↓ Skip to main content

Optimal distribution of incentives for public cooperation in heterogeneous interaction environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Optimal distribution of incentives for public cooperation in heterogeneous interaction environments
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaojie Chen, Matjaž Perc

Abstract

In the framework of evolutionary games with institutional reciprocity, limited incentives are at disposal for rewarding cooperators and punishing defectors. In the simplest case, it can be assumed that, depending on their strategies, all players receive equal incentives from the common pool. The question arises, however, what is the optimal distribution of institutional incentives? How should we best reward and punish individuals for cooperation to thrive? We study this problem for the public goods game on a scale-free network. We show that if the synergetic effects of group interactions are weak, the level of cooperation in the population can be maximized simply by adopting the simplest "equal distribution" scheme. If synergetic effects are strong, however, it is best to reward high-degree nodes more than low-degree nodes. These distribution schemes for institutional rewards are independent of payoff normalization. For institutional punishment, however, the same optimization problem is more complex, and its solution depends on whether absolute or degree-normalized payoffs are used. We find that degree-normalized payoffs require high-degree nodes be punished more lenient than low-degree nodes. Conversely, if absolute payoffs count, then high-degree nodes should be punished stronger than low-degree nodes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 20%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 12%
Linguistics 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,847,478
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,059
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,050
of 233,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#25
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 233,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.