ArticlePloS one2024
Aiding the resilience of cooperation through the use of network rankings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In many aspects of life on earth, individuals may engage in cooperation with others to contribute towards a goal they may share, which can also ensure self-preservation. In evolutionary game theory, the act of cooperation can be modelled as an altruistic act of an individual producing some form of benefit that can be utilised by others they are associated with at some personal cost. In various scenarios, individuals make use of information that they can perceive within a group to aid with their decision-making regarding who they should associate and cooperate with. However, cooperative individuals can be taken advantage of by opportunistic defectors, which can cause significant disruption to the population. We study a model where the decision to establish interactions with potential partners is based on the opportune integration of the individual's private ability to perceive the intentions of others (private information) and the network position (ranking) of potential partners (public information). We find that there are rankings, such as degree and eigenvector, which can lead to a significant increase to the prosperity of the network, but this greatly increases the likelihood of a network succumbing to cheater invasion. Other rankings, such as betweeness, can instead lead to more stable resilient networks whilst also cultivating some degree of payoff. Our results highlight how commonly used network rankings can be utilised to aid with connection formation within networks and in turn can be utilised to improve the well-being of these networks, helping with stability and allowing for individuals to cultivate cooperation amongst each other. Private information should also continue to be considered when examining the dynamics of these networks as it appears to be a primary driver of encouraging individual agency.
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.