Virome characterization of game animals in China reveals a spectrum of emerging pathogens.

Game animals are wildlife species traded and consumed as food and are potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We performed a meta-transcriptomic analysis of 1,941 game animals, representing 18 species and five mammalian orders, sampled across China. From this, we identified 102 mammalian-infecting viruses, with 65 described for the first time. Twenty-one viruses were considered as potentially high risk to humans and domestic animals. Civets (Paguma larvata) carried the highest number of potentially high-risk viruses. We inferred the transmission of bat-associated coronavirus from bats to civets, as well as cross-species jumps of coronaviruses from bats to hedgehogs, from birds to porcupines, and from dogs to raccoon dogs. Of note, we identified avian Influenza A virus H9N2 in civets and Asian badgers, with the latter displaying respiratory symptoms, as well as cases of likely human-to-wildlife virus transmission. These data highlight the importance of game animals as potential drivers of disease emergence.

Social bond dynamics and the evolution of helping.

Empiricists often struggle to apply game theory models to real-life cases of animal cooperation. One reason is that many examples of cooperation occur in stable groups, where individuals form social bonds that influence exchanges of help in ways that are not well described by previous models, including the extent of reciprocity and how relationships are initiated. We present a game theory model exploring the conditions under which social bonds between group members promote cooperation. In the model, bonds build up from exchanges of help in a similar way as the strength of association increases in learning, as in the Rescorla-Wagner rule. The bonds in turn affect partner choice and influence helping amounts. The model has a mechanism of reciprocity for bonded pairs, which can evolve toward either loose or strict reciprocation. Several aspects of the model are inspired by observations of food sharing in vampire bats. We find that small social neighborhoods are required for the evolutionary stability of helping, either as small group sizes, or if bonded members of larger groups can form temporary (daily) smaller groupings. The costs of helping need to be fairly low, while the benefits can be substantial. The form of reciprocity that evolves is neither immediate nor very strict. Individuals in need request help based on bond strength, but there is also an evolved preference for initiating bonds with new group members. In contrast, if different groups come into temporary contact, the evolved tendency is to avoid forming bonds between groups.

The evolution of social behaviors and risk preferences in settings with uncertainty.

Humans update their social behavior in response to past experiences and changing environments. Behavioral decisions are further complicated by uncertainty in the outcome of social interactions. Faced with uncertainty, some individuals exhibit risk aversion while others seek risk. Attitudes toward risk may depend on socioeconomic status; and individuals may update their risk preferences over time, which will feedback on their social behavior. Here, we study how uncertainty and risk preferences shape the evolution of social behaviors. We extend the game-theoretic framework for behavioral evolution to incorporate uncertainty about payoffs and variation in how individuals respond to this uncertainty. We find that different attitudes toward risk can substantially alter behavior and long-term outcomes, as individuals seek to optimize their rewards from social interactions. In a standard setting without risk, for example, defection always overtakes a well-mixed population engaged in the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, whereas risk aversion can reverse the direction of evolution, promoting cooperation over defection. When individuals update their risk preferences along with their strategic behaviors, a population can oscillate between periods dominated by risk-averse cooperators and periods of risk-seeking defectors. Our analysis provides a systematic account of how risk preferences modulate, and even coevolve with, behavior in an uncertain social world.

The consequences of AI training on human decision-making.

AI is now an integral part of everyday decision-making, assisting us in both routine and high-stakes choices. These AI models often learn from human behavior, assuming this training data is unbiased. However, we report five studies that show that people change their behavior to instill desired routines into AI, indicating this assumption is invalid. To show this behavioral shift, we recruited participants to play the ultimatum game, where they were asked to decide whether to accept proposals of monetary splits made by either other human participants or AI. Some participants were informed their choices would be used to train an AI proposer, while others did not receive this information. Across five experiments, we found that people modified their behavior to train AI to make fair proposals, regardless of whether they could directly benefit from the AI training. After completing this task once, participants were invited to complete this task again but were told their responses would not be used for AI training. People who had previously trained AI persisted with this behavioral shift, indicating that the new behavioral routine had become habitual. This work demonstrates that using human behavior as training data has more consequences than previously thought since it can engender AI to perpetuate human biases and cause people to form habits that deviate from how they would normally act. Therefore, this work underscores a problem for AI algorithms that aim to learn unbiased representations of human preferences.

