Signalling boosts the evolution of cooperation in repeated group interactions

Evolution of trust in N-player trust games with loss assessment

Trust plays a crucial role in social and economic interactions, serving as the foundation for social stability and human cooperation. Previous studies have explored the evolution of trust between investors and trustees by constructing trust game models, incorporating factors such as network structure, reputation, and incentives. However, these studies often assume that investors consistently maintain their investment behavior, neglecting the potential influence of the investment environment on investment behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a loss assessment mechanism and construct a trust game model. Specifically, investors first allocate their investment amount to an assessment agency, which divides the amount into two parts according to a certain allocation ratio. One part is used for investment assessment, and the results are fed back to the investors. If the payoff from this portion exceeds the investors' expected value, the remaining amount is invested; otherwise, it is returned to the investors. The results indicate that investors with moderate expectations are more likely to form alliances with trustworthy trustees, thereby effectively promoting the evolution of trust. Conversely, lower or higher expectations yield opposite results. Additionally, we find that as investors' expected values increase, the corresponding allocation ratio should also increase to achieve higher payoffs.

Committing to the wrong artificial delegate in a collective-risk dilemma is better than directly committing mistakes

While autonomous artificial agents are assumed to perfectly execute the strategies they are programmed with, humans who design them may make mistakes. These mistakes may lead to a misalignment between the humans' intended goals and their agents' observed behavior, a problem of value alignment. Such an alignment problem may have particularly strong consequences when these autonomous systems are used in social contexts that involve some form of collective risk. By means of an evolutionary game theoretical model, we investigate whether errors in the configuration of artificial agents change the outcome of a collective-risk dilemma, in comparison to a scenario with no delegation. Delegation is here distinguished from no-delegation simply by the moment at which a mistake occurs: either when programming/choosing the agent (in case of delegation) or when executing the actions at each round of the game (in case of no-delegation). We find that, while errors decrease success rate, it is better to delegate and commit to a somewhat flawed strategy, perfectly executed by an autonomous agent, than to commit execution errors directly. Our model also shows that in the long-term, delegation strategies should be favored over no-delegation, if given the choice.

Inequality leads to the evolution of intolerance in reputation-based populations

This work studies the impact of economic inequality on the evolution of intolerance through a reputation-based model of indirect reciprocity. Results show that economic inequality is a powerful enhancer of intolerance, inducing the escalation of out-group discrimination even without the presence of new intolerant mutants. It also generates behavior modifications within tolerant disfavored minorities: their members either relax punishments against the uncooperative or prioritize helping the wealthy, even suffering discrimination in return. On the other hand, the redistribution of wealth is proven as a viable solution to avoid the spread of intolerance as long as it increases equality and is implemented before intolerance permeates part of the population.