![MathJax Logo](/templates/jsp/_style2/_tandf/pb2/images/math-jax.gif)
Abstract
Evolutionary games on graphs play an important role in the study of evolution of cooperation in applied biology. Using rigorous mathematical concepts from a dynamical systems and graph theoretical point of view, we formalize the notions of attractor, update rules and update orders. We prove results on attractors for different utility functions and update orders. For complete graphs we characterize attractors for synchronous and sequential update rules. In other cases (for -regular graphs or for different update orders) we provide sufficient conditions for attractivity of full cooperation and full defection. We construct examples to show that these conditions are not necessary. Finally, by formulating a list of open questions we emphasize the advantages of our rigorous approach.
1. Introduction
Game theory was developed in the 1940s as a mathematical tool to study interactions and decisions of rational agents [Citation24]. For a long time it was mainly applied in economics (see, e.g. [Citation8,Citation23] and the references therein). In the 1970s, it was introduced to biology via the concept of biological fitness and natural selection [Citation21] and the evolutionary game theory enabled to study infinite homogeneous populations via replicator equations [Citation12,Citation13]. Recently, dynamics in populations which are finite and spatially structured (the structure being represented by graphs) attracted a lot of attention [Citation26,Citation29]. Evolutionary game theory on graphs has shown that the rate of cooperation strongly depends on the structure of the underlying interaction graph (see, e.g. Citation11Citation19Citation26Citation27Citation28Citation29 and numerous following papers). At the same time, a similar problem of equilibria selection in cooperation games via timing structures has attracted a lot of attention, both in microeconomics (e.g. [Citation15,Citation16]) and in macroeconomics (e.g. [Citation17,Citation18]).
Mathematically, evolutionary games on graphs are very complex structures which bring together notions from graph theory, game theory, dynamical systems and stochastic processes. Mathematical techniques which are used are therefore complex and include complex approximative techniques such as pair and diffusion approximation and voter model perturbations [Citation2,Citation4,Citation5] or are limited to special classes of graphs, e.g. cycles [Citation27], stars [Citation3,Citation10] and vertex-transitive graphs [Citation1,Citation6]. Whereas these papers focus mainly on stochastic updating of vertices, the goal of this paper is to study evolutionary games on graphs with various deterministic update rules in the framework of discrete dynamical systems and formalize the notions of (autonomous and non-autonomous) evolutionary games on graphs, attractors, update rules and update orders. Being aware that this approach may look too formal for some, we believe that this approach should help to (i) disclose and answer interesting questions (some of them listed in Section 9), (ii) understand patterns by means of simple examples and counterexamples, (iii) describe analytically dynamics on small graphs (motivated, e.g. by small sizes of agents in cooperation games in macroeconomics [Citation18]) and (iv) bridge a gap between three seemingly separate mathematical areas: graph theory, game theory and dynamical systems.
In Section 2, we introduce, for a given graph and an arbitrary utility function, a new formal notion of an (autonomous) evolutionary game on a graph (Definition 3) and attractors (Definition 5). In our rigorous approach, we are trying to follow the spirit of Citation11Citation19Citation27Citation28Citation29. In Section 3 we introduce two basic utility functions and relate them to the underlying game-theoretical parameters. In Section 4 we characterize the attractivity of full defection (Theorem 9) and full cooperation (Theorem 10) on complete graphs. On -regular graphs we provide only a sufficient condition for attractivity of these states (Theorem 12) and show (in Example 13) that it is not necessary. Section 5 is devoted to the extension of the notion of an evolutionary game on a graph to the realistic situation that the vertices are not all updated at each time step (Definition 14). The new notion of non-autonomous evolutionary game on a graph (Definition 18) has the structure of a general non-autonomous dynamical system (Definition 17). We also introduce attractors and their basins for non-autonomous evolutionary games (Definitions 20 and 21) and relate them to the autonomous case (Remark 23). In Section 6 we provide conditions for attractivity of full defection and full cooperation of non-autonomous evolutionary games. The conditions are sufficient for non-omitting update orders but are also necessary if a sequential update order is considered (Theorem 24). Example 25 shows that in general the conditions are not necessary. In Section 7 we provide a complete characterization of attractors of evolutionary games on complete graphs for synchronous (Theorem 26) and sequential (Theorem 27) update orders. In particular, Theorem 27(c) (together with Example 29) shows the existence of an attractive cycle. In Section 8 we discuss the role of different utility functions on irregular graphs. Finally, Section 9 is devoted to concluding remarks and open questions.