Indirect reciprocity undermines indirect reciprocity destabilizing large-scale cooperation.

Previous models suggest that indirect reciprocity (reputation) can stabilize large-scale human cooperation [K. Panchanathan, R. Boyd, Nature 432, 499-502 (2004)]. The logic behind these models and experiments [J. Gross et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eadd8289 (2023) and O. P. Hauser, A. Hendriks, D. G. Rand, M. A. Nowak, Sci. Rep. 6, 36079 (2016)] is that a strategy in which individuals conditionally aid others based on their reputation for engaging in costly cooperative behavior serves as a punishment that incentivizes large-scale cooperation without the second-order free-rider problem. However, these models and experiments fail to account for individuals belonging to multiple groups with reputations that can be in conflict. Here, we extend these models such that individuals belong to a smaller, "local" group embedded within a larger, "global" group. This introduces competing strategies for conditionally aiding others based on their cooperative behavior in the local or global group. Our analyses reveal that the reputation for cooperation in the smaller local group can undermine cooperation in the larger global group, even when the theoretical maximum payoffs are higher in the larger global group. This model reveals that indirect reciprocity alone is insufficient for stabilizing large-scale human cooperation because cooperation at one scale can be considered defection at another. These results deepen the puzzle of large-scale human cooperation.

Abundant resources can trigger reduced consumption: Unveiling the paradox of excessive scrounging.

In ecological contexts, it is conventionally expected that increased food availability would boost consumption, particularly when animals prioritize maximizing their food intake. This paper challenges this conventional wisdom by conducting an in-depth game-theoretic analysis of a basic foraging model, in which animals must choose between intensive food searching as producers or moderate searching while relying on group members as scroungers. Our study reveals that, under certain circumstances, increasing food availability can amplify the inclination to scrounge to such an extent that it leads to a reduction in animals' food consumption compared to scenarios with limited food availability. We further illustrate a similar phenomenon in a model capturing free-riding dynamics among workers in a company. We demonstrate that, under certain reward mechanisms, enhancing workers' production capacities can inadvertently trigger a surge in free-riding behavior, leading to both diminished group productivity and reduced individual payoffs. Our findings provide intriguing insights into the complex relationships between individual and group performances, as well as the intricate mechanisms underlying the emergence of free-riding behavior in competitive environments.

Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games.

Some scholars find that behavioral variation in the public goods game is explained by variations in participants' understanding of how to maximize payoff and that confusion leads to cooperation. Their findings lead them to question the common assumption in behavioral economics experiments that choices reflect motivations. We conduct two experiments, in which we minimize confusion by providing participants with increased training. We also introduce a question that specifically assesses participants' understanding of payoff maximization choices. Our experimental results show that the distribution of behavior types is significantly different when participants play with computers versus humans. A significant increase in contributions is also observed when participants play with humans compared to when they play with computers. Moreover, social norms may be the main motive for contributions when playing with computers. Our findings suggest that social preferences, rather than confusion, play a crucial role in determining contributions in public goods games when playing with humans. We therefore argue that the assumption in behavioral economics experiments that choices reveal motivations is indeed valid.

The distorting effects of producer strategies: Why engagement does not reveal consumer preferences for misinformation.

A great deal of empirical research has examined who falls for misinformation and why. Here, we introduce a formal game-theoretic model of engagement with news stories that captures the strategic interplay between (mis)information consumers and producers. A key insight from the model is that observed patterns of engagement do not necessarily reflect the preferences of consumers. This is because producers seeking to promote misinformation can use strategies that lead moderately inattentive readers to engage more with false stories than true ones-even when readers prefer more accurate over less accurate information. We then empirically test people's preferences for accuracy in the news. In three studies, we find that people strongly prefer to click and share news they perceive as more accurate-both in a general population sample, and in a sample of users recruited through Twitter who had actually shared links to misinformation sites online. Despite this preference for accurate news-and consistent with the predictions of our model-we find markedly different engagement patterns for articles from misinformation versus mainstream news sites. Using 1,000 headlines from 20 misinformation and 20 mainstream news sites, we compare Facebook engagement data with 20,000 accuracy ratings collected in a survey experiment. Engagement with a headline is negatively correlated with perceived accuracy for misinformation sites, but positively correlated with perceived accuracy for mainstream sites. Taken together, these theoretical and empirical results suggest that consumer preferences cannot be straightforwardly inferred from empirical patterns of engagement.

