Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Predicting human cooperation: sensitizing drift-diffusion model to interaction and external stimuli

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A drift-diffusion model whose parameters are updated from the previous round's social interactions can forecast next-round cooperation and defection response-time distributions, expected cooperation rates, and final earnings on unseen data.

desk verdict A genuinely predictive DDM for MIPD cooperation, with one-step-ahead validation; the multi-step policy simulations outrun the validation and need re-scoping. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16121 v1 pith:UHGIQKOY submitted 2024-12-20 physics.soc-ph

Lucila G. Alvarez-Zuzek , Laura Ferrarotti , Bruno Lepri , Riccardo Gallotti This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords cooperationPrisoner'sDilemmadrift-diffusionmodelBayesianregressionresponsetimessocialinteractionpredictiondilemmas
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 tries to turn the drift-diffusion model, a standard cognitive account of how people accumulate evidence before choosing, from a descriptive tool into a predictive one for repeated social dilemmas. The authors propose that the model's four parameters (starting bias, decision caution, drift rate, and non-decision time) can be written as simple affine functions of regressors computed from the previous round of play, such as how many neighbors cooperated, the player's own last choice and response time, and a measure of self- versus other-oriented payoffs. Using Bayesian regression on the first phase of a multiplayer Prisoner's Dilemma experiment, they fit those functions and then show that the resulting forecasts reproduce the response-time distributions for cooperation and defection on an unseen second phase, with per-round $R^2$ always above 0.75. They also use the fitted model to simulate what would happen under co-player manipulation, payoff-matrix changes, and time pressure. If the forecasts hold, the model becomes a way to test cooperation-promoting policies in silico before running real experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the augmented predictive drift-diffusion model: a classic DDM of evidence accumulation $dx = \nu\,di + \xi(i)$, with bias $z$, barrier height $a$, drift $\nu$, and non-decision time $t_0$, in which each parameter at round $t$ is an affine function of a regressor vector built from round $t-1$ (Eqs.~12--13). The regressors include the normalized previous response time, the previous decision, the normalized number of cooperating neighbors, the Relative Allocation measure of the focal player's payoff split between self and others, windowed averages of self- and other-allocations over a five-round memory, and round and experience counters. These regressors convert social interaction history into the four cognitive parameters, and Bayesian regression supplies posterior distributions for the coefficient vectors. The same machinery both predicts on held-out human data and, when simulated forward in stochastic realizations, generates behavior in altered conditions.

What would settle it

Run a fresh MIPD experiment with the same protocol but a changed payoff matrix (e.g., increasing R by 2) or a hard response-time cap (e.g., 4 seconds), and compare the observed per-round cooperation rates and response-time distributions with the model's predictions using the originally fitted coefficients; systematic divergence (e.g., per-round $R^2$ dropping below 0.5 for several consecutive rounds) would disprove the transferability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the DDM parameters at round $t$ can be predicted one step ahead from an affine combination of lagged interaction regressors (Eq.~13), with coefficients learned via Bayesian regression on a training phase (Experiment 1). On the unseen test phase (Experiment 2), these predicted parameters, when fed into the first-passage-time formulas for the DDM, reproduce the empirical response-time probability density functions for both cooperation and defection at every round, with $R^2$ exceeding 0.75 in all rounds and a distance of 0.04 (p-value 0.99) between predicted and empirical final-earnings distributions. Because the area under the cooperation response-time PDF equals the expected cooperation rate, the model thereby forecasts the population's evolving propensity to cooperate. The same fitted model, simulated forward, yields qualitative predictions consistent with established findings: cooperation decays over rounds, reshuffling co-players produces a temporary restart effect, both rewards and punishments raise expected cooperation, and time pressure increases intuitive cooperation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the affine mapping from previous-round interaction features to the next round's DDM parameters, learned from one experiment with a fixed payoff matrix and no time limits, remains valid without retraining when the payoff matrix is changed, when response times are truncated, and when groups are reshuffled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One-step-ahead forecasting: given the previous round's choices, payoffs, and response times, the model predicts the next round's cooperation and defection response-time distributions, hence the expected cooperation rate, without any fitting to the test phase.
  • The final-earnings distribution across the population is reproduced (distance 0.04 on the test set), meaning the model captures not just average behavior but the heterogeneous accumulation of payoffs.
  • Simulated interventions behave as the human literature suggests: punishing defection increases expected cooperation slightly more than rewarding cooperation, team reshuffling triggers a transient rise in cooperation, and time pressure boosts cooperation toward levels consistent with the Social Heuristic Hypothesis.
  • The fitted coefficients are interpretable as cognitive tendencies: drift and caution decline with experience, and the starting bias tracks the balance between self- and other-oriented payoffs, giving a neuro-cognitive reading of why cooperation decays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the scenario simulations are extrapolations, not validations; the coefficients were fit under one payoff matrix and no time pressure, so the predicted responses to modified payoffs and time caps should be treated as hypotheses to test in new experiments rather than as measured facts.
  • Editorial inference: if the affine regressor mapping is stable across populations, the same method could be applied to other repeated social dilemmas with response-time data, such as public-goods games or commons dilemmas, by redefining the interaction regressors.
  • Editorial inference: the one-step-ahead structure opens the door to online policy design: a planner could read the current cooperation state from recent behavior and adjust time limits, payoffs, or group composition before the next round to steer the population toward cooperation.
  • Editorial inference: because the parameters, not just choices, are forecastable, response times may carry information about the upcoming decision that choices alone do not; a testable extension would compare choice-only versus choice-plus-response-time predictors of next-round decisions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper enriches the drift-diffusion model of binary decisions with round-dependent parameters that are affine functions of interaction regressors from the previous round of a multiplayer iterated prisoner's dilemma. The coefficients are estimated by Bayesian regression (HDDM) on 47 rounds of Experiment 1 with 169 participants, then applied to 58 rounds of Experiment 2, a reshuffled-network phase with the same participants. The authors report R² above 0.75 for the per-round response-time PDFs for both cooperation and defection, and a Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance of 0.04 (p=0.99) for the final earnings distribution. They then simulate three intervention scenarios (co-player cooperation levels and reshuffling; payoff-matrix rewards and punishments; time pressure), finding that the model reproduces known qualitative effects. The central claim is that previous-round interaction data are sufficient to predict the DDM parameters, and hence the response-time distributions and expected cooperation rate, on a phase not used for fitting.

