Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 20;5:9312. doi: 10.1038/srep09312

Figure 2.

Figure 2

(a) Improvement in cooperation level obtained from IRCOM and COMP compared to the case where there is no IRCOM, as a function of the cost of arranging commitment Inline graphic and the compensation cost δ. Improvement is achieved for a wide range of Inline graphic and δ. It is most significant when Inline graphic is rather high and δ is not too large, i.e. the commitment deal is weak (see Figure S1 in SI for the improvement obtained in percentage, and also for other parameter values). (b) Such improvement as a function of the accuracy-to-confidence ration, r, and for different commitment deals. In general, the larger r, the more significant improvement is obtained. Furthermore, when r is sufficiently high, larger improvement is obtained when it is costly to arrange commitments and/or a high compensation is difficult to enforced. Parameters: b = 4, c = 1, N = 100, and β = 0.1. In panel (a), r = 1.