862
edits
2×2 Games/Spatial populations: Difference between revisions
From EvoLudo
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{InCharge|author1=Christoph Hauert}} | {{InCharge|author1=Christoph Hauert}}__NOTOC__ | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
In spatially structured populations the performance of an individual is determined through interactions within a limited local neighborhood rather than through interactions with randomly selected members of the population as in the case of well-mixed populations. In particular, for the Prisoner's Dilemma it is well-known that including spatial extensions enables cooperators to thrive by forming clusters and thereby reducing exploitation through defectors. Whereas in well-mixed populations cooperators invariably dwindle and disappear. Quite naturally, the inclusion of spatial dimensions (or any type of population structure) can have pronounced effects on the evolutionary dynamics of other \(2\times2\) games, too. | In spatially structured populations the performance of an individual is determined through interactions within a limited local neighborhood rather than through interactions with randomly selected members of the population as in the case of well-mixed populations. In particular, for the Prisoner's Dilemma it is well-known that including spatial extensions enables cooperators to thrive by forming clusters and thereby reducing exploitation through defectors. Whereas in well-mixed populations cooperators invariably dwindle and disappear. Quite naturally, the inclusion of spatial dimensions (or any type of population structure) can have pronounced effects on the evolutionary dynamics of other \(2\times2\) games, too. | ||
