search

davidrpugh / population-ecology-approach

0 stars 2 forks source link

Various signaling probs with asymmetric screening #23

Closed davidrpugh closed 9 years ago

davidrpugh commented 9 years ago

"Altruistic" preferring males are better at screening

In this first case of asymmetric screening, altruistic preferring males are better at screening...

Case where the IPD condition is not satisfied

In the plots below, I use the following payoff matrix:

payoffs = {'PiaA': 9.0, 'PiAA': 5.0, 'Piaa': 3.0, 'PiAa': 2.0}

Sweep of signaling probabilities

Case where IPD condition is satisfied

In the plots below, I use the following payoff matrix:

payoffs = {'PiaA': 7.0, 'PiAA': 5.0, 'Piaa': 3.0, 'PiAa': 2.0}

Note the for this payoff matrix the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) condition (i.e., 2 * PiAA > PiaA + PiAa is satisfied. As posited by @markeschaffer, imposing the IPD condition seems to eliminate the stable/balanced polymorphism (i.e., interior equilibria).

Sweep of signaling probabilities

"Selfish" preferring Males are better at screening

In this second case, selfish preferring males are better at screening...

Case where IPD condition is not satisfied

In the plots below, I use the following payoff matrix:

payoffs = {'PiaA': 9.0, 'PiAA': 5.0, 'Piaa': 3.0, 'PiAa': 2.0}

Sweep of signaling probabilities

Case where IPD condition is satisfied

In the plots below, I use the following payoff matrix:

payoffs = {'PiaA': 7.0, 'PiAA': 5.0, 'Piaa': 3.0, 'PiAa': 2.0}

Note the for this payoff matrix the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) condition (i.e., 2 * PiAA > PiaA + PiAa is satisfied. As posited by @markeschaffer, imposing the IPD condition seems to eliminate the stable/balanced polymorphism (i.e., interior equilibria).

Sweep of signaling probabilities

@markeschaffer , @PaulSeabright your thoughts?