Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

To Be a Truster or Not to Be: Evolutionary Dynamics of a Symmetric N-Player Trust Game in Well-Mixed and Networked Populations

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a symmetric N-player Trust Game in which every player alternates between investor and trustee roles, and finds that trust never evolves in well-mixed populations regardless of payoff nonlinearity, while network…

desk verdict A genuine new symmetric N-player trust game with careful derivations; the well-mixed 'all trajectories converge' claim is asserted rather than proved, and that gap sits under the headline result. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14845 v2 pith:4XJYHDRH submitted 2024-11-22 physics.soc-ph cs.GTq-bio.PE

Ik Soo Lim , Naoki Masuda This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phcs.GTq-bio.PE MSC 91A2291A0691A4305C82
keywords evolutionarygametheoryreplicatordynamicstrustmultiplayersymmetrynetworkspublicgoodsnonlinearpayoffs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces a symmetric N-player Trust Game in which every player alternates between investor and trustee roles and a player's fitness is the average of the payoffs from the two roles. The central claim is that this game is harder for prosocial behavior than the well-studied Public Goods Game: in a well-mixed population, investment never evolves, regardless of the nonlinearity of the payoff function, and the population ends on a mixed line of non-investing and non-trusting states. In structured populations, by contrast, trust can evolve, and the same nonlinearity pushes in opposite directions on a square lattice and on a heterogeneous network. On a square lattice, superlinear payoffs widen the parameter range where investing-trustworthy players survive, while on heterogeneous networks superlinear payoffs narrow it. The paper matters because it isolates role alternation as a distinct obstacle to trust and shows that network topology and payoff shape must be considered together.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric N-player Trust Game: a one-shot interaction among $N_I$ investors and $N_T$ trustees in which each player has a two-part strategy, $it$, $iu$, $nt$, or $nu$, and receives the $p_I$-weighted average of its expected payoff as investor and as trustee. The analysis is carried by Fermi pairwise imitation dynamics, which reduce to replicator dynamics in the weak-selection limit, and by closed-form expected-payoff formulas for each strategy. On networks, the payoff machinery uses hypergeometric rather than multinomial sampling because investors are drawn from the finite group of a node and its neighbours, which makes the investor payoff depend on the player's trustee strategy; invasion thresholds $r^*$ are then computed analytically on a straight-border configuration for the square lattice and on a double-star configuration for heterogeneous networks.

What would settle it

Compute the invasion condition for a rare $it$ mutant in an all-$nu$ well-mixed population under the model's own fitness rule; the paper predicts that it cannot invade for any $0<r<1$ and $w>0$. A set of parameter values in which the mutant's expected payoff exceeds $P_{nu}$ would directly contradict the no-trust claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the symmetrized multi-player trust game has dramatically different evolutionary outcomes depending on population structure. In an infinite well-mixed population, the only stable outcomes lie on the edge where all investors have vanished, $y_{nt}+y_{nu}=1$ with $r/(r+1)<y_{nu}\le 1$, so investment (trust) never evolves and the nonlinearity parameter $w$ has no qualitative effect (proved in Appendices F-I). On a square lattice, investing-trustworthy ($it$) players evolve above a threshold $r^*$ that decreases with $w$ for $p\ge 2/5$, so superlinearity helps trust; on heterogeneous networks, the threshold $r^*$ increases with $w$ for $w>1$, so superlinearity hurts trust. The paper also reports that initializing high-degree hubs with $it$ or $nt$ strategies promotes trust, with a mixture of the two being most effective, and that these outcomes are robust to initial conditions, selection strength, mutation, population size, and mean degree.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a player's fitness is the average of its investor-role and trustee-role payoffs, with the two roles assigned independently and randomly in each interaction; if role assignment becomes correlated with past behavior or payoffs from the two roles are kept separate, the no-trust result need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In well-mixed populations, the symmetric N-player Trust Game cannot sustain trust on its own for any $w>0$, so an additional mechanism such as population structure is required.
  • On a square lattice, superlinear payoff functions ($w>1$) enlarge the region of the productivity parameter $r$ where investing-trustworthy players survive, while sublinear functions shrink it.
  • On heterogeneous networks the same superlinearity has the opposite effect, narrowing the survival region, so predictions from regular lattices do not carry over to scale-free topologies.
  • Seeding high-degree nodes with prosocial strategies, especially a mix of $it$ and $nt$, can substantially raise the final fraction of trusting players, suggesting a one-off intervention point.
  • The qualitative differences between the two network types survive changes in initial conditions, selection strength, mutation rate, population size, and mean degree.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that role alternation itself, not the number of players, may be the key inhibitor: comparing the symmetric game with fixed-role asymmetric versions under identical parameters would isolate that effect.
  • If hub seeding works as robustly in real systems as in these simulations, one-off incentives targeted at central actors could be a cheaper intervention than continuous monitoring in engineered trust networks.
  • The result suggests a testable prediction for behavioural experiments: groups where participants alternate roles should show less trust than groups with fixed roles, even when group size and payoffs are matched.
  • The paper's network results depend on the specific Fermi updating rule; other update rules (e.g., best response or morality-driven imitation) may erase or reverse the lattice-versus-heterogeneous split.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a symmetric N-player Trust Game (SNTG) in which each player uses an investor strategy (invest or not) and a trustee strategy (trustworthy or untrustworthy), and fitness is the average of the expected payoffs from the two roles, with roles assigned randomly in each interaction. The authors analyze the evolutionary dynamics in infinite well-mixed populations using a Fermi imitation process, and in finite square-lattice and Barabási-Albert networks using simulations supplemented by analytically derived invasion thresholds. The main claims are: (i) in well-mixed populations, trust does not evolve regardless of the payoff nonlinearity parameter w, with all trajectories converging to the NT-NU edge; and (ii) in structured populations, the same nonlinearity can either promote or hinder trust depending on the network topology, with opposite effects on square lattices versus heterogeneous networks. The paper also reports that degree-based initialization at hubs can promote trust in heterogeneous networks.

