pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07584 · v1 · pith:YJ2JODUVnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · nlin.AO

Symbiosis as a systemic catalyst and the impossibility of coalitions in optimal networks

Giulia Palma , Antonio Rizzo , Chiara Mocenni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph nlin.AO
keywords symbiosiscoalition formationstrong Nash equilibriumnetwork gamesanti-coordinationniche partitioningpollination networkssystemic catalyst
0
0 comments X

The pith

Globally optimal network configurations are strong Nash equilibria that prevent coalition formation, yet coalitions are essential to reach optimality from suboptimal states.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

In models of strategic interactions on networks where agents benefit from anti-coordination, the paper proves that the best possible arrangements for the whole system are stable against any group trying to change together. This stability creates barriers, so purely selfish agents stay stuck in worse arrangements. The key insight is that when agents form coalitions, acting with shared goals, they can break out of these traps and reach the optimal setups, as shown in simulations and a real pollination example. This suggests symbiosis helps systems achieve better efficiency and resilience.

Core claim

Any globally optimal configuration in these networks constitutes a Strong Nash Equilibrium, meaning no coalition can deviate to improve all its members' payoffs. In suboptimal states, individualistic agents remain trapped, but the formation of coalitions acts as a catalyst that drives the system toward optimal niche partitioning through symbiotic joint agency.

What carries the argument

The strong Nash equilibrium property of globally optimal configurations in anti-coordination strategic network games, which creates topological barriers against collective deviations, with coalition formation serving as the mechanism to overcome stagnation.

If this is right

  • No coalition can improve upon a globally optimal network state.
  • Individualistic behavior leads to stagnant suboptimal equilibria.
  • Coalition formation enables transition to global efficiency and optimal niche partitioning.
  • Metastable dynamics emerge where coalitions reconfigure continuously.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This mechanism could explain the evolution of cooperative behaviors in biological systems beyond the modeled cases.
  • Similar dynamics might apply to economic or social networks where group actions drive efficiency.
  • The perpetual balance between competition and cooperation may be a general feature of evolving complex systems.

Load-bearing premise

Agents interact according to anti-coordination payoff rules and remain strictly individualistic unless they form coalitions.

What would settle it

Finding a globally optimal network configuration in which a subset of agents can all improve their payoffs by jointly changing their connections or strategies.

read the original abstract

The stability of complex systems hinges on the tension between individual incentives and collective welfare. Modeling these dynamics through strategic network interactions based on anti-coordination, we formally prove that any globally optimal configuration constitutes a Strong Nash Equilibrium, creating topological barriers against collective deviations. However, in sub-optimal states, strictly individualistic agents remain trapped in stagnant equilibria. We show that coalition formation acts as a vital catalyst for global efficiency. Paralleling Tomasello's evolutionary theory of shared intentionality, the emergence of symbiotic joint agency overcomes selfish stagnation and drives the system toward optimal niche partitioning. We validate our framework through extensive computational simulations and apply it to an empirical pollination network, demonstrating how symbiosis may steer real-world ecosystems toward maximum resilience. We uncover metastable dynamics where coalitions continuously reconfigure, revealing that biological evolution relies on a perpetual, adaptive balance between competition and cooperation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models strategic network interactions under anti-coordination payoffs. It claims a formal proof that any globally optimal configuration is a Strong Nash Equilibrium, thereby creating topological barriers to collective deviations. In sub-optimal states, strictly individualistic agents are trapped in stagnant equilibria, but coalition formation (paralleling Tomasello's shared intentionality) acts as a catalyst that enables escape toward optimal niche partitioning. The framework is validated via extensive simulations and applied to an empirical pollination network, with additional claims about metastable coalition dynamics.

