Utility Evaluation Based on One-To-N Mapping in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game for Interdependent Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of evolutionary game theory, network reciprocity has become an important means to promote the level of promotion within the population system. Recently, the interdependency provides a novel perspective to understand the widespread cooperation behavior in many real-world systems. In previous works, interdependency is often built from the direct or indirect connections between two networks through the one-to-one mapping mode. However, under many realistic scenarios, players may need much more information from many neighboring agents so as to make a more rational decision. Thus, beyond the one-to-one mapping mode, we investigate the cooperation behavior on two interdependent lattices, in which the utility evaluation of a focal player on one lattice may not only concern himself, but also integrate the payoff information of several corresponding players on the other lattice. Large quantities of simulations indicate that the cooperation can be substantially promoted when compared to the traditionally spatial lattices. The cluster formation and phase transition are also analyzed in order to explore the role of interdependent utility coupling in the collective cooperation. Current results are beneficial to deeply understand various mechanisms to foster the cooperation exhibited inside natural, social and engineering systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".