Cited by 302Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolution and Genetic DynamicsMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

Evolution of cooperation in a finite homogeneous graph

Taylor, Peter D., Day, Troy, Wild, Geoff·2007·Nature

Abstract

Recent theoretical studies of selection in finite structured populations have worked with one of two measures of selective advantage of an allele: fixation probability and inclusive fitness. Each approach has its own analytical strengths, but given certain assumptions they provide equivalent results. In most instances the structure of the population can be specified by a network of nodes connected by edges (that is, a graph), and much of the work here has focused on a continuous-time model of evolution, first described by ref. 11. Working in this context, we provide an inclusive fitness analysis to derive a surprisingly simple analytical condition for the selective advantage of a cooperative allele in any graph for which the structure satisfies a general symmetry condition ('bi-transitivity'). Our results hold for a broad class of population structures, including most of those analysed previously, as well as some for which a direct calculation of fixation probability has appeared intractable. Notably, under some forms of population regulation, the ability of a cooperative allele to invade is seen to be independent of the nature of population structure (and in particular of how game partnerships are specified) and is identical to that for an unstructured population. For other types of population regulation our results reveal that cooperation can invade if players choose partners along relatively 'high-weight' edges.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature05784

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In static networks, mathematical approaches provide general conditions for how structure affects evolutionary dynamics.

    “In static networks, mathematical approaches provide general conditions for how structure affects evolutionary dynamics [14, 15].”

    From Strategy evolution on dynamic networks (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, P. D., Day, T., & Wild, G.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Peter D.
Venue
Nature
Published
2007-05
Volume
447
Issue
7143
Pages
469-472
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1967049382
Cited by
302
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 19
FWCI
77.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Keywords
evolution of cooperation, homogeneous graphs, inclusive fitness, fixation probability, selective advantage, invasion fitness, population regulation, partner choice, game theory, structured populations
MeSH terms
Alleles, Competitive Behavior, Biological Evolution, Fertility, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phenotype

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review