Significance. If the results hold, the SNTG is a more demanding environment for the evolution of prosocial behavior than the well-studied Public Goods Game, and the finding that network topology determines the sign of the effect of payoff nonlinearity is novel and of interest to the evolutionary game theory community. The paper's strengths include detailed closed-form payoff derivations (Appendices A-E), an equilibrium classification (Appendices F-I), and analytical thresholds (Appendices J-K) that are derived without free parameters and compared with independent simulations. The robustness checks are extensive and the simulation methodology is standard.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III.A and Appendices F-I] The central claim that 'All trajectories converge to the line of stable equilibria on the NT-NU edge' is asserted in Section III.A and referred to Appendices F-I, but those appendices do not actually provide a global convergence proof. They establish the equilibrium set (vertices, edges, no interior equilibria), local stability of equilibria, and strict monotonicity of ratios such as y_iu/y_it (Eqs. A.46-A.48). While these monotonicity inequalities can be used to rule out limit cycles and heteroclinic cycles, the paper never assembles them into an explicit argument (e.g., a Poincare-Bendixson conclusion or a Lyapunov function) that every trajectory in the 3-simplex converges to the boundary and then to the stated segment. Since the headline result 'trust fails to evolve regardless of payoff function nonlinearity' is a global statement, the missing proof is load-bearing and should be supplied or the claim should be weakened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.C.2] After Eq. (9), the simplex constraint is written as 'y_it + y_it + y_nt + y_nu = 1'; this should be 'y_it + y_iu + y_nt + y_nu = 1'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'the present STNG'; this should be 'the present SNTG'.
  3. [Section III.A] The sentence 'There is no other equilibria including the interior of the triangles and the tetrahedron' should be rephrased as 'There are no other equilibria, including in the interiors of the faces and the tetrahedron'.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'the average payoff over all the nodes in of Fig. 4(a)' contains the typo 'in of'; it should read 'the average payoff over all the nodes in Fig. 4(a)'.
  5. [Appendix K] The derivations of Eqs. (18) and (19) use the approximation N_I = ceil(N p) ≈ N p and several asymptotic expansions with the '≈' symbol, but the authors then plot Eq. (18) for finite N in Fig. 6. A brief statement of the expected accuracy of these approximations for the finite-N values used (e.g., N=8, 32) would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SNTG results are derived from explicit model equations and compared with independent simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The well-mixed result that trust does not evolve is obtained by explicit equilibrium and local-stability analysis of the dynamics in Eq. (9) (Appendices F-I), starting from the payoff definitions in Eqs. (2)-(6); no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The network results are obtained by direct simulation of the update rule in Eq. (8) plus independent analytical threshold derivations in Appendices J and K, where r* is solved from the payoff equations rather than fitted to simulation output. Self-citations to [34] and [29] are transparent and non-load-bearing: [34] supplies the underlying payoff functions in Eq. (1), and [29] motivates the average-payoff symmetrization, but neither is invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the paper's own derivations. The analytical r* curves are compared with simulations as qualitative consistency checks, not as predictions of fitted values. The only notable concern is that the phrase 'all trajectories converge' in the well-mixed case is supported by local stability, equilibrium exclusion, and numerical evidence rather than a complete global convergence proof; that is a rigor/correctness issue, not a circularity, because the claim does not reduce to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters r, w, p and N are scanned inputs, not fitted values; no ad hoc fitted constants are introduced. The main axiomatic content is the payoff-averaging rule and the network payoff convention.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Payoff functions Pi, Pt, and Pu from the asymmetric N-player trust game (Eq. 1) are inherited as the per-role payoff structure.
    The SNTG is built on the asymmetric NTG of Lim and Masuda [34]; all later results depend on this payoff structure.
  • ad hoc to paper A player's fitness is the pI-weighted average of expected payoffs from the investor and trustee roles (Eqs. 6 and 17).
    Central modeling choice for role alternation; not derived from data or from prior literature.
  • domain assumption In well-mixed populations, co-players are sampled independently using multinomial distributions from an infinite population (Appendix A).
    Standard well-mixed population assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper In structured populations, a focal player belongs to d+1 groups and receives the sum of expected payoffs from each group; per group, NI investors are chosen uniformly at random using global parameter p (Section II.D).
    Network payoff convention follows PGG literature [46,47], not the original NTG network definition; the results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Strategy updating follows the Fermi function with selection strength beta (Eq. 8).
    Standard imitation dynamics in evolutionary game theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To Be a Truster or Not to Be: Evolutionary Dynamics of a Symmetric N-Player Trust Game in Well-Mixed and Networked Populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XJYHDRH