2. Evolutionary games on graphs
We recall some basic definitions from graph theory, see, e.g. [Citation9]. A graph is a pair consisting of a set of vertices
and a set of edges
. Let
denote the
-neighbourhood of vertex
, i.e. all vertices with the distance exactly
from
. Furthermore, let us define
Definition 1
Taking into account that our state space is discrete, we strip off any topological properties and call a map
Any map is the time-1-map of an induced dynamical system with discrete one-sided time
which is defined via composition or iteration as follows:
We will define evolutionary games on graphs as special dynamical systems with the property that a vertex follows a strategy in its one-neighbourhood which currently yields the highest utility. To prepare this definition we introduce for a ‘function on a graph’ the size of the neighbourhood on which its values depend.
Definition 2
Let be arbitrary sets and
a graph. We say that a function
has a dependency radius
on
if all values
of a component
of
depend on a component
of the argument
only if the vertex
is in the
-neighbourhood of the vertex
, i.e. if for each
and
the following implication holds:
We are now in a position to formulate evolutionary games on graphs with unconditional imitation update rule as a dynamical system. This update rule goes back to [Citation26] and is also called ‘imitate-the-best’. The basic idea is that at each time step every player determines his/her utility based on his/her strategy and the strategies of his/her neighbours. Based on that, each player adopts the strategy of his/her neighbour with the highest utility (if it is greater than his/her own).
Definition 3
Let be an arbitrary set. An evolutionary game on
consists of the following two ingredients:
a utility function on
, i.e. a function
which has dependency radius
on
,
the dynamical system
with
given by
where the set Ai(x) is defined by(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
Remark 4
Typically,
represents the set of strategies (e.g.
and
) and the vector
the population state (i.e. the spatial distribution of strategies at a given time).
The cardinality of
in (1) is used to ensure that all vertices with the highest utility have the same state. If that is not the case, the vertex preserves its current state. Obviously, this may not be a reasonable approach once the set of strategies
contains more than two strategies and the current state may yield worse payoff than all other strategies.
An evolutionary game
on
has dependency radius
on
.
Whereas the notion of evolutionary games in biological applications (see, e.g. [Citation27]) sometimes has a probabilistic aspect, our Definition 3 of an evolutionary game is deterministic. Note that, although we do not follow that direction in this paper, in principle it is possible to extend Definition 3 to also incorporate that a vertex follows strategies in its one-neighbourhood with a certain probability.
Given the fact that each vertex mimics the state of its neighbour with the highest utility, we speak about imitation dynamics. Preserving the deterministic nature, there are various possibilities of defining the dynamics. For example, instead of imitation dynamics
in (1), we could consider deterministic death–birth dynamics, in which only the vertices with the lowest utility adopt the state of its neighbour with highest utility, i.e.
We define a notion of distance in the state space
by
with
by
Definition 5
Let be an evolutionary game on
and
invariant under
, i.e.
. Then
is called attractor of
if for any
with
there exists
such that
.
If , we say that
is the trivial attractor, otherwise
is said to be a non-trivial attractor.
Remark 6
If and
are finite sets, then
generates the discrete topology on
. With this topology an invariant set
is an attractor if and only if
for all
with
.
3. Utility function and cooperative games
We discuss cooperative evolutionary games (see, e.g. [Citation25]) with utilities which are implied by a static game (see, e.g. [Citation8] for an introduction to game theory) on a state space consisting of two strategies, each vertex can either cooperate (
) or defect (
).