Computational evolution of social norms in well-mixed and group-structured populations.

Models of indirect reciprocity study how social norms promote cooperation. In these models, cooperative individuals build up a positive reputation, which in turn helps them in their future interactions. The exact reputational benefits of cooperation depend on the norm in place, which may change over time. Previous research focused on the stability of social norms. Much less is known about how social norms initially evolve when competing with many others. A comprehensive evolutionary analysis, however, has been difficult. Even among the comparably simple space of so-called third-order norms, there are thousands of possibilities, each one inducing its own reputation dynamics. To address this challenge, we use large-scale computer simulations. We study the reputation dynamics of each third-order norm and all evolutionary transitions between them. In contrast to established work with only a handful of norms, we find that cooperation is hard to maintain in well-mixed populations. However, within group-structured populations, cooperation can emerge. The most successful norm in our simulations is particularly simple. It regards cooperation as universally positive, and defection as usually negative-unless defection takes the form of justified punishment. This research sheds light on the complex interplay of social norms, their induced reputation dynamics, and population structure.

A mechanistic model of gossip, reputations, and cooperation.

Social reputations facilitate cooperation: those who help others gain a good reputation, making them more likely to receive help themselves. But when people hold private views of one another, this cycle of indirect reciprocity breaks down, as disagreements lead to the perception of unjustified behavior that ultimately undermines cooperation. Theoretical studies often assume population-wide agreement about reputations, invoking rapid gossip as an endogenous mechanism for reaching consensus. However, the theory of indirect reciprocity lacks a mechanistic description of how gossip actually generates consensus. Here, we develop a mechanistic model of gossip-based indirect reciprocity that incorporates two alternative forms of gossip: exchanging information with randomly selected peers or consulting a single gossip source. We show that these two forms of gossip are mathematically equivalent under an appropriate transformation of parameters. We derive an analytical expression for the minimum amount of gossip required to reach sufficient consensus and stabilize cooperation. We analyze how the amount of gossip necessary for cooperation depends on the benefits and costs of cooperation, the assessment rule (social norm), and errors in reputation assessment, strategy execution, and gossip transmission. Finally, we show that biased gossip can either facilitate or hinder cooperation, depending on the direction and magnitude of the bias. Our results contribute to the growing literature on cooperation facilitated by communication, and they highlight the need to study strategic interactions coupled with the spread of social information.

Explaining the evolution of gossip.

Gossip, the exchange of personal information about absent third parties, is ubiquitous in human societies. However, the evolution of gossip remains a puzzle. The current article proposes an evolutionary cycle of gossip and uses an agent-based evolutionary game-theoretic model to assess it. We argue that the evolution of gossip is the joint consequence of its reputation dissemination and selfishness deterrence functions. Specifically, the dissemination of information about individuals' reputations leads more individuals to condition their behavior on others' reputations. This induces individuals to behave more cooperatively toward gossipers in order to improve their reputations. As a result, gossiping has an evolutionary advantage that leads to its proliferation. The evolution of gossip further facilitates these two functions of gossip and sustains the evolutionary cycle.

CAPE: a deep learning framework with Chaos-Attention net for Promoter Evolution.

Predicting the strength of promoters and guiding their directed evolution is a crucial task in synthetic biology. This approach significantly reduces the experimental costs in conventional promoter engineering. Previous studies employing machine learning or deep learning methods have shown some success in this task, but their outcomes were not satisfactory enough, primarily due to the neglect of evolutionary information. In this paper, we introduce the Chaos-Attention net for Promoter Evolution (CAPE) to address the limitations of existing methods. We comprehensively extract evolutionary information within promoters using merged chaos game representation and process the overall information with modified DenseNet and Transformer structures. Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on two kinds of distinct tasks related to prokaryotic promoter strength prediction. The incorporation of evolutionary information enhances the model's accuracy, with transfer learning further extending its adaptability. Furthermore, experimental results confirm CAPE's efficacy in simulating in silico directed evolution of promoters, marking a significant advancement in predictive modeling for prokaryotic promoter strength. Our paper also presents a user-friendly website for the practical implementation of in silico directed evolution on promoters. The source code implemented in this study and the instructions on accessing the website can be found in our GitHub repository https://github.com/BobYHY/CAPE.