@misc{pith2026241114845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To Be a Truster or Not to Be: Evolutionary Dynamics of a Symmetric N-Player Trust Game in Well-Mixed and Networked Populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XJYHDRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14845}
}
read the original abstract

Trust and reciprocation of it form the foundation of economic, social and other interactions. While the Trust Game is widely used to study these concepts for interactions between two players, often alternating different roles (i.e., investor and trustee), its extensions to multi-player scenarios have been restricted to instances where players assume only one role. We propose a symmetric N-player Trust Game, in which players alternate between two roles, and the payoff of the player is defined as the average across their two roles and drives the evolutionary game dynamics. We find that prosocial strategies are harder to evolve with the present symmetric N-player Trust Game than with the Public Goods Game, which is well studied. In particular, trust fails to evolve regardless of payoff function nonlinearity in well-mixed populations in the case of the symmetric N-player trust game. In structured populations, nonlinear payoffs can have strong impacts on the evolution of trust. The same nonlinearity can yield substantially different outcomes, depending on the nature of the underlying network. Our results highlight the importance of considering both payoff structures and network topologies in understanding the emergence and maintenance of prosocial behaviours.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Game tree of the asymmetric 2-player binary TG, in which the role of each player is fixed. The payoffs of an investor are shown in green. Those of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different definitions of the payoff in N-player games on networks. (a) The definition of the payoff for the present STNG. A focal player (the black circle) belongs to five groups (shown as the shaded area in each of the five copies of the local network). The focal player is assumed to earn payoffs from each group. The summed payoff drives evolutionary game dynamics, as is often the case for other N-player game dynam… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolutionary dynamics of the SNTG in the infinite well-mixed population, shown over the triangular faces of the 3-simplex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of approximate equilibria of the SNTG in finite networks. (a) Square lattice. (b) Heterogeneous networks. In both (a) and (b), the first four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analytical approximation to the threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analytical approximation to r ∗ from heterogeneous networks. We consider two interconnected stars composed of N(1) − 1 nodes with strategy nu and N(2) − 1 nodes with strategy it, respectively, as shown in (a). Under super-linearity w > 1, r ∗ increases strictly with w.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for the degree-based initialisation in heterogeneous networks. ‘Random’ refers to the case where all strategies are initially allocated to nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Robustness of evolutionary outcomes. The baseline case, shown in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Inter-role reciprocity in evolutionary trust game on square lattices

    physics.soc-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    On a square lattice with alternating trustor and trustee roles, a moderate return ratio sustains trust through inter-role spatial clusters; too high a return kills trustees and too low a return kills trustors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    A synergy of institutional incentives and networked structures in evolutionary game dynamics of multiagent systems,