Consequently, a player gets if both he/she and his/her partner cooperate, he/she gets
if he/she cooperates and his/her partner defects, if he/she defects and his/her partner cooperates he/she gets
, if both players defect, he/she gets
. We focus on cooperation games and therefore make the following assumptions on the parameters
:
(A1) For the sake of brevity, we assume that no two parameters are equal. | |||||
(A2) It is always better if both players cooperate than if they both defect, i.e. | |||||
(A3) If only one cooperates, it is more advantageous to be the defector, i.e. | |||||
(A4) No matter what strategy a player chooses, it is always better for him/her if his/her opponent cooperates, i.e. | |||||
(A5) |
Definition 7
We say that a parameter vector is admissible if it satisfies assumptions (A1)–(A5). The set
of all such quadruplets is called the set of admissible parameters.
The set of admissible parameters splits into four regions corresponding to scenarios which we call Full Cooperation (FC), Hawk and Dove (HD), Stag hunt (SH)Footnote3 and Prisoner's dilemma (PD):
Table
Note that the mixed Nash equilibrium provides the minimal payoff in the SH game and the maximal payoff in the HD game. As we will see, this fact influences the stability of corresponding interior points of, e.g. replicator dynamics, see [Citation12].
There are two natural ways of how to define utilities on evolutionary graphs with (state
corresponds to
and state
to
). We could either consider the aggregate utility
Remark 8
Once we consider the mean utility function (or the aggregate utility function on regular graphs) we could, without loss of generality, normalize parameters so that
and
by the following map
4. Evolutionary games on ![](//:0)
![](//:0)
In this section we consider evolutionary games generated by the simplest graphs – complete graphs and regular graphs. Note that evolutionary games on
correspond to dynamics of a well-mixed (non-spatial) population. We focus on the attractivity of full defection
and full cooperation
and its connection to parameters
.
Theorem 9
For all admissible the following two statements are equivalent:
is an attractor of the evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4).
satisfy
(6)
(6)
Proof
Choose such that
. Then there exists a unique
such that
and
for all
(i.e.
is the unique cooperator). Consequently, the utilities are:
Inequalities (6) imply that
Assume that (6) does not hold, i.e.Footnote4
A similar result could be obtained for the full cooperation state .
Theorem 10
For all admissible the following two statements are equivalent:
is an attractor of the evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4).
satisfy
(7)
(7)
Proof
The proof is very similar to the proof of Theorem 9.
Choose
such that
. Then there exists a unique
such that
and
for all
(i.e.
is the unique defector). Consequently, the utilities are:
Assume that (7) does not hold, i.e.
Remark 11
Theorems 9 and 10 show that attractivity of full defection and full defection is qualitatively different for admissible parameters in the four different regions FC, HD, SH, PD in (3). In the PD case, there is no dependence on and the values of the parameters. On the other hand, in the other cases different behaviour could occur for different parameter values and in dependence of the size of the graph
. Evidently, the richest situation occurs in the FC case in which it is possible that, depending on the parameter, full defection and full cooperation, as well as none of them, or both of them together are attractive, cf. Table and Figure .
Table 1 ![](//:0)
– Connection between graph size, different scenarios and attractivity of states ![](//:0)
and ![](//:0)
.
![Figure 2 Attractivity regions of (0,0,…,0) (light grey) and (1,1,…,1) (horizontally hatched) (a=1 and d=0 are fixed, cf. Remark 8). (a) n=3 on the left and (b) n=5 on the right.](/cms/asset/b2f6f426-166a-43c9-bfe2-5cd64b1aa10b/gdea_a_988618_f0002_b.gif)
We observe that in the PD case, is always attractive. Similarly, in the FC case
is the unique attractor if and only if
.
Finally, note that the results are consistent with those for infinite populations studied in the evolutionary game theory [Citation12,Citation25], in which the full cooperation is an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) if and only if and the full defection is evolutionary stable strategy ESS if and only if
(those inequalities are obtained as
. Note that for finite complete graphs additional conditions involving the size
are involved (see (6) and (7)). Thus, the parameter region in finite populations is larger for full defection and smaller for full cooperation, see Figure .
The ideas from the proofs of Theorems 9 and 10 easily carry over to -regular graphs.
Theorem 12
Let be admissible and
be a
-regular graph,
.
If
holds, then(8)
(8)
is an attractor of the evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4).