Score-mediated mutual consent and indirect reciprocity.

Helping strangers at a cost to oneself is a hallmark of many human interactions, but difficult to justify from the viewpoint of natural selection, particularly in anonymous one-shot interactions. Reputational scoring can provide the necessary motivation via "indirect reciprocity," but maintaining reliable scores requires close oversight to prevent cheating. We show that in the absence of such supervision, it is possible that scores might be managed by mutual consent between the agents themselves instead of by third parties. The space of possible strategies for such "consented" score changes is very large but, using a simple cooperation game, we search it, asking what kinds of agreement can i) invade a population from rare and ii) resist invasion once common. We prove mathematically and demonstrate computationally that score mediation by mutual consent does enable cooperation without oversight. Moreover, the most invasive and stable strategies belong to one family and ground the concept of value by incrementing one score at the cost of the other, thus closely resembling the token exchange that underlies money in everyday human transactions. The most successful strategy has the flavor of money except that agents without money can generate new score if they meet. This strategy is evolutionarily stable, and has higher fitness, but is not physically realizable in a decentralized way; when conservation of score is enforced more money-like strategies dominate. The equilibrium distribution of scores under any of this family of strategies is geometric, meaning that agents with score 0 are inherent to money-like strategies.

Reproductive variance can drive behavioral dynamics.

The concept of fitness is central to evolution, but it quantifies only the expected number of offspring an individual will produce. The actual number of offspring is also subject to demographic stochasticity-that is, randomness associated with birth and death processes. In nature, individuals who are more fecund tend to have greater variance in their offspring number. Here, we develop a model for the evolution of two types competing in a population of nonconstant size. The fitness of each type is determined by pairwise interactions in a prisoner's dilemma game, and the variance in offspring number depends upon its mean. Although defectors are preferred by natural selection in classical population models, since they always have greater fitness than cooperators, we show that sufficiently large offspring variance can reverse the direction of evolution and favor cooperation. Large offspring variance produces qualitatively new dynamics for other types of social interactions, as well, which cannot arise in populations with a fixed size or with a Poisson offspring distribution.

Mutation enhances cooperation in direct reciprocity.

Direct reciprocity is a powerful mechanism for the evolution of cooperation based on repeated interactions between the same individuals. But high levels of cooperation evolve only if the benefit-to-cost ratio exceeds a certain threshold that depends on memory length. For the best-explored case of one-round memory, that threshold is two. Here, we report that intermediate mutation rates lead to high levels of cooperation, even if the benefit-to-cost ratio is only marginally above one, and even if individuals only use a minimum of past information. This surprising observation is caused by two effects. First, mutation generates diversity which undermines the evolutionary stability of defectors. Second, mutation leads to diverse communities of cooperators that are more resilient than homogeneous ones. This finding is relevant because many real-world opportunities for cooperation have small benefit-to-cost ratios, which are between one and two, and we describe how direct reciprocity can attain cooperation in such settings. Our result can be interpreted as showing that diversity, rather than uniformity, promotes evolution of cooperation.

An impossibility theorem in game dynamics.

The Nash equilibrium-a combination of choices by the players of a game from which no self-interested player would deviate-is the predominant solution concept in game theory. Even though every game has a Nash equilibrium, it is not known whether there are deterministic behaviors of the players who play a game repeatedly that are guaranteed to converge to a Nash equilibrium of the game from all starting points. If one assumes that the players' behavior is a discrete-time or continuous-time rule whereby the current mixed strategy profile is mapped to the next, this question becomes a problem in the theory of dynamical systems. We apply this theory, and in particular Conley index theory, to prove a general impossibility result: There exist games, for which all game dynamics fail to converge to Nash equilibria from all starting points. The games which help prove this impossibility result are degenerate, but we conjecture that the same result holds, under computational complexity assumptions, for nondegenerate games. We also prove a stronger impossibility result for the solution concept of approximate Nash equilibria: For a set of games of positive measure, no game dynamics can converge to the set of approximate Nash equilibria for a sufficiently small yet substantial approximation bound. Our results establish that, although the notions of Nash equilibrium and its computation-inspired approximations are universally applicable in all games, they are fundamentally incomplete as predictors of long-term player behavior.