Significance. If the central proof and simulation results are sound, the work would link network optimality to strong equilibrium concepts and provide a formal account of how limited coalition formation can drive systems from local to global efficiency, with potential relevance to ecosystem resilience.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Modeling Framework] The abstract asserts a formal proof that global optima constitute Strong Nash Equilibria under anti-coordination payoffs, yet the modeling premise that agents remain strictly individualistic unless coalitions form is introduced without explicit justification of the payoff matrix structure or the precise definition of allowable coalition deviation sets; this premise directly determines whether sub-optimal stagnation is an artifact of the chosen game rather than a general result.
  2. [Abstract] The claim that coalition formation is a 'vital catalyst' for global efficiency rests on the contrast between individualistic stagnation and joint-agency escape; without the full derivation of the payoff functions and the conditions under which coalitions are permitted to deviate, it is impossible to verify that the result is not circular with the definition of 'symbiotic joint agency'.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The parallel drawn to Tomasello's evolutionary theory of shared intentionality is stated but the precise correspondence between model entities (e.g., coalition payoffs) and the cited psychological constructs is not elaborated.
  2. [Abstract] The title refers to 'the impossibility of coalitions in optimal networks,' which aligns with the Strong Nash claim, but the abstract does not explicitly restate this as a theorem or lemma.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these comments highlighting the need for greater clarity in the abstract regarding the modeling premises and derivations. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Modeling Framework] The abstract asserts a formal proof that global optima constitute Strong Nash Equilibria under anti-coordination payoffs, yet the modeling premise that agents remain strictly individualistic unless coalitions form is introduced without explicit justification of the payoff matrix structure or the precise definition of allowable coalition deviation sets; this premise directly determines whether sub-optimal stagnation is an artifact of the chosen game rather than a general result.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Section 2) explicitly defines the anti-coordination payoff matrix on networks, with payoffs strictly higher when neighboring agents select differing actions. Allowable coalition deviation sets are defined exactly as in the strong Nash equilibrium concept: any non-empty subset of agents may jointly deviate if every member of that subset receives a strictly higher payoff. The proof that global optima are strong Nash equilibria follows directly from this structure and holds for the entire class of anti-coordination games; sub-optimal stagnation under purely individualistic (Nash) play is therefore a general property, confirmed by the simulation results across multiple topologies. To improve accessibility we will revise the abstract to include a concise reference to the payoff structure and equilibrium definition. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The claim that coalition formation is a 'vital catalyst' for global efficiency rests on the contrast between individualistic stagnation and joint-agency escape; without the full derivation of the payoff functions and the conditions under which coalitions are permitted to deviate, it is impossible to verify that the result is not circular with the definition of 'symbiotic joint agency'.

    Authors: Payoff functions are derived in the modeling section from the anti-coordination assumption; coalition deviations are permitted precisely when all members of the deviating set improve their payoffs (strong Nash condition). Symbiotic joint agency is operationalized as the capacity to form such coalitions, and the argument is not circular: the stability of optima is established first under the strong equilibrium definition, while escape from sub-optima is shown to require coalition formation. This separation is verified independently by the simulation protocol. We will add one clarifying sentence to the abstract referencing the equilibrium concepts. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The abstract claims a formal proof that global optima are Strong Nash Equilibria under anti-coordination payoffs and that coalitions catalyze efficiency, paralleling an external theory (Tomasello). No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or derivations are provided in the given text that reduce any result to its own inputs by construction. The modeling premise (anti-coordination rules, individualistic agents) is stated as an assumption rather than derived circularly. No load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear. The derivation chain cannot be walked for reductions because none are exhibited; the paper is treated as self-contained against external benchmarks per the rules.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Ledger based solely on abstract; full derivation unavailable. The model rests on game-theoretic domain assumptions and an introduced symbiosis mechanism without independent evidence supplied in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Network interactions are governed by anti-coordination games
    Central modeling choice for strategic behavior.
  • domain assumption Agents remain strictly individualistic in sub-optimal states
    Required for the claim that coalitions are necessary to escape stagnation.
invented entities (1)
  • symbiotic joint agency no independent evidence
    purpose: Catalyst that overcomes selfish stagnation to reach optimal configurations
    New mechanism introduced to link coalition formation with system-level improvement; no independent falsifiable evidence given in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5672 in / 1196 out tokens · 32270 ms · 2026-06-29T09:53:19.643351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. E. J. Newman, The Structure and Function of Complex Networks.SIAM Rev.45(2), 167–256 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Jusup, et al., Social physics.Physics Reports948, 1–148 (2022)

    M. Jusup, et al., Social physics.Physics Reports948, 1–148 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Monderer, L

    D. Monderer, L. S. Shapley, Potential Games.Games Econ. Behav.14(1), 124–143 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    Pangallo, T

    M. Pangallo, T. Heinrich, J. D. Farmer, Best reply structure and equilibrium convergence in generic games.Sci. Adv.5(2), eaat1328 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    E. R. Brush, D. C. Krakauer, J. C. Flack, Conflicts of interest improve collective computation of adaptive social structures.Sci. Adv.4(1), e1603311 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    S. A. Levin, Complex adaptive systems: exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society40(1), 3–19 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Tilman, Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats.Ecology75(1), 2–16 (1994)

    D. Tilman, Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats.Ecology75(1), 2–16 (1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    Bascompte, Disentangling the Web of Life.Science325(5939), 416–419 (2009)

    J. Bascompte, Disentangling the Web of Life.Science325(5939), 416–419 (2009). 23

    2009

  9. [9]

