Chaoqian Wang

Chaoqian Wang, Jingyang Li, Xinwei Wang et al.

Cooperating first then mimicking the partner's act has been proven to be effective in utilizing reciprocity in social dilemmas. However, the extent to which this, called Tit-for-Tat strategy, should be regarded as equivalent to unconditional cooperators remains controversial. Here, we introduce a biased Tit-for-Tat (T) strategy that cooperates differently toward unconditional cooperators (C) and fellow T players through independent bias parameters. The results show that, even under strong dilemmas in the donation game framework, this three-strategy system can exhibit diverse phase diagrams on the parameter plane. In particular, when T-bias is small and C-bias is large, a ``hidden T phase'' emerges, in which the weakest T strategy dominates. The dominance of the weakened T strategy originates from a counterintuitive mechanism characterizing non-transitive ecological systems: T suppresses its relative fitness to C, rapidly eliminates the cyclic dominance clusters, and subsequently expands slowly to take over the entire population. Analysis in well-mixed populations confirms that this phenomenon arises from structured populations. Our study thus reveals the subtle role of bias regulation in cooperative modes by emphasizing the ``survival of the weakest'' effect in a broader context.

Haidong Zhang, Chaoqian Wang, Shuo Liu et al.

Trust is one of the cornerstones of human society. One of the evolutionary pressure mechanisms that may have led to its emergence is the presence of incentives for trustworthy behavior. However, this type of reward has received relatively little attention in the context of spatial trust games, which are often used to build models in evolutionary game theory. To fill this gap, we introduce an inter-role reward mechanism in the spatial trust game, so that an investing trustor can choose to pay an extra cost to reward a trustworthy trustee. With extensive numerical simulations, we find that this type of reward does not always promote trust. Rather, while moderate rewards break the dominance of mistrust, thereby favoring investment, excessive rewards eventually stimulate a nonreturn strategy, ultimately suppressing the evolution of trust. Additionally, lower reward costs do not necessarily promote trust. Instead, more costly, but not excessive, rewards enhance the advantage of the original investment, consolidating the clusters of rewarders and improving trust. Our model thus provides evidence about the counterintuitive nature of the relationship between trust and rewards in a complex society.