An Investigation into the Use of Group Dynamics for Solving Social Dilemmas

  • Tomohisa Yamashita
  • Kiyoshi Izumi
  • Koichi Kurumatani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3415)


In this research, we propose some group dynamics that promote cooperative behavior in systems with social dilemmas and hence enhances their performance. If cooperative behavior among self-interest individuals is established, effective distribution of resources and useful allocation of tasks based on coalition formation can be realized. In order to realize these group dynamics, we extend the partner choice mechanisms for 2-IPD to that for N-person Dilemma game. Furthermore, we propose group split based on metanorm as a new group dynamic. A series of evolutionary simulations confirm that this group dynamic: i) establishes and maintains cooperation, and ii) enhances the performance of the systems consisting of self-interest players in Social Dilemmas situations.


Multiagent System Average Payoff Group Dynamic Cooperative Behavior Coalition Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ashlock, D., Smucker, S., Stanley, A., Tesfatsion, L.: Preferential Partner Selection in an Evolutionary Study of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. BioSystems 37(1-2), 99–125 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.: An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Political Science Review 80, 1095–1111 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Axelrod, R.: The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Axtell, R.: The Emergence of Firms in a Population of Agents: Local Increasing Returns, Unstable Nash Equilibria, and Power Law Size Distributions. The Brookings Institution CSED Working Paper 3 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Axtell, R.: Non-Cooperative Dynamics of Multi-Agent Teams. In: Proceedings of The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1082–1089 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batali, J., Kitcher, P.: Evolution of Altruism in Optional and Compulsory Games. Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 161–171 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bicchieri, C.: Rationality and Coordination. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caillou, P., Aknine, S., Pinson, S.: A Multi-Agent Method for Forming and Dynamic Restructuring of Pareto Optimal Coalitions. In: Proceedings of The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1074–1081 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen, M.D., Riolo, R.L., Axelrod, R.: The Emergence of Social Organization in the Prisoner’s Dilemma: How Context-Preservation and Other Factors Promote Cooperation. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, 99-01-002, Santa Fe Institute (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dawes, R.M.: Social Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology 31, 169–193 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauert, C., Monte, S., Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K.: Volunteering as Red Queen Mechanism for Cooperation in Public Goods Game. Science 296, 1129–1132 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hauk, E., Nagel, R.: Choice of Partners in Multiple Prisoner’s Two-person Prisoner’s Dilemma Games: An Experimental Study. Economics Working Papers, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirshleifer, D., Rasmusen, E.: Cooperation in a Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma with Ostracism. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 12, 87–106Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luis, J., Silva, T.: Vowels Co-ordination Model. In: Proceedings of The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1129–1136 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shussler, R.: Exit Threats and Cooperation under Anonymity. Journal of Conflict Resolution 33, 728–749 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanley, E.A., Ashlock, D., Tesfatsion, L.: Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma with Choice and Refusal of Partners. Artificial Life III, 131–175 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soh, L., Tsatsoulis, C.: Satisficing Coalition Formation Agents. In: Proceedings of The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1062–1063 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tesfatsion, L.: A Trade Network Game with Endogenous Partner Selection, pp. 249–269. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamashita, T., Ohuchi, A.: Analysis of Norms Game with Mutual Choice. In: Exploring New Frontiers on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 174–184. Springer, Tokyo (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomohisa Yamashita
    • 1
  • Kiyoshi Izumi
    • 1
  • Koichi Kurumatani
    • 1
  1. 1.Cyber Assist Research Center (CARC)National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations