PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 12, 20250 citationsOpen Access

Evolutionary processes that resolve cooperative dilemmas

View Full Paper
PLPhilip LaPorteSWS. WangLPLenz Pracher

Key Points

  • Maximum payoff for cooperative dilemmas is achieved under direct reciprocity mechanisms.
  • The theory identifies a continuous set of Nash equilibria useful for understanding cooperation.
  • Studying two-player cooperative dilemmas reveals insights into the evolution of cooperation.
  • Restricted evolutionary settings often require high benefit-to-cost ratios to favor cooperation.

Abstract

Abstract In biology, there is often a tension between what is good for the individual and what is good for the population (1–6). Cooperation benefits the community, while defection tempts the individual to garner short term gains. The theory of repeated games specifies that there is a continuum of Nash equilibria which ranges from fully defective to fully cooperative (7,8). The mechanism of direct reciprocity, which relies on repeated interactions, therefore only stipulates that evolution of cooperation is possible, but whether or not cooperation can be established, and for which parameters, depends on the details of the underlying process of mutation and selection (9–18). Many well known evolutionary processes achieve cooperation only in restricted settings. In the case of the donation game (5,6), for example, high benefit to-cost ratios are often needed for selection to favor cooperation (19–22). Here we study a universe of two-player cooperative dilemmas (23), which includes the prisoner’s dilemma (24–27), snowdrift (28–30), stag-hunt (31) and harmony game. Upon those games we apply a universe of evolutionary processes. Among those processes we find a continuous set which has the feature that it achieves maximum payoff for all cooperative dilemmas under direct reciprocity. This set is characterized by a surprisingly simple property which we call parity: competing strategies are evaluated symmetrically.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

LaPorte et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d44c4631b076d99fa55ab3https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7511472/v1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Different perceptions of social dilemmas: Evolutionary multigames in structured populations2014 · 141 citations
  2. 2Emergence of cooperation due to opponent-specific responses in Prisoner’s Dilemma2026
  3. 3Cooperation Collapse in the Harmony Game: Revisiting Scodel and Minas Through Evolutionary Game Theory2026
  4. 4Integrating upstream and downstream reciprocity stabilizes cooperator-defector coexistence in N-player giving games2025
  5. 5Evolutionary Dynamics of Variable Games in Structured Populations2026 · 2 citations