Significance. The paper's contribution is a step from descriptive DDM fits to a predictive, cognitively interpretable model of social decisions, and the target quantities (full RT distributions per round) are more informative than choice probabilities alone. Strengths include a genuine out-of-phase test of the fitted coefficients (they are not refit on Experiment 2), the use of theoretical DDM first-passage formulas that give parameter-free density predictions, and scenario results that are concrete and falsifiable. The validation metric R²>0.75 at every round is non-trivial. However, the significance is capped by three limitations: the test phase involves the same subjects, the validation conditions on observed previous-round regressors, and the reported PDFs are evaluated at averaged parameters. These do not invalidate the one-step-ahead claim, but they mean the paper's stronger forecasting claims need revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Materials and Methods, 'Using the model to predict and to simulate'] Eq. (14) aggregates the per-subject predicted parameters by averaging before evaluating the DDM densities in Eq. (3). The empirical densities are mixtures over subjects, and the map (ν,a,z) ↦ P_D/P_C is nonlinear, so the density at the average parameter vector is not the average density. Consequently the R² values in Fig. 2 and the PDF comparisons in Fig. 1 validate an 'average subject' rather than the population's response-time distribution. The same issue applies to the expected cooperation rate, since C_C(ν,a,z) in Eq. (7) is nonlinear. Please recompute the predicted PDFs by averaging the per-subject predicted densities (or by simulating each subject's choices) and report both the aggregate and per-subject-averaged statistics.
  2. [Results, test-set validation (Figs. 1–3)] For every t=2..58 of the test phase, the regressors in Eq. (12) are computed from the actual observed actions, payoffs, and response times of round t−1 of the same 169 participants who played Experiment 2; moreover the same participants provided the Experiment 1 training data. The reported R² and KS values therefore certify a one-step-ahead conditional predictive distribution, not the multi-step forecasts that Scenarios 1–3 require, where regressors are self-generated and errors can compound. The phrase 'unseen test dataset' should be qualified in the abstract and results: the test phase is new only in network configuration, not in participants. Please add a validation that initializes from round-1 observations only and simulates forward, or revise the central claim to one-step-ahead forecasting and explicitly mark the scenario simulations as extrapolations without direct validation.
  3. [Results, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3] The simulations in Scenario 2 (Fig. 7) and Scenario 3 (Fig. 8) use coefficients from Table 2 that were estimated on data with the original payoff matrix (R=7, S=0, T=10, P=0) and no response-time cap. Because the regressors a_self, a_others, and RA are defined directly from payoff values, the affine mapping in Eq. (13) is plausibly payoff-dependent; the truncation at T_max also changes the error distribution in ways the fitted drift-diffusion parameters were never calibrated against. No external human data or robustness check supports these transfers. Please add sensitivity analyses (e.g., refitting with perturbed coefficients, or testing on altered-payoff experiments if available) or clearly present Scenarios 2–3 as model-based hypotheses conditional on the transferability assumption.
  4. [Results, final earnings distribution (Fig. 3)] The text states that the final-earnings distribution is obtained by 'simulating the behavior of our model on the same data many times' but does not specify whether the simulated regressors come from observed test-phase rounds or are generated by the model. If the former, the KS=0.04 inherits the one-step-ahead conditioning of comment 2; if the latter, it is a full forward simulation that would partially address comment 2. Please specify the protocol, and report the KS for both modes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Model fitting and obtained parameters, Table 2] The text says a is 'inversely proportional' to a_self and z is 'directly proportional' to a_o, but the reported standard deviations (0.130688 and 0.023936) mean the credible intervals include zero; these directional statements should be softened or replaced with posterior intervals.
  2. [Abstract and Results] The phrase 'unseen test dataset' should be rephrased as 'a later experimental phase with the same participants' to avoid implying new subjects.
  3. [General] Typos: 'drown' should be 'drawn' (Model fitting section); 'decribed' should be 'described' and 'taylored' should be 'tailored' (Using the model to predict and to simulate section); 'Pioneer’s research' should be 'Pioneering research' (Scenario 3).
  4. [Regressors, memory window] The memory window M=5 is a global assumption that affects all experience-based regressors; please add a sentence in the Discussion acknowledging the lack of sensitivity analysis, or report M∈{1,3,7} results in the Supplementary Information.
  5. [Data and code availability] The manuscript does not state whether model-fitting code, posterior traces, and preprocessed regressors are available; please add a data/code availability statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: round-t RT PDFs are predicted from coefficients fit on Experiment 1 and evaluated on held-out Experiment 2 data; only non-load-bearing self-citations and a one-step-ahead conditioning caveat are present.