If
holds, then(9)
(9)
is an attractor of the evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4).
However, the following example shows that (8) and (9) are only sufficient and not necessary for the attractivity of and
for evolutionary games on
-regular graphs.
Example 13
Consider the undirected Cayley graph (see [Citation9, p. 34]) of the Dihedral group of order 24 (as a permutation group on , see [Citation14, p. 46] for the notation) with generators
![Figure 3 A trajectory of the evolutionary game from Example 13. For possible reproduction we provide its graph 6 notation (see [Citation22]): |WsOPA?OG?[?E@C?o@??@??O?????????s??k?@@_?Cg??KO|.](/cms/asset/bcc5dbb1-d3f0-448e-9bed-092a7acb71f1/gdea_a_988618_f0003_b.gif)
The initial state with exactly one cooperator, whose position does not matter because the graph is vertex-transitive, reaches after
steps for these parameters (see Figure ). Therefore
is attractive, although (8) is violated.
5. General asynchronous update – non-autonomous evolutionary games
In an evolutionary game all nodes are updated in a synchronous way (i.e. all nodes at each time step), cf. Definition 3. To formulate asynchronous update which is only updating a certain subset of nodes at each time step, we introduce a notion of update order.
Definition 14
A set-valued function is called update order.
The update order is called
non-omitting, if for each vertex
and each
, there exists
such that
; otherwise
is called omitting,
periodic, if there exists
such that
for each
,
synchronous, if
for each
; otherwise
is called asynchronous,
sequential, if vertices can be ordered so that
.
Remark 15
Obviously, synchronous and sequential update orders are automatically non-omitting and periodic. A periodic update order could be omitting and a non-omitting update order is not necessarily periodic.
Example 16
Let be a finite graph with
, for some
,
. Then
given by
Let us define
Definition 17
A non-autonomous dynamical system (or two-parameter process, or two-parameter semiflow) is a map
Definition 18
A non-autonomous evolutionary game on with a utility function
and update order
is the non-autonomous dynamical system
with
defined by
Remark 19
Definition 18 is a non-autonomous version of an evolutionary game with imitation dynamics (cf. Remark 4). As in the case of (autonomous) evolutionary games, we could consider alternative definitions of deterministic non-autonomous evolutionary games.
Definition 20
Let be a non-autonomous evolutionary game on
. A set
is called attractor of
if
is invariant, i.e. for all
:
where.
is attracting, i.e. for any
with
we have
Definition 21
The basin of attraction of an invariant set is the set
We can make the following simple observation.
Remark 22
Let be a non-autonomous evolutionary game and
be an invariant set such that
for all
. If we define
Remark 23
A non-autonomous evolutionary game with synchronous update order
induces an associated (autonomous) evolutionary game
by setting
An attractor of
which is time-independent (i.e.
for all
) induces an attractor
of
, because
, together with the fact that
, implies that
6. Non-autonomous evolutionary games on ![](//:0)
![](//:0)
We follow the ideas from Section 4 and study the attractivity of full cooperation and full defection
on complete graphs for non-autonomous evolutionary games with the utility function (4).
Theorem 24
Let be a non-autonomous evolutionary game on
with the aggregate utility function (4),
and
be a non-omitting update order. Then,
Moreover, if is sequential, then the reverse implications also hold.
Proof
The proof is very similar to the ideas from the proofs of Theorems 9 and 10. To prove statement (i), let us assume that (6) holds and is such that
. Then there exists a unique
such that
and
for all
. The utilities satisfy
for all
. Hence,
if
and
if
. Since the update rule is non-omitting, we know that there exists
such that
and consequently for each
we have
Finally, we would like to show that if the update order is sequential, then conditions (6) and (7) are also necessary. Suppose by contradiction that (6) does not hold. Then for each with
we have that for each
Obviously, if the update order is not non-omitting, the single cooperator need not have a chance to switch and therefore there are no conditions which ensure attractivity of or
. In the following example we show that for general non-omitting update orders, we cannot reverse the implications, since either (6) or (7) need not be necessary.
