Figures & data
Figure 1. Cooperation for public goods. (a) Mean dissatisfaction and level of cooperation
. When all defect,
is at a local minimum, on the left, but to proceed to the global minimum where all cooperate, on the right, participants are hindered by a hill. (b) Mean-field analysis with
shows below
one stable state with mostly cooperators, at the top, and another stable state in finite time with mostly defectors, at the bottom. A metastable state in between, indicated by the dotted line, corresponds to the hilltop in Figure 1(a). Above
only one state remains, where with increasing
, cooperators are joined by increasing numbers of defectors
![Figure 1. Cooperation for public goods. (a) Mean dissatisfaction H/n and level of cooperation M. When all defect, H/n is at a local minimum, on the left, but to proceed to the global minimum where all cooperate, on the right, participants are hindered by a hill. (b) Mean-field analysis with S={1,−1/2} shows below Tc one stable state with mostly cooperators, at the top, and another stable state in finite time with mostly defectors, at the bottom. A metastable state in between, indicated by the dotted line, corresponds to the hilltop in Figure 1(a). Above Tc only one state remains, where with increasing T, cooperators are joined by increasing numbers of defectors](/cms/asset/82950ff0-518d-4328-a9a1-0331cfcf24f8/gmas_a_1756285_f0001_oc.jpg)
Figure 2. Numerical simulation on a university e-mail network with and clustering
; data from Guimerà (2003). (a) the network at a near-critical turmoil level of
;
. Some nodes start cooperating (red) whereas most still defect (blue). (b)
is smaller than in the mean-field approximation, but the overall pattern is qualitatively the same (compare to Fig. 1 b)
![Figure 2. Numerical simulation on a university e-mail network with n=1133 and clustering C=0.254; data from Guimerà (2003). (a) the network at a near-critical turmoil level of T=0.101; S={1,−1/2}. Some nodes start cooperating (red) whereas most still defect (blue). (b) Tc is smaller than in the mean-field approximation, but the overall pattern is qualitatively the same (compare to Fig. 1 b)](/cms/asset/6acb0cb1-31d5-402c-b435-418cef217195/gmas_a_1756285_f0002_oc.jpg)
Figure 3. Consequences of shifting with the mean-field approach (MF), keeping
. (a) With increasing
, less agitation is necessary to turn defectors into cooperators. For comparison, numerical simulations on several random networks with density = 0.8 are shown as well. (b) The proportion of defectors
at
decreases with increasing
![Figure 3. Consequences of shifting S0 with the mean-field approach (MF), keeping Δ=0.75. (a) With increasing S0, less agitation is necessary to turn defectors into cooperators. For comparison, numerical simulations on several random networks with density = 0.8 are shown as well. (b) The proportion of defectors pc at Tc decreases with increasing S0](/cms/asset/63d4acab-ec83-4312-b8a8-141e7da8b45b/gmas_a_1756285_f0003_oc.jpg)