    I. S. Lim and V . Capraro, “A synergy of institutional incentives and networked structures in evolutionary game dynamics of multiagent systems,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2777–2781, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [34]

    To trust or not to trust: Evolutionary dynamics of an asymmetric n-player trust game,

    I. S. Lim and N. Masuda, “To trust or not to trust: Evolutionary dynamics of an asymmetric n-player trust game,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 117–131, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Complex network modeling with power-law activating patterns and its evolutionary dynamics,

    Z. Zeng, M. Feng, P. Liu, and J. Kurths, “Complex network modeling with power-law activating patterns and its evolutionary dynamics,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 2546–2559, 2025

    2025

  4. [2]

    An evolutionary game with the game transitions based on the markov process,

    M. Feng, B. Pi, L. J. Deng, and J. Kurths, “An evolutionary game with the game transitions based on the markov process,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 609–621, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    Softening and hardening in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma,

    P. Mathieu and J. P. Delahaye, “Softening and hardening in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 654–663, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Third-party intervention of cooperation in multilayer networks,

    H. Guo, Z. Song, M. Perc, X. Li, and Z. Wang, “Third-party intervention of cooperation in multilayer networks,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 6646–6657, 2023. 21 (a) (b) Square Lattice Heterogeneous Network β= 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fig. A.11. Robustness of evolutionary outcomes to variati...

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Five rules for the evolution of cooperation,

    M. A. Nowak, “Five rules for the evolution of cooperation,” Science, vol. 314, no. 5805, pp. 1560–1563, 12 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [6]

    Synergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas,

    C. Hauert, F. Michor, M. A. Nowak, and M. Doebeli, “Synergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 239, no. 2, pp. 195 – 202, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks,

    S. Van Segbroeck, F. C. Santos, T. Lenaerts, and J. M. Pacheco, “Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 058 105–, 02 2009

    2009

  2. [8]

    The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas,

    T. Sasaki, ˚A. Br ¨annstr¨om, U. Dieckmann, and K. Sigmund, “The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas,” 22 (a) (b) Square Lattice Heterogeneous Network Z= 1024 256 64 16 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fig. A.13. Robustness of evolutionary outc...

    2012

  3. [9]

    The logic of animal conflict,

    J. M. Smith and G. R. Price, “The logic of animal conflict,” Nature, vol. 246, no. 5427, pp. 15–18, 1973

    1973

  4. [10]

    Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics,

    P. D. Taylor and L. B. Jonker, “Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics,” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 145–156, 1978

    1978

  5. [11]

    Information dynamics in evolving networks based on the birth-death process: Random drift and natural selection perspective,

    M. Feng, Z. Zeng, Q. Li, M. Perc, and J. Kurths, “Information dynamics in evolving networks based on the birth-death process: Random drift and natural selection perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 5123–5136, 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    When reputation enforces evolutionary cooperation in unreliable manets,

    C. Tang, A. Li, and X. Li, “When reputation enforces evolutionary cooperation in unreliable manets,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 45, no. 10, 23 pp. 2190–2201, 2015

    2015

  7. [13]

    The evolution of trust in non-simultaneous exchange situations,

    G. Bravo and L. Tamburino, “The evolution of trust in non-simultaneous exchange situations,” Rationality and Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 85–113, 2008

    2008

  8. [14]

    A comprehensive review for 4-d trust management in distributed iot,

    X. Li and R. Li, “A comprehensive review for 4-d trust management in distributed iot,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 24, pp. 21 738–21 762, 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    Introduction to special issue on trustworthy artificial intelligence,

    R. Calegari, F. Giannotti, F. Pratesi, and M. Milano, “Introduction to special issue on trustworthy artificial intelligence,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 7, apr 2024

    2024

  10. [16]

    On the trust and trust modeling for the future fully-connected digital world: A comprehensive study,

    H. L. J. Ting, X. Kang, T. Li, H. Wang, and C. K. Chu, “On the trust and trust modeling for the future fully-connected digital world: A comprehensive study,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 106 743–106 783, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Survey on computational trust and reputation models,