Example 25
Let us consider a non-autonomous evolutionary game on with utility function (4) and with non-omitting and periodic update order given by (10) in Example 16. Let us assume that
are such that (6) is not satisfied, i.e.
If is such that
(i.e. there exists a unique
such that
), then we have two possibilities
. Since
, we have that
. Then without loss of generality, we can assume that
. Hence,
7. Existence of attractors and update orders
In the previous sections we have seen that (6) and (7) are necessary and sufficient for the existence of the attractors and
on
if the synchronous or sequential update order is considered. In this section we focus on the difference between synchronous and sequential update orders in situations in which those inequalities are not satisfied. We show that the behaviour is no longer identical and that sequential updating offers a more diverse behaviour
First we study the synchronous update order.
Theorem 26
Let . Let us consider the (autonomous) evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4). Then there exists a non-trivial attractor of
if and only if either (6) or (7) holds.
Proof
Obviously, if (6) or (7) holds, then either or
are attractors, see Theorems 9 and 10.
Now, let us assume that neither (6) nor (7) holds. Let and
. If we denote by
(
) the utilities of vertices with
(
), we can easily derive that
We consider three invariant sets and
and
, which is given by
if
,
if
,
if
.
The fact that is not attractive may look surprising. The proof shows that this is caused by the synchronous update order which implies that all vertices update to full cooperation or full defection. Next we provide a characterization of the existence of an attractor for the sequential update order as well.
Theorem 27
Let . Let us consider a non-autonomous evolutionary game
on
with the utility function (4) and sequential update order. Then there exists a non-trivial attractor if and only if
satisfy either
Proof
Using the notation of the proof of Theorem 26 we observe that there exists such that
or
and
or
and
or
and
or
.
In the remaining three cases (ii)–(iv), equalities (18) and (16) imply that , i.e. that there exists
given by (17) which satisfies
.
Let us consider case (iii) first. Inequalities (iii) imply that and
. As in the proof of Theorem 26 we see immediately that
if and only if
and that
if and only if
. Moreover, sequential update order implies that for all
we have
for some
. This implies that
if
,
,
if
,
,
if
,
.
if
. First, we consider
such that
. Without loss of generality we can assume that the vertices are numbered so that
. Define
Then(19)
(19)
and thus there exists(i.e.
) so that
Similarly, ifis such that
, then the first
vertices
with
switch to
. Consequently, the set
is the attractor of
.
if
, one could repeat the argument to get that any initial condition reaches a state with
. If we are at such a state
in time
and
we have that
independently ofat time
. This implies that either
remains unchanged or a state with
is reached.
Similarly, if we are at a state with
we have
, and either
remains unchanged or a state with
is reached.
Consequently, we observe that the set
To finish the proof, we consider cases (ii) and (iv), i.e. the situation in which and
. In this case, the sets given by (19) and (20) are invariant by the same argument as above. However, they are not attractive, since
if
and
if
▪.
Remark 28
To sum up, Theorems 26 and 27 provide a complete characterization of attractors of evolutionary games on with either synchronous or sequential update order. For synchronous update order, there are four possible outcomes:
only
is attractive,
only
is attractive,
both
and
are attractive,
there is no non-trivial attractor.
For sequential update order we have another two possibilities which consist of states in which both cooperators and defectors exist together:
there is an attractive cycle given by (20),
there is an attractive set of invariant states given by (19).
![Figure 4 Illustration of Theorem 27 with a=1 and d=0. Both (0,0,…,0) and (1,1,…,1) are attractive in the horizontally hatched region, (0,0,…,0) in the light grey region, (1,1,…,1) in the dark grey region. In the vertically hatched region, the attractive cycles (20) and attractors (19) occur. There are no non-trivial attractors in the two dotted regions.](/cms/asset/3d733592-c259-41b6-92f6-c9f876a5b0f4/gdea_a_988618_f0004_b.gif)
Again, note that Theorems 26 and 27 are consistent with the standard evolutionary game theory [Citation13] as . Note that both the bistability region (both
and
are attractive) and the stable coexistence region in the sequential updating converge to
and
, respectively. Note that, in finite populations, they are smaller but overreach to
as well, see Figure .
