Game theory elucidates how competitive dynamics mediate animal social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While most game theoretical models assume that individuals randomly interact with all other group members, strong evidence indicates that individuals tend to preferentially interact with some of them. The position of an individual in a network affects, among other factors related to survival, its predation risk and competitive success. Here I then modified the Hawk-Dove game to explore the effect of social network structure on competitive strategy of individuals that differ in their fighting ability and may adjust their use of the Hawk, Dove and Assessor tactics to maximize their foraging success when they meet opponents they are connected with. RESULTS: From randomly generated networks, I demonstrate that phenotypic assortment by fighting ability reduces individuals' aggressiveness and, as such, favours cooperative interactions. Furthermore, the success of individuals with the weakest fighting ability is usually highest within networks where they most frequently meet opponents with the same fighting ability as their own, suggesting they might benefit from breaking connections with strong contestants. This might be the case when strong contestants systematically rely on the aggressive Hawk tactic or the risk of being predated is low and independent of the number of neighbours. Thus, I extended the model and built a dynamic model to allow individuals not only to adjust their behaviour to local conditions but also to modify the structure of the social network. The number of connections and degree of phenotypic assortment are then affected by ecological factors (e.g. resources value and predation risk), but above all by whether individuals can reliably assess the competitive ability of their opponents and adjust their behaviour accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide strong evidence that behaviour can play a key role in shaping network structure and highlight the importance of considering the coevolution of network and behaviour to apprehend its consequences on population dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".