    D. D. S. Braga, M. Niemann, B. Hellingrath, and F. B. D. L. Neto, “Survey on computational trust and reputation models,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 101:1 – 101:40, nov 2018

    2018

  12. [18]

    A survey on trust modeling,

    J.-H. Cho, K. Chan, and S. Adali, “A survey on trust modeling,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 28:1–40, 2015

    2015

  13. [19]

    Accounttrade: Accountability against dishonest big data buyers and sellers,

    T. Jung, X. Li, W. Huang, Z. Qiao, J. Qian, L. Chen, J. Han, and J. Hou, “Accounttrade: Accountability against dishonest big data buyers and sellers,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 223–234, 2019

    2019

  14. [20]

    Trust games: A meta-analysis,

    N. D. Johnson and A. A. Mislin, “Trust games: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 865–889, 2011

    2011

  15. [21]

    Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model,

    C. Camerer and K. Weigelt, “Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model,” Econometrica, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 1988

    1988

  16. [22]

    Coevolution of trustful buyers and cooperative sellers in the trust game,

    N. Masuda and M. Nakamura, “Coevolution of trustful buyers and cooperative sellers in the trust game,” PloS one, vol. 7, no. 9, p. e44169, 2012

    2012

  17. [23]

    Evolution of trust and trustworthiness: social awareness favours personality differences,

    J. M. McNamara, P. A. Stephens, S. R. X. Dall, and A. I. Houston, “Evolution of trust and trustworthiness: social awareness favours personality differences,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 276, no. 1657, pp. 605–613, 02 2009

    2009

  18. [24]

    The evolution of trust and trustworthiness,

    A. Kumar, V . Capraro, and M. Perc, “The evolution of trust and trustworthiness,” Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 17, no. 169, p. 20200491, 2020

    2020

  19. [25]

    Trust, risk and betrayal,

    I. Bohnet and R. Zeckhauser, “Trust, risk and betrayal,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 467–484, 2004

    2004

  20. [26]

    Evolutionarily stable co-operative commitments,

    W. G ¨uth and H. Kliemt, “Evolutionarily stable co-operative commitments,” Theory and Decision, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 197–222, 2000

    2000

  21. [27]

    Information, irrationality, and the evolution of trust,

    M. L. Manapat, M. A. Nowak, and D. G. Rand, “Information, irrationality, and the evolution of trust,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 90, pp. S57–S75, 2013

    2013

  22. [28]

    Fairness and trust in structured populations,

    C. Tarnita, “Fairness and trust in structured populations,” Games, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 214–230, 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    The n-player trust game and its replicator dynamics,

    H. Abbass, G. Greenwood, and E. Petraki, “The n-player trust game and its replicator dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 470–474, 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    A networked n-player trust game and its evolutionary dynamics,

    M. Chica, R. Chiong, M. Kirley, and H. Ishibuchi, “A networked n-player trust game and its evolutionary dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 866–878, 2018

    2018

  25. [32]

    Adaptive reputation promotes trust in social networks,

    Z. Hu, X. Li, J. Wang, C. Xia, Z. Wang, and M. Perc, “Adaptive reputation promotes trust in social networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 3087–3098, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Evolutionary dynamics of trust in the n-player trust game with individual reward and punishment,

    X. Fang and X. Chen, “Evolutionary dynamics of trust in the n-player trust game with individual reward and punishment,” The European Physical Journal B, vol. 94, no. 9, p. 176, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    An evolutionary trust game model with group reputation within the asymmetric population,

    C. Zhou, Y . Zhu, D. Zhao, and C. Xia, “An evolutionary trust game model with group reputation within the asymmetric population,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 184, p. 115031, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Evolution of trust in a hierarchical population with punishing investors,

    K. Sun, Y . Liu, X. Chen, and A. Szolnoki, “Evolution of trust in a hierarchical population with punishing investors,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 162, p. 112413, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Conditional investment strategy in evolutionary trust games with repeated group interactions,

    L. Liu and X. Chen, “Conditional investment strategy in evolutionary trust games with repeated group interactions,” Information Sciences, vol. 609, pp. 1694–1705, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Costly reputation building still promotes the collective trust within the networked population,

    C. Xia, Z. Hu, and D. Zhao, “Costly reputation building still promotes the collective trust within the networked population,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 24, no. 8, p. 083041, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    N-player trust game with second-order reputation evaluation in the networked population,

