Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:16:37.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

External conversions of player strategy in an evolutionary game: A cost-benefit analysis through optimal control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2012

MARTIN B. SHORT
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1555, USA email: [email protected]
ASHLEY B. PITCHER
Affiliation:
Centre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociales, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 190-198 Avenue de France, Paris cedex 13, France75244 email: [email protected]
MARIA R. D'ORSOGNA
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, CSUN, Los Angeles, CA 91330-8313, USA email: [email protected]

Abstract

We consider an optimal control problem based on the evolutionary game theory model introduced by Short et al. (Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J. & D'Orsogna, M. R. (2010) Cooperation and punishment in an adversarial game: How defectors pave the way to a peaceful society. Phys. Rev. E82(6), 066114.1–066114.7) to study societal attitudes in relation to committing and reporting crimes. Since in [26] (Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J. & D'Orsogna, M. R. Cooperation and punishment in an adversarial game: How defectors pave the way to a peaceful society. Phys. Rev. E82(6), 066114.1–066114.7) it is shown that the presence of criminal informants leads to diminishing crime, in this paper we investigate the active recruitment of informants from the general population via external intervention, albeit at a cost to society. While higher recruitment levels may be the most beneficial in abating crime, these are also more expensive. We thus formulate our optimal control problem to account for finite resources, incurred costs and expected benefits, and determine the most favourable recruitment strategy under given constraints. We consider the cases of targeted and untargeted recruitment, and allow recruitment costs to depend on past cumulative payoffs within a given memory time-frame so that conversion of more successful individuals may be more costly than that of less successful ones. Our optimal control problem is expressed via three control functions subject to a system of delay differential equations, and is numerically solved, analysed and discussed under different settings and in different parameter regimes. We find that the optimal strategy can change drastically and abruptly as parameters and resource constraints vary, and that increased information on individual player strategies leads to only slightly decreased minimal costs.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Abrams, D. M. & Strogatz, S. H. (2003) Modelling the dynamics of language death. Nature 424, 900.Google Scholar
[2]Akerlof, G. & Yellen, J. (1994) Gang behavior, law enforcement and community values. In: Taylor, T., Aaron, H. J. & Mann, T. E. (editors), Values and Public Policy, Brookings Institution Press, NW Washington DC, pp. 173209.Google Scholar
[3]Aletti, G., Naimzada, A. K. & Naldi, G. (2010) Mathematics and physics applications in sociodynamics simulation: The case of opinion formation. In: Naldi, G., Pareschi, L. & Toscani, G. (editors), Mathematical Modeling of Collective Behavior in Socio-Economic and Life Sciences, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, pp. 203221.Google Scholar
[4]Baker, T. E. (2005) Introductory Crime Analysis, Crime Prevention and Intervention Strategies, Pearson Custom Pub., Boston, MA.Google Scholar
[5]Baxter, G. J., Blythe, R. A., Croft, W. & McKane, A. J. (2006) Utterance selection model of language change. Phys. Rev. E 73, 046118.Google Scholar
[6]Becerra, V. M. (2010) Solving complex optimal control problems at no cost with PSOPT. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD) Part of the IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems & Control (MSC 2010), Piscataway, NJ, USA, IEEE, Washington, DC, pp. 13911396.Google Scholar
[7]Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M. & Huang, D. U. (2006) Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Phys. Rep. 424, 174308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Bryson, A. E. & Ho, Y. C. (1969) Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation, and Control, Blaisdell, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
[9]Budelis, J. J. & Bryson, A. E. (1970) Some optimal control results for differential-difference systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 15 (2), 237241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Castellano, C. (2005) Modeling cooperative behavior in the social sciences. In: Marro, J. (editor), AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 779, American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 114 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Castellano, C., Fortunato, S. & Loreto, V. (2009) Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591646.Google Scholar
[12]Ferrer, R. (2010) Breaking the law when others do: A model of law enforcement with neighborhood externalities. Eur. Econ. Rev. 54, 163180.Google Scholar
[13]Fossett, M. (2006) Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation: Theoretical explanations using simulation dynamics. J. Math. Sociol. 30, 185274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Helbing, D. & Lozano, S. (2010) Phase transitions to cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 057102.Google Scholar
[15]Jacobson, D. H., Gershwin, S. B. & Lele, M. M. (1970) Computation of optimal singular controls. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 15 (1), 6773.Google Scholar
[16]Kosmidis, K., Kalampokis, A. & Argyrakis, P. (2006) Statistical mechanical approach to human language. Phys. A 366, 495502.Google Scholar
[17]Le, S. & Boyd, R. (2007) Evolutionary dynamics of the continuous iterated prisoner's dilemma. Phys. Rev. E 245, 258267.Google ScholarPubMed
[18]Lenhart, S. & Workman, J. T. (2007) Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
[19]Liggett, T. M. (2005) Interacting Particle Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
[20]Nardini, C., Kozma, B. & Barrat, A. (2008) Who's talking first? Consenus or lackthereof in coevolving opinion formation models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 158701.Google Scholar
[21]Newman, M. E. (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 45, 167256.Google Scholar
[22]Newman, M. E., Watts, J. E. & Strogatz, S. H. (2002) Random graph models of social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 25662572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Pontryagin, L. S., Boltyanskii, V. G., Gamkrelize, R. V. & Mishchenko, E. F. (1962) The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
[24]Rapoport, A. & Chammah, A. M. (1965) Prisoner's Dilemma. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
[25]Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. (2005) Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 098104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[26]Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J. & D'Orsogna, M. R. (2010) Cooperation and punishment in an adversarial game: How defectors pave the way to a peaceful society. Phys. Rev. E 82 (6), 066114.17.Google Scholar
[27]Sood, V. & Redner, S. (2005) Voter models on heterogeneous graphs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 178701.Google Scholar
[28]Stauffer, D. (2009) Opinion dynamics and sociophysics. In: Meyers, R. (editor), Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer, New York, pp. 63806388.Google Scholar
[29]Tyler, T. R. (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
[30]Yizhaq, H., Portnov, B. A. & Meron, E. (2004) A mathematical model of segregation patterns in residential neighborhoods. Env. Plan. A 36, 149172.Google Scholar
[31]Zhang, Z. (2004) A dynamic model of residential segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 28, 147170.Google Scholar