Ve increased the prevalence of strategic defections (i.e., in anticipation

Ve increased the prevalence of strategic defections (i.e., in anticipation of others defecting or to exploit cooperators), especially for low rewiring rates. It is therefore striking that, as Fig. 4A shows, the modified payoffs led to significantly higher rates of cooperation and longer persistence of cooperation for all rewiring rates. Cooperation levels approached and in many treatments reached 100 and were sustained at that level until close to the end of the game. In fact, in seven of the nine trials performed with the modified payoffs, cooperation levels were over 90 in 9 of the 12 rounds. Fig. 4B, Upper (��)-BGB-3111 molecular weight summarizes the effects, showing that a small amount of dynamic partner updating, r = 1, k = 1, resulted in14366 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.ABCDFig. 4. Results for modified payoffs, r = 1 and k = 0, 1, 5, 23, cliques initial condition. (A) Fraction of cooperation by round. (B) Aggregate fraction of cooperation as a function of total number of partner updates (Upper) and estimated difference in fraction of cooperation from the static case as a function of k (Lower). (C) Average degree by round. (D) CC (dark blue), CD (light blue), and (DD) (magenta) assortativity by round, where k = 1, 5, 23 is shown by triangles, circles and squares, respectively. In B the error bars are 95 confidence intervals (Materials and Methods).large increases in cooperation levels over the static case. As before, further increases in update rate resulted in smaller increases in cooperation levels, where, interestingly, the highest rate of rewiring, k = 23 did not lead to appreciably more cooperation or higher average payoffs than were obtained in the k = 5 condition, consistent with our hypothesis that the earlier payoff structure, not the constraints on partner updating imposed by the update rate, was responsible for the previous absence of punitive deletions. Fig. 4B, Lower, meanwhile, shows that the differences between the average cooperation levels of the r = 1, k = 1, 5, 23 and the static case were significant at the 5 level (see Materials and Methods for more details and SI Appendix, Fig. S13 for the corresponding analysis of player earnings). Fig. 4 C and D also shows interesting similarities with and differences from the original payoffs: In early rounds, players added edges much as they did previously, leading in fact to even denser networks; however, unlike in the previous case, they deleted edges as rapidly as possible toward the end of the game as defection began to spread. In fact, in the modified payoffs 22 of the partner update actions were deletions, compared with only 10 in the original payoffs (see SI Appendix, Table S2 and Fig. S14 for more details). The increased amount of deletions suggests that the amount of exploitation of cooperators by HM61713, BI 1482694 dose defectors was mitigated as a result of these new payoffs. CC and CD assortativity, meanwhile, had the same signs as before, but much lower magnitudes in the early rounds for the simple reason that cooperation levels were close to 100 , and hence baseline CC assortativity was also close to 100 . As the end of the game approached, however, the assortativity measure increased dramatically as cooperators attempted to segregate themselves from defectors, and defectors also began cutting ties with other defectors–an effect that is illustrated graphically in SI Appendix, Fig. S15. Thus, in the modified payoffs cooperators and conditional cooperators were able to separate themselves from defect.Ve increased the prevalence of strategic defections (i.e., in anticipation of others defecting or to exploit cooperators), especially for low rewiring rates. It is therefore striking that, as Fig. 4A shows, the modified payoffs led to significantly higher rates of cooperation and longer persistence of cooperation for all rewiring rates. Cooperation levels approached and in many treatments reached 100 and were sustained at that level until close to the end of the game. In fact, in seven of the nine trials performed with the modified payoffs, cooperation levels were over 90 in 9 of the 12 rounds. Fig. 4B, Upper summarizes the effects, showing that a small amount of dynamic partner updating, r = 1, k = 1, resulted in14366 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.ABCDFig. 4. Results for modified payoffs, r = 1 and k = 0, 1, 5, 23, cliques initial condition. (A) Fraction of cooperation by round. (B) Aggregate fraction of cooperation as a function of total number of partner updates (Upper) and estimated difference in fraction of cooperation from the static case as a function of k (Lower). (C) Average degree by round. (D) CC (dark blue), CD (light blue), and (DD) (magenta) assortativity by round, where k = 1, 5, 23 is shown by triangles, circles and squares, respectively. In B the error bars are 95 confidence intervals (Materials and Methods).large increases in cooperation levels over the static case. As before, further increases in update rate resulted in smaller increases in cooperation levels, where, interestingly, the highest rate of rewiring, k = 23 did not lead to appreciably more cooperation or higher average payoffs than were obtained in the k = 5 condition, consistent with our hypothesis that the earlier payoff structure, not the constraints on partner updating imposed by the update rate, was responsible for the previous absence of punitive deletions. Fig. 4B, Lower, meanwhile, shows that the differences between the average cooperation levels of the r = 1, k = 1, 5, 23 and the static case were significant at the 5 level (see Materials and Methods for more details and SI Appendix, Fig. S13 for the corresponding analysis of player earnings). Fig. 4 C and D also shows interesting similarities with and differences from the original payoffs: In early rounds, players added edges much as they did previously, leading in fact to even denser networks; however, unlike in the previous case, they deleted edges as rapidly as possible toward the end of the game as defection began to spread. In fact, in the modified payoffs 22 of the partner update actions were deletions, compared with only 10 in the original payoffs (see SI Appendix, Table S2 and Fig. S14 for more details). The increased amount of deletions suggests that the amount of exploitation of cooperators by defectors was mitigated as a result of these new payoffs. CC and CD assortativity, meanwhile, had the same signs as before, but much lower magnitudes in the early rounds for the simple reason that cooperation levels were close to 100 , and hence baseline CC assortativity was also close to 100 . As the end of the game approached, however, the assortativity measure increased dramatically as cooperators attempted to segregate themselves from defectors, and defectors also began cutting ties with other defectors–an effect that is illustrated graphically in SI Appendix, Fig. S15. Thus, in the modified payoffs cooperators and conditional cooperators were able to separate themselves from defect.