Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of extortion in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games

Hilbe, Christian, Nowak, Martin A., Sigmund, Karl·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Iterated games are a fundamental component of economic and evolutionary game theory. They describe situations where two players interact repeatedly and have the ability to use conditional strategies that depend on the outcome of previous interactions, thus allowing for reciprocation. Recently, a new class of strategies has been proposed, so-called “zero-determinant” strategies. These strategies enforce a fixed linear relationship between one’s own payoff and that of the other player. A subset of those strategies allows “extortioners” to ensure that any increase in one player’s own payoff exceeds that of the other player by a fixed percentage. Here, we analyze the evolutionary performance of this new class of strategies. We show that in reasonably large populations, they can act as catalysts for the evolution of cooperation, similar to tit-for-tat, but that they are not the stable outcome of natural selection. In very small populations, however, extortioners hold their ground. Extortion strategies do particularly well in coevolutionary arms races between two distinct populations. Significantly, they benefit the population that evolves at the slower rate, an example of the so-called “Red King” effect. This may affect the evolution of interactions between host species and their endosymbionts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1214834110

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Evolutionary game theory shows that cooperative equilibria can be achieved due to the crucial role of players signalling their trustworthiness and reliability by choosing the cooperative strategy and bearing the cost for it in the presence of non-cooperative choices by other players.

    “The evolutionary game theory literature also shows that cooperative equilibria can be achieved due to the crucial role of players signalling their trustworthiness and reliability by choosing the cooperative strat­ egy and bearing the cost for it in the presence of non-cooperative choices by other players (Hilbe et al., 2013; Stewart and Plotkin, 2013).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.3998/mpub.20269 · DOI
  2. 10.1086/406755 · DOI · Paper page
  3. R Aumann, Survey of repeated games. Essays in Game Theory and Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern (Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, Germany, 1981).
  4. R Axelrod The Evolution of Cooperation (Basic Books, New York, 1984).
  5. 10.2307/1911307 · DOI · Paper page
  6. D Fudenberg, E Maskin, Evolution and cooperation in noisy repeated games. Am Econ Rev 80, 274–279 (1990).
  7. 10.1038/364056a0 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1142/6461 · DOI
  9. R Trivers, Reciprocal altruism: 30 years later. Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution, eds PM Kappeller, CP van Schaik (Springer, Berlin, 2006).
  10. 10.1073/pnas.1206569109 · DOI
  11. 10.1073/pnas.1208087109 · DOI
  12. C Adami A Hintze Winning isn’t everything: Evolutionary stability of Zero Determinant strategies. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666. Accessed October 12 2012. (2012). · arXiv
  13. 10.1080/00029890.1997.11990641 · DOI
  14. 10.1073/pnas.0134966100 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1007/BF00049570 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/0025-5564(78)90077-9 · DOI
  17. J Hofbauer, Deterministic evolutionary game dynamics. Evolutionary Game Dynamics, ed K Sigmund (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI), pp. 61–79 (2011). · DOI
  18. 10.1038/nature02414 · DOI
  19. 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.011909 · DOI
  20. 10.1098/rspb.2009.1171 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.jet.2005.04.006 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.06.010 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1038/srep00458 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01299.x · DOI
  25. 10.1006/jtbi.1994.1101 · DOI
  26. 10.1098/rspb.1994.0096 · DOI
  27. 10.1073/pnas.95.15.8676 · DOI
  28. 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051913 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hilbe, C., Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K.
Affiliations
  • Evolutionary Theory Group, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, 24306 Plön, Germany;
  • Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
  • Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria; and
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-04-09
Volume
110
Issue
17
Pages
6913-6918
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
275
References
2
Language
en

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