    X. Li, M. Feng, W. Han, and C. Xia, “N-player trust game with second-order reputation evaluation in the networked population,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 2982–2992, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Evolutionary dynamics with the second-order reputation in the networked n-player trust game,

    M. Feng, X. Li, D. Zhao, and C. Xia, “Evolutionary dynamics with the second-order reputation in the networked n-player trust game,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 175, p. 114042, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Evolutionary dynamics of networked n-player trust games with exclusion strategy,

    Z. Liu, J. Wang, and X. Li, “Evolutionary dynamics of networked n-player trust games with exclusion strategy,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 186, p. 115214, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Sigmund, The Calculus of Selfishness

    K. Sigmund, The Calculus of Selfishness. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Playing both roles in the trust game,

    S. V . Burks, J. P. Carpenter, and E. Verhoogen, “Playing both roles in the trust game,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 195–216, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    Do the reciprocal trust less?

    S. Altmann, T. Dohmen, and M. Wibral, “Do the reciprocal trust less?” Economics Letters, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 454–457, 2008

    2008

  37. [45]

    Heterogeneous motives in the trust game: A tale of two roles,

    A. M. Esp ´ın, F. Exadaktylos, and L. Neyse, “Heterogeneous motives in the trust game: A tale of two roles,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games,

    F. C. Santos, M. D. Santos, and J. M. Pacheco, “Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games,” Nature, vol. 454, no. 7201, pp. 213–216, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review,

    M. Perc, J. G ´omez-Garde˜nes, A. Szolnoki, L. M. Flor ´ıa, and Y . Moreno, “Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review,” Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 10, no. 80, 03 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Evolutionary game dynamics,

    J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, “Evolutionary game dynamics,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 479–519, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    W. H. Sandholm, Population games and evolutionary dynamics. MIT press, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Evolutionary games on graphs,

    G. Szab ´o and G. F ´ath, “Evolutionary games on graphs,” Physics Reports, vol. 446, no. 4, pp. 97–216, 2007

    2007

  43. [51]

    Review: Game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment,

    M. Archetti and I. Scheuring, “Review: Game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 299, pp. 9–20, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    Frequency-dependent returns in nonlinear public goods games,

    C. Hauert and A. McAvoy, “Frequency-dependent returns in nonlinear public goods games,” Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 21, no. 219, p. 20240334, 2024/11/05 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Evolutionary dynamics of general group interactions in structured populations,

    A. Li, M. Broom, J. Du, and L. Wang, “Evolutionary dynamics of general group interactions in structured populations,” Physical Review E, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 022 407–, 02 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    Via freedom to coercion: The emergence of costly punishment,

    C. Hauert, A. Traulsen, H. Brandt, M. A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, “Via freedom to coercion: The emergence of costly punishment,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5833, pp. 1905–1907, 2007

    1905

  47. [55]

    Phase transitions and volunteering in spatial public goods games,

    G. Szab ´o and C. Hauert, “Phase transitions and volunteering in spatial public goods games,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 89, no. 11, pp. 118 101–, 08 2002

    2002

  48. [56]

    Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation,

    F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco, “Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 9, pp. 098 104–, 08 2005

    2005

  49. [57]

    Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations,

    F. C. Santos, J. M. Pacheco, and T. Lenaerts, “Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 9, p. 3490, 02 2006. 24

    2006

  50. [58]

    Impact of critical mass on the evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods games,

    A. Szolnoki and M. Perc, “Impact of critical mass on the evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods games,” Physical Review E, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 057 101–, 05 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Influence of different initial distributions on robust cooperation in scale-free networks: A comparative study,

    X. Chen, F. Fu, and L. Wang, “Influence of different initial distributions on robust cooperation in scale-free networks: A comparative study,” Physics Letters A, vol. 372, no. 8, pp. 1161–1167, 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Direct reciprocity and model-predictive rationality explain network reciprocity over social ties,

    F. Dercole, F. Della Rossa, and C. Piccardi, “Direct reciprocity and model-predictive rationality explain network reciprocity over social ties,” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 5367, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Optional interactions and suspicious behaviour facilitates trustful cooperation in prisoners dilemma,

    T. Priklopil, K. Chatterjee, and M. Nowak, “Optional interactions and suspicious behaviour facilitates trustful cooperation in prisoners dilemma,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 433, pp. 64–72, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.