We provide a simple example to better illustrate the cycle of length which has been constructed in the proof of Theorem 27.
Example 29
Let us assume that and
is such that
. Let us consider an evolutionary game on
with utility function (4) and sequential update order. We consider the initial condition:
8. Irregular graphs – role of utility functions
In this section we study simple irregular graphs – wheels ,
, in which a central vertex is connected to all vertices of an
-cycle, see Figure . Our focus lies on identifying the importance of different forms of utility functions, e.g. (4), (5) or others. Evolutionary games on regular graphs, which we have considered exclusively so far, are the same for aggregate
and mean
utility functions (see (4) and (5)), since
is just a multiple of
in this case. Straightforwardly, this is no longer true for irregular graphs.
First, we study the attractivity of .
Theorem 30
Let . Let us consider an evolutionary game
on
. Then
is an attractor if and only if
Proof
Let us number the vertices, so that the central vertex is connected to peripheral vertices
.
Let us consider the aggregate utility
first and suppose again that the state
is such that
.
If the central vertex is the single defector, then
Obviously, the first inequality in (21) is equivalent to.
If the single defector is a peripheral vertex, we can, without loss of generality, assume that
, i.e. vertex
is the single defector. Then, we have that
Then we can boundby
from above
Consequently.
If the mean utility
is considered instead then
If the central vertex is the single defector, we have
The latter inequality in (21) is equivalent to.
If the single defector is a peripheral vertex, we can again, without loss of generality, assume that
. Then, the utilities have the form
which immediately implies that, for all
.
Paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) show that both inequalities in (21) are also necessary. If they are violated, then either (if equalities hold) or
for all
(if reverse inequalities hold), i.e. all vertices switch to defection and
cannot be attained. ▪
We can make a few straightforward observations.
Remark 31
The proof could be repeated for non-autonomous evolutionary games with sequential update order.
Note that (A5) was used in the proof. If we do not assume that (A5) holds, i.e. could be non-positive, then the condition for the aggregate utility would be
Note that the inequalities in (21) can be satisfied if and only if , i.e.
.
We can simply formulate a similar result for full defection .
Theorem 32
Let . Let us consider an evolutionary game
on
. Then
is an attractor if and only if
9. Open questions
In this paper we define evolutionary games on graphs rigorously as dynamical systems and also state several results on the existence of attractors, their basins of attraction and their relationship to update orders and regularity. Our results lead to many open questions, we list those which we find most interesting to consider as a next step towards the development of a theory of evolutionary games:
(A) Mixed fixed points: Find sufficient conditions on the graph and admissible parameters | |||||
(B) Attractors: Construct efficient methods for finding all attractors for a given graph and admissible parameters | |||||
(C) Maximal number of fixed points: Find the maximal number of fixed points for all connected graphs with | |||||
(D) Realization of mixed fixed points: Determine all admissible parameters | |||||
(E) Existence of cycles: Determine all admissible parameters | |||||
(F) Maximal cycle: Find the maximal length of a cycle of an evolutionary game on an arbitrary graph with | |||||
(G) Graph properties and evolutionary games: Relate graph features (size, regularity, diameter/girth, connectivity, clique number, etc.) to the properties of evolutionary games on these graphs (existence of attractors, fixed points, cycles, …). | |||||
(H) Different dynamics: In this paper we used imitation dynamics (1). Describe major differences in the case that different deterministic dynamics are used (e.g. birth–death, death–birth, see Remark 4). | |||||
(I) Utility functions: In Section 8 we showed that the aggregate utility function (4) favours vertices with higher degree. Describe this phenomenon precisely and analyse the role of other utility functions. See [Citation20] for the discussion on averaging and accumulation of utility functions in stochastic evolutionary games. | |||||
(J) Non-omitting update orders: Theorem 24 and Example 25 show that conditions (6) and (7) are only sufficient for attractivity of | |||||
(K) Regular graphs: Example 13 showed that (8) and (9) are only sufficient but not necessary for attractivity of | |||||
(L) Irregular graphs: Identify features of irregular graphs that play an essential role in the dynamics of evolutionary games on them. |
Acknowledgements
We thank an anonymous referee for comments which led to an improvement of the paper. We thank Hella Epperlein for her contribution of Example 25.
