↓ Skip to main content

Cooperation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma game with probabilistic abstention

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cooperation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma game with probabilistic abstention
Published in
Scientific Reports, September 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-32933-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcos Cardinot, Josephine Griffith, Colm O’Riordan, Matjaž Perc

Abstract

Research has shown that the addition of abstention as an option transforms social dilemmas to rock-paper-scissor type games, where defectors dominate cooperators, cooperators dominate abstainers (loners), and abstainers (loners), in turn, dominate defectors. In this way, abstention can sustain cooperation even under adverse conditions, although defection also persists due to cyclic dominance. However, to abstain or to act as a loner has, to date, always been considered as an independent, third strategy to complement traditional cooperation and defection. Here we consider probabilistic abstention, where each player is assigned a probability to abstain in a particular instance of the game. In the two limiting cases, the studied game reverts to the prisoner's dilemma game without loners or to the optional prisoner's dilemma game. For intermediate probabilities, we have a new hybrid game, which turns out to be most favorable for the successful evolution of cooperation. We hope this novel hybrid game provides a more realistic view of the dilemma of optional/voluntary participation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 19%
Social Sciences 4 15%
Psychology 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,627,525
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#61,899
of 124,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,726
of 341,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,818
of 3,608 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,608 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.