Skip to main content
. 2014 Apr 24;10(4):e1003567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003567

Figure 6. Average fraction of strategy Inline graphic for different ratios between interactions and strategy updates in homogenous (top row) and heterogeneous (middle row) populations and the difference between them (bottom row) as a function of the game parameters Inline graphic and Inline graphic (c.f. Figure 3).

Figure 6

Interactions occur with probability Inline graphic and strategy updates with Inline graphic. For example, for Inline graphic each individual has, on average, initiated Inline graphic interactions between strategy updates but only an average of Inline graphic interactions for Inline graphic. For small Inline graphic effects of heterogenous population structures have little chance to manifest themselves and the results are closer to those for averaged payoffs (c.f. Figure 3). In contrast, for large Inline graphic heterogeneity plays an important role: for scale-free networks it is guided by the structural heterogeneity whereas in homogenous populations another form of heterogeneity spontaneously emerges in the number of interactions. Even on lattices, stochastic differences in the number of interactions get amplified by the dynamics because an increased number of interactions reduces the chances that an individual updates its strategy (c.f. Figure 7). As a consequence the results for lattices and scale-free networks become increasingly similar but scale-free networks keep promoting Inline graphic types to a greater extend. Parameters and averaging technique are as in the caption to Figure 3.