    K. S. McCann, The diversity-stability debate.Nature405(6783), 228–233 (2000)

    2000

  10. [10]

    J. M. Montoya, S. L. Pimm, R. V. Sol ´e, Ecological networks and their fragility.Nature442, 259–264 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    P. B. Adler, et al., Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition.Ecol. Lett.21(9), 1319–1329 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Barab ´as, M

    G. Barab ´as, M. J. Michalska-Smith, S. Allesina, The effect of intra- and interspecific compe- tition on coexistence in multispecies communities.Am. Nat.188(1), E1–E12 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Chen, X.-W

    C. Chen, X.-W. Wang, Y.-Y. Liu, Stability of ecological systems: A theoretical review.Phys. Rep.1088, 1–41 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    D. N. Morton, A. Keyes, A. K. Barner, L. E. Dee, Merging theory and experiments to predict and understand coextinctions.Trends Ecol. Evol.37(10), 886–898 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Th `ebault, C

    E. Th `ebault, C. Fontaine, A database of plant-pollinator networks (Versione 1) [Data set]. Zenodo(2020)

    2020

  16. [17]

    K. D. Fausch, S. Nakano, S. Kitano, Y. Kanno, S. Kim, Interspecific social dominance networks reveal mechanisms promoting coexistence in sympatric charr in Hokkaido, Japan.J Anim Ecol. 90, 515–527 (2021)

    2021

  17. [18]

    Pigani, D

    E. Pigani, D. Sgarbossa, S. Suweis, S. Azaele, Delay effects on the stability of large ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.119(45), e2211449119 (2022)

    2022

  18. [19]

    Lawrence, et al., Species Interactions Alter Evolutionary Responses to a Novel Environment

    D. Lawrence, et al., Species Interactions Alter Evolutionary Responses to a Novel Environment. PLoS Biol.10(5), e1001330 (2012)

    2012

  19. [20]

    C. G. Ametrano, et al., Should we hail the Red King? Evolutionary consequences of a mu- tualistic lifestyle in genomes of lichenized ascomycetes.Ecol. Evol.11(24), 18451–18462 (2021). 24

    2021

  20. [21]

    R. C. T. Wright, M. A. Brockhurst, E. Harrison, Ecological conditions determine extinction risk in co-evolving bacteria-phage populations.BMC Evol. Biol.16(1), 227 (2016)

    2016

  21. [22]

    L. G. Cosmo, J. N. Acquaviva, P. R. Guimar ˜aes Jr., M. M. Pires, Coevolutionary hotspots favour dispersal and fuel biodiversity in mutualistic landscapes under environmental changes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B379(1907), 20230133 (2024)

    1907

  22. [23]

    M. A. McPeek, The Evolutionary Ecology of Species Interactions: Shared Mechanisms of Natural Selection and Population Regulation.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.56, 1–26 (2025)

    2025

  23. [24]

    Szathm ´ary, J

    E. Szathm ´ary, J. Maynard Smith, The major evolutionary transitions.Nature374(6519), 227– 232 (1995)

    1995

  24. [25]

    M. A. Nowak, Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.Science314(5805), 1560–1563 (2006)

    2006

  25. [26]

    S. A. West, A. S. Griffin, A. Gardner, Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.J. Evol. Biol.20(2), 415–432 (2007)

    2007

  26. [27]

    C. H. Lean, W. F. Doolittle, J. P. Bielawski, Community-level evolutionary processes: Linking community genetics with replicator-interactor theory.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.119(46), e2202538119 (2022)

    2022

  27. [28]

    J. M. Epstein, Agent-based computational models and generative social science.Complexity 4(5), 41–60 (1999)

    1999

  28. [29]

    Jackson, A

    M. Jackson, A. Watts, The evolution of social and economic networks.Journal of Economic Theory106(2), 265–295 (2002)

    2002

  29. [30]

    Szab ´o, A

    G. Szab ´o, A. Szolnoki, Stabilization of biodiversity in spatial and networked rock–paper– scissors games.Physical Review E93, 032303 (2016)

    2016

  30. [31]

    Szolnoki, M

    B. Szolnoki, M. Perc, Stabilization of biodiversity in the coevolutionary rock–paper–scissors game on complex networks. (2014). 25

    2014

  31. [32]

    C. Tu, S. Suweis, A. Maritan, et al., Reconciling cooperation, biodiversity and stability in complex ecological communities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(2), 685–690 (2018)

    2018

  32. [33]

    Deshpande, A

    R. Deshpande, A. Tikhonov, J. Gore, Impossible ecologies: interactions and the stability of coexistence in small ecological networks. (2023)

