Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333592›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Evolution of direct reciprocity in group-structured populations.

Yohsuke Murase, Christian Hilbe, Seung Ki Baek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Computational evolution of social norms in well-mixed and group-structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  2. Evolution of reciprocity with limited payoff memory.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. When do stereotypes undermine indirect reciprocity?PLoS computational biology · 2024
    Article
  4. A geometric process of evolutionary game dynamics.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Article
  5. Evolution of norms for judging social behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yohsuke MuraseRIKEN Center for Computational Science, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan. yohsuke.murase@gmail.com.
Christian HilbeMax Planck Research Group 'Dynamics of Social Behavior', Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Plön, Germany.
Seung Ki BaekDepartment of Scientific Computing, Pukyong National University, Busan, 48513, Korea.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 850529: E-DIRECTJapan Society for the Promotion of Science 21K03362National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2020R1I1A2071670
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People tend to have their social interactions with members of their own community. Such group-structured interactions can have a profound impact on the behaviors that evolve. Group structure affects the way people cooperate, and how they reciprocate each other's cooperative actions. Past work has shown that population structure and reciprocity can both promote the evolution of cooperation. Yet the impact of these mechanisms has been typically studied in isolation. In this work, we study how the two mechanisms interact. Using a game-theoretic model, we explore how people engage in reciprocal cooperation in group-structured populations, compared to well-mixed populations of equal size. In this model, the population is subdivided into groups. Individuals engage in pairwise interactions within groups while they also have chances to imitate strategies outside the groups. To derive analytical results, we focus on two scenarios. In the first scenario, we assume a complete separation of time scales. Mutations are rare compared to between-group comparisons, which themselves are rare compared to within-group comparisons. In the second scenario, there is a partial separation of time scales, where mutations and between-group comparisons occur at a comparable rate. In both scenarios, we find that the effect of population structure depends on the benefit of cooperation. When this benefit is small, group-structured populations are more cooperative. But when the benefit is large, well-mixed populations result in more cooperation. Overall, our results reveal how group structure can sometimes enhance and sometimes suppress the evolution of cooperation.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGame TheoryBiological EvolutionHumans

Identifiers

PMID36333592
PMCPMC9636277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.