation is predictable without such circumstances. We study a model in which resources self-multiply with fluctuations, a null model of a range of phenomena from viral spread to financial investment. Two fundamental growth rates exist: the ensemble-average growth rate, achieved by the average resources of a large population; and the time-average growth rate, achieved by individual resources over a long time. As a consequence of non-ergodicity, the latter is lower than the former by a term which depends on fluctuation size. Repeated pooling and sharing of resources reduces the effective size of fluctuations and increases the time-average growth rate, which approaches the ensemble-average growth rate in the many-cooperator limit. Therefore, cooperation is advantageous in our model for the simple reason that those who do it grow faster than those who do not. We offer this as a candidate explanation for observed cooperation in rudimentary environments, and as a behavioural baseline for cooperation more generally. This article is part of the theme issue 'Emergent phenomena in complex physical and socio-technical systems: from cells to societies'.
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.