    2023

  33. [34]

    Akbarpour, M

    M. Akbarpour, M. O. Jackson, A Network Formation Game.Journal of Economic Theory174, 346–373 (2018)

    2018

  34. [35]

    Y. Wu, L. Li, Q. Yu, J. Gan, Y. Zhang, Strategies for reducing polarization in social networks. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,167113095 (2023)

    2023

  35. [37]

    Commander, Maximum Cut Problem, MAX-CUT

    C. Commander, Maximum Cut Problem, MAX-CUT. In: Floudas, C., Pardalos, P. (eds) Ency- clopedia of Optimization. Springer, Boston, MA. (2008)

    2008

  36. [38]

    P. N. Panagopoulou, P. G. Spirakis, A Game Theoretic Approach for Efficient Graph Coloring. ISAAC 2008: Algorithms and Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science5369, 183–195 (2008)

    2008

  37. [39]

    Escoffier, L

    B. Escoffier, L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, Strategic Coloring of a Graph.CIAC 2010: Algorithms and Complexity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science6078, 155–166 (2010)

    2010

  38. [40]

    Carosi, G

    R. Carosi, G. Monaco, Generalized Graph k-coloring Games.COCOON 2018: Computing and Combinatorics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science10976, 268–279 (2018)

    2018

  39. [41]

    Cowen, R

    L. Cowen, R. Cowen, D. R. Woodall, Defective colorings of graphs in surfaces: Partitions into subgraphs of bounded valency.Journal of Graph Theory10, 187–195 (1986)

    1986

  40. [42]

    Cowen, W

    L. Cowen, W. Goddard, C. E. Jesurum, Defective Coloring Revisited.Journal of Graph Theory 4, 205–219 (1997)

    1997

  41. [43]

    Y. Zhou, D. Zhao, M. Ma, J. Xu, Domination Coloring of Graphs.Mathematics10, 998 (2022). 26

    2022

  42. [44]

    Q. Wu, J. K. Hao, A Memetic Approach for the Max-Cut Problem.PPSN 2012: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science7492, 297–306 (2012)

    2012

  43. [45]

    V. J. R. de Sousa, Global optimization of the max k-cut problem.Ph.D. Dissertation, D´epartement de Math ´ematiques et de G ´enie Industriel, ´Ecole Polytechnique de Montr ´eal (2018)

    2018

  44. [46]

    Hypergraphical Clustering Games of Mis-Coordination

    R. Smorodinski, S. Smorodinski, Hypergraphical Clustering Games of Mis-Coordination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05297(2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [47]

    Carosi, S

    R. Carosi, S. Fioravanti, L. Gual ´a, G. Monaco, Coalition Resilient Outcomes in Max k-Cut Games.SOFSEM 2019: Theory and Practice of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science11376, 94–107 (2019)

    2019

  46. [48]

    Y. Zhao, W. Li, J. Wu, S. Lu, Quantized conflict graphs for wireless network optimization. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Hong Kong, China, 2218–2226 (2015)

    2015

  47. [49]

    Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views

    E. Graells-Garrido, M. Lalmas, D. Quercia, Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views.ArXiv,abs/1311.4658(2013)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [50]

    Zheng, et al., Subsidised Water Symbiosis of Eco-Industrial Parks: A Multi-Stage Game Theory Approach.Journal of Cleaner Production318, 128532 (2021)

    S. Zheng, et al., Subsidised Water Symbiosis of Eco-Industrial Parks: A Multi-Stage Game Theory Approach.Journal of Cleaner Production318, 128532 (2021)

    2021

  49. [51]

    Bistaffa, et al., On the Online Coalition Structure Generation Problem.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research71, 243–268 (2021)

    F. Bistaffa, et al., On the Online Coalition Structure Generation Problem.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research71, 243–268 (2021)

    2021

  50. [52]

    Madeo, C

    D. Madeo, C. Mocenni, G. Palma, S. Rinaldi, Optimal colorings of Max k-Cut game.Pure Mathematics and Applications30, 82–89 (2022)

    2022

  51. [54]

    Garuglieri, D

    A. Garuglieri, D. Madeo, C. Mocenni, G. Palma, S. Rinaldi, Optimal Coloring Strategies for the Max𝑘-Cut Game.Mathematics12(4), 604 (2024). 27

    2024

  52. [55]

    R. J. Aumann, Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games.Contribution to the Theory of Games, vol. IV, Annals of Mathematics Studies40, 287–324 (1959)

    1959

  53. [56]

    R. J. Aumann, Acceptable points in games of perfect information.Pacific Journal of Mathe- matics10, 381–417 (1960)

    1960

  54. [57]

