Evolution of Cooperation in a Heterogeneous Graph: Fixation Probabilities under Weak Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that natural selection favors cooperation in a homogenous graph if the benefit-to-cost ratio exceeds the degree of the graph. However, most graphs related to interactions in real populations are heterogeneous, in which some individuals have many more neighbors than others. In this paper, we introduce a new state variable to measure the time evolution of cooperation in a heterogeneous graph. Based on the diffusion approximation, we find that the fixation probability of a single cooperator depends crucially on the number of its neighbors. Under weak selection, a cooperator with more neighbors has a larger probability of fixation in the population. We then investigate the average fixation probability of a randomly chosen cooperator. If a cooperator pays a cost for each of its neighbors (the so called fixed cost per game case), natural selection favors cooperation if the benefit-to-cost ratio is larger than the average degree. In contrast, if a cooperator pays a fixed cost and all its neighbors share the benefit (the fixed cost per individual case), cooperation is favored if the benefit-to-cost ratio is larger than the harmonic mean of the degree distribution. Moreover, increasing the graph heterogeneity will reduce the effect of natural selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".