Additional information
Funding
Notes
1. Email: [email protected]
2. Email: [email protected]
3. Strictly speaking, the SH scenario is usually considered with , we use this notation, since the equilibria share the same structure.
4. Note that is not admissible.
References
- B.Allen, and M.A.Nowak, Games on graphs, EMS Surv. Math. Sci.1 (2004), pp. 113–151.
- B.Allen, A.Traulsen, C.Tarnita, and M.A.Nowak, How mutation affects evolutionary games on graphs, J. Theor. Biol.299 (2012), pp. 97–105.
- M.Broom, C.Hadjichrysanthou, and J.Rychtář, Evolutionary games on graphs and the speed of the evolutionary process, Proc. R. Soc. A466 (2010), pp. 1327–1346.
- Y.-T.Chen, Sharp benefit-to-cost rules for the evolution of cooperation on regular graphs, Ann. Appl. Probab.23 (2013), pp. 637–664.
- J.T.Cox, R.Durrett, and E.A.Perkins, Voter Model Perturbations and Reaction Diffusion Equations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013.
- F.Débarre, C.Hauert, and M.Doebeli, Social evolution in structured populations, Nat. Commun.5 (2014), Article No. 3409, pp. 1–7.
- R.L.Devaney, An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems, Reprint of the second (1989) edition, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2003.
- A.Dixit, S.Skeath, and D.Reiley, Games of Strategy, W.W. Norton, New York, 2009.
- C.Godsil, and G.Royle, Algebraic Graph Theory, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
- C.Hadjichrysanthou, M.Broom, and J.Rychtář, Evolutionary games on star graphs under various updating rules, Dyn. Games Appl.1 (2011), pp. 386–407.
- C.Hauert, and M.Doebeli, Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game, Nature428 (2004), pp. 643–646.
- J.Hofbauer, and K.Sigmund, The Theory of Evolution and Dynamical Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
- J.Hofbauer, and K.Sigmund, Evolutionary game dynamics, Bull. Am. Math. Soc.40 (2003), pp. 479–519.
- T.W.Hungerford, Algebra, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.
- M.Kandori, G.Mailath, and R.Rob, Learning, mutation and long run equilibria in games, Econometrica61 (1993), pp. 29–56.
- R.Lagunoff, and A.Matsui, Asynchronous choice in repeated coordination games, Econometrica65 (1997), pp. 1467–1477.
- J.Libich, A note on the anchoring effect of explicit inflation targets, Macroecon. Dyn.13 (2009), pp. 685–697.
- J.Libich, and P.Stehlík, Monetary policy facing fiscal indiscipline under generalized timing of actions, J. Inst. Theor. Econ.168 (2012), pp. 393–431.
- E.Lieberman, C.Hauert, and M.A.Nowak, Evolutionary dynamics on graphs, Nature433 (2005), pp. 312–316.
- W.Maciejewski, F.Fu, and C.Hauert, Evolutionary game dynamics in populations with heterogeneous structures, PLoS Comput. Biol.10 (2014), Article No. e1003567, pp. 1–16.
- J.Maynard Smith, The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts, J. Theor. Biol.47 (1974), pp. 209–221.
- B.D. McKay, Graph6 and sparse6 graph formats. Available at http://cs.anu.edu.au/∼bdm/data/formats.html.
- R.Myerson, Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
- J.F.Nash, The bargaining problem, Econometrica18 (1950), pp. 155–162.
- M.A.Nowak, Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
- M.A.Nowak, and R.M.May, Evolutionary games and spatial chaos, Nature359 (1992), pp. 826–829.
- H.Ohtsuki, and M.A.Nowak, Evolutionary games on cycles, Proc. R. Soc. B273 (2006), pp. 2249–2256.
- H.Ohtsuki, and M.A.Nowak, Evolutionary stability on graphs, J. Theor. Biol.251 (2008), pp. 698–707.
- G.Szabó, and G.Fáth, Evolutionary games on graphs, Phys. Rep.446 (2007), pp. 97–216.