Oligopoly competition between satellite constellations will reduce economic welfare from orbit use.

Orbital space enables many essential services, such as weather forecasting, global communication, navigation, Earth observation for environmental and agricultural management, and national security applications. Orbit use is increasingly defined by firms launching coordinated fleets-"constellations"-of satellites into low-Earth orbit. These firms operate in markets with few or no competitors, such as the market for broadband internet provision to rural areas. How will oligopolistic competition shape the allocation of orbital space? We analyze orbital-use patterns and economic welfare when two profit-maximizing firms operate satellite constellations with sophisticated collision avoidance systems. We compare this duopoly equilibrium to public utility constellations designed and regulated to maximize economic welfare from orbit use. We show that imperfect competition reduces economic welfare from orbit use by up to 12%-$1.1 billion USD-per year and distorts the allocation of orbital space. The nature of the distortion depends on the magnitude of constellation-related environmental damages. When damages are low, economic welfare is maximized by larger-than-equilibrium constellations. When damages are high, economic welfare is maximized by smaller-than-equilibrium constellations. Between the growing commercial and national interests in outer space and the importance of low-Earth orbit to space exploration, orbit-use management is likely to be a fruitful and policy-relevant area for economic research. We conclude with a discussion of future research directions in orbit-use management relevant to policymakers around the world.

Adaptations to infer fitness interdependence promote the evolution of cooperation.

The evolution of cooperation is a major question in the biological and behavioral sciences. While most theoretical studies model cooperation in the context of an isolated interaction (e.g., a Prisoner's Dilemma), humans live in heterogeneous social environments, characterized by large variations in fitness interdependence-the extent to which one's fitness is affected by others. Theoretical and experimental work indicates that humans can infer, and respond to, variations in interdependence. In a heterogeneous ancestral environment, these psychological mechanisms to infer fitness interdependence could have provided a selective advantage, allowing individuals to maximize their fitness by deciding when and with whom to cooperate. Yet, to date, the link between cognitive inference, variation in fitness interdependence, and cooperation remains unclear. Here we introduce a theoretical framework to study the evolution of inference and cooperation in heterogeneous social environments, where individuals experience interactions with varying levels of corresponding interests. Using a combination of evolutionary game theory and agent-based modeling, we model the evolution of adaptive agents, who incur a cost to infer interdependence, in populations of fixed-behavior agents who always cooperate or defect. Our results indicate that natural selection could promote the evolution of psychological mechanisms to infer fitness interdependence, provided that there is enough variation in fitness interdependence to offset the cost of inference. Under certain conditions, the fixation of adaptive agents results in higher levels of cooperation. This depends crucially on the type of inference performed and the features of the interdependence landscape.

Individual costs and societal benefits of interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individual and societal reactions to an ongoing pandemic can lead to social dilemmas: In some cases, each individual is tempted to not follow an intervention, but for the whole society, it would be best if they did. Now that in most countries, the extent of regulations to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission is very small, interventions are driven by individual decision-making. Assuming that individuals act in their best own interest, we propose a framework in which this situation can be quantified, depending on the protection the intervention provides to a user and to others, the risk of getting infected, and the costs of the intervention. We discuss when a tension between individual and societal benefits arises and which parameter comparisons are important to distinguish between different regimes of intervention use.

Evolution of norms for judging social behavior.

Reputations provide a powerful mechanism to sustain cooperation, as individuals cooperate with those of good social standing. But how should someone's reputation be updated as we observe their social behavior, and when will a population converge on a shared norm for judging behavior? Here, we develop a mathematical model of cooperation conditioned on reputations, for a population that is stratified into groups. Each group may subscribe to a different social norm for assessing reputations and so norms compete as individuals choose to move from one group to another. We show that a group initially comprising a minority of the population may nonetheless overtake the entire population-especially if it adopts the Stern Judging norm, which assigns a bad reputation to individuals who cooperate with those of bad standing. When individuals do not change group membership, stratifying reputation information into groups tends to destabilize cooperation, unless individuals are strongly insular and favor in-group social interactions. We discuss the implications of our results for the structure of information flow in a population and for the evolution of social norms of judgment.