    Gourv `es, J

    L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, On Strong Equilibria in the Max Cut Game.WINE 2009: Internet and Network Economics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science5929, 608–615 (2009)

    2009

  55. [58]

    Gourv `es, J

    L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, The Max k-Cut Game and its Strong Equilibria.TAMC 2010: Theory and Applications of Models of Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science6108, 234–246 (2010)

    2010

  56. [59]

    K. R. Apt, et al., Coordination Games on Weighted Directed Graphs.Mathematics of Operations Research33(3), 659–680 (2008)

    2008

  57. [60]

    Feldman, M

    M. Feldman, M. Tennenholtz, Strong Nash Equilibrium in Network Creation Games.Internet and Network Economics. WINE 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science5929, 44–55 (2009)

    2009

  58. [61]

    Chalkiadakis, et al., Cooperative Games with Overlapping Coalitions.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research39, 179–216 (2010)

    G. Chalkiadakis, et al., Cooperative Games with Overlapping Coalitions.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research39, 179–216 (2010)

    2010

  59. [62]

    Allesina, J

    S. Allesina, J. M. Levine, A competitive network theory of species diversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(14), 5638–5642 (2011)

    2011

  60. [63]

    Scheffer, S

    M. Scheffer, S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, B. Walker, Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature413, 591–596 (2001)

    2001

  61. [64]

    Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Thinking.Harvard University Press(2014)

    M. Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Thinking.Harvard University Press(2014)

    2014

  62. [65]

    Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Morality.Harvard University Press(2016)

    M. Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Morality.Harvard University Press(2016)

    2016

  63. [66]

    Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.Harvard University Press(1999)

    M. Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.Harvard University Press(1999)

    1999

  64. [67]

    Tomasello, Why We Cooperate.MIT Press(2009)

    M. Tomasello, Why We Cooperate.MIT Press(2009)

    2009

  65. [68]

    Why AI systems don’t learn and what to do about it: Lessons on autonomous learning from cognitive science,

    E. Dupoux, Y. LeCun, J. Malik, Lessons on autonomous learning from cognitive sciencearXiv, 2603.15381 (2026) 28 Supplementary Material Symbiosis as a systemic catalyst and the impossibility of coalitions in optimal networks Giulia Palma, Antonio Rizzo, Chiara Mocenni 1 Introduction The study of complex networks has traditionally focused on individual stab...

    work page arXiv 2026

  66. [69]

    Nash, Non-Cooperative Games.Annals of Mathematics54(2), 286–295 (1951)

    J. Nash, Non-Cooperative Games.Annals of Mathematics54(2), 286–295 (1951)

    1951

  67. [70]

    E. P. Odum, The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.Science164(3877), 262–270 (1969)

    1969

  68. [71]

    P. N. Panagopoulou, P. G. Spirakis, A Game Theoretic Approach for Max Cut.Algorithmica 52(1), 83–103 (2008)

    2008

  69. [72]

    Gourv `es, J

    L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, On Strong Equilibria in the Max Cut Game.WINE 2009, LNCS5929, 611–622 (2009)

    2009

  70. [73]

    Escoffier, L

    B. Escoffier, L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, Strategic Coloring of a Graph.CIAC 2010, LNCS6078, 155–166 (2010)

    2010

  71. [74]

    Gourv `es, J

    L. Gourv `es, J. Monnot, The Max k-Cut Game and Its Strong Equilibria.TAMC 2010, LNCS 6108, 234–245 (2010)

    2010

  72. [75]

    C. S. Holling, Resilience and stability of ecological systems.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics4(1), 1–23 (1973)

    1973

  73. [76]

    Madeo, C

    D. Madeo, C. Mocenni, G. Palma, S. Rinaldi, A Game Theory Proof of Optimal Colorings Resilience to Strong Deviations.Mathematics10(15), 2781 (2022)

    2022

  74. [77]

    Monderer, L

    D. Monderer, L. S. Shapley, Potential Games.Games and Economic Behavior14, 124–143 (1996)

    1996

  75. [78]

    Th ´ebault, C

    E. Th ´ebault, C. Fontaine, A database of plant-pollinator networks (Versione 1) [Data set]. Zenodo(2020)

    2020

  76. [79]

    M. T. K. Arroyo, J. J. Armesto, R. B. Primack, Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of central Chile II. Effect of temperature on visitation rates and pollination possibilities.Plant Systematics and Evolution149, 187–203 (1985)

    1985

  77. [80]

    P. B. Adler, et al., Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition.Ecol. Lett.21(9), 1319–1329 (2018). 21

    2018