full rationale

The central validation is not circular. The regression coefficients (Pa, Pnu, Pz, Pt0) are fitted only on Experiment 1 ('we let our model use the regressors computed from data in Experiment 1 (training dataset) to estimate the parameter vectors...'), and the model then predicts round-t DDM parameters for Experiment 2 using Eq. 13 from lagged regressors x_{t-1}. The predicted parameters are inserted into the theoretical first-passage PDFs (Eq. 3) and compared with empirical round-t response-time PDFs and final earnings from the held-out phase; the R2 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics are therefore evaluated against data not used in fitting. No fitted value of the target round enters the regressor vector, so the prediction is not a restatement of the fit. The affine form in Eq. 13 is a modeling choice, not a result derived from the target quantities. The self-citations ([68] and [109]) supply the Relative Allocation metric, the descriptive baseline, and the rationality ratio; these are prior published definitions and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as proof that the affine regressors are forced, so they are not load-bearing. The only substantive caveat is claim scope: the test-phase validation is one-step-ahead conditional on the actual observed round t-1 regressors from the same Experiment 2 phase, so it does not directly certify long, fully compounding multi-round simulations. That is a correctness/scope concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's contribution over a standard DDM is the 16 fitted regression weights plus the memory window and normalization scale; all are estimated from or anchored to the training phase. The central validation is against external test-phase data, so the fitted weights do not directly determine the test R2, but the intervention scenarios inherit whatever bias these weights carry. No new physical or cognitive entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Pa (threshold a regressor weights) = pa1=5.51, pa2=-0.42, pa3=-0.53, pa4=-0.09, pa5=-0.53, pa6=4.72
    Coefficients of the linear map for threshold a in Eq. 13, fitted by Bayesian regression (HDDM) on Experiment 1 data. Table 2.
  • Pν (drift ν regressor weights) = pν1=0.137, pν2=-0.136, pν3=-0.087
    Coefficients of the linear map for drift rate, fitted on Experiment 1. Table 2.
  • Pz (bias z regressor weights) = pz1=-0.056, pz2=0.034, pz3=0.568
    Coefficients of the linear map for initial bias, fitted on Experiment 1. Table 2.
  • Pt0 (non-decision time regressor weights) = pt01=1.33, pt02=-0.065, pt03=0.91, pt04=0.055
    Coefficients of the linear map for non-decision time, fitted on Experiment 1. Table 2.
  • Memory window M = 5
    Chosen by hand as an equal memory window for all individuals; not fitted but a free modeling choice. Regressors section.
  • Initial DDM parameters for simulations = estimated from first round of Experiment 2
    Simulations initialize the focal agents' DDM parameters using Bayesian Regression estimates from the first round of Experiment 2, introducing test-phase information into the simulations. Results, scenario simulations.
  • RT normalization maxExp1(RT) = maximum response time in training data
    Response times are normalized by the max value attained in Experiment 1; this scale is estimated from training data. Regressors section.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard Feller and Fürth first-passage-time formulas for the DDM (Eqs. 6 and 7) give the response-time densities and expected cooperation rate.
    The paper relies on the standard closed-form defective densities for a Wiener process with two absorbing boundaries, citing Feller and the DDM literature.
  • domain assumption All participants are copies of an average subject; no subject-specific random effects in the predictive model.
    Invoked in 'Model fitting and obtained parameters': 'we assume that all the participants are copies of an average subject by aggregating across participants.'
  • ad hoc to paper The DDM parameters at round t are affine functions of the chosen regressors (Eq. 10).
    This functional form is not derived from a cognitive theory; it is a modeling choice that the paper calls 'a simple affine model'.
  • ad hoc to paper Coefficients fitted on Experiment 1 transfer to Experiment 2 and to modified payoff matrices, reshuffled groups, and time truncation.
    Used in all scenario simulations and in the test-phase prediction; no re-estimation or external validation is provided for these extrapolations.
  • ad hoc to paper All individuals share the same memory window M=5, weighting the last five rounds equally.
    Stated in the Regressors section: 'we assume for simplicity that all the individuals have equal memory, corresponding to M=5 previous rounds.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting human cooperation: sensitizing drift-diffusion model to interaction and external stimuli." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHGIQKOY

@misc{pith2026241216121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting human cooperation: sensitizing drift-diffusion model to interaction and external stimuli},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHGIQKOY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16121}
}
read the original abstract

As humans perceive and actively engage with the world, we adjust our decisions in response to shifting group dynamics and are influenced by social interactions. This study aims to identify which aspects of interaction affect cooperation-defection choices. Specifically, we investigate human cooperation within the Prisoner's Dilemma game, using the Drift-Diffusion Model to describe the decision-making process. We introduce a novel Bayesian model for the evolution of the model's parameters based on the nature of interactions experienced with other players. This approach enables us to predict the evolution of the population's expected cooperation rate. We successfully validate our model using an unseen test dataset and apply it to explore three strategic scenarios: co-player manipulation, use of rewards and punishments, and time pressure. These results support the potential of our model as a foundational tool for developing and testing strategies aimed at enhancing cooperation, ultimately contributing to societal welfare.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accuracy over the testing set: PDFs. Panel 1a illustrates how to read the plots: the response time PDFs in case of defection and cooperation are shown on the left side (pink) and right side (orange) respectively. Both curves are given by the PDFs equations (Eq. 3), and their integral (the area below the curve) represent the expected rate (see Eq. 7 in Materials and Methods for more details). Panels 1b-1c-1d show the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accuracy over the testing set: R2 . Values of R2 index attained on the test dataset by PDFs employing parameters directly fitted at each round via Bayesian Regression (gray), and by PDFs employing parameters predicted by our model (black). 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Final earnings probability distribution. The considered final earning of an individual is the sum of the MIPD payoffs accumulated by an individual playing the game round after round, as a result of the payoffs for their decision. This figure shows the final earning distribution among the considered population. The black dashed line corresponds to the probability density predicted by our model, averaged over 50 indep… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DDM parameters evolution over the testing set. The figure includes parameters directly fitted at each round via Bayesian Regression (grey), and parameters predicted by our model (black). estimated parameters, they do not coincide round by round. This is not necessarily…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of the level of cooperative behavior of neighbors. Expected probability of cooperation of the focal individual exposed to different levels of neighboring cooperation, spanning from less to more co￾operative environments. At every round, all seven neighbors have …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of shuffling neighbors during the game. Every 30-round time window, a change of the co-players of the focal individual is made. At every round, all seven neighbors have exactly the same probability of cooperating, while the focal individual decides with a probab…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rewarding cooperation vs punishing defection: impact of the payoff. Each curve corresponds to a different value of gains alteration λ for (a) punishing defection (pink), subtracting negative values to gains T and P and (b) rewarding cooperation (yellow), by adding posi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of time pressure. Each gray line corresponds to a different threshold value imposed on the response, spanning from 3sec to 5sec. The lower the value, the faster individuals have to think and give an answer. The violet lines correspond to unlimited time given to …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Multiplayer Prisoner’s Dilemma game: Schelling diagram. Game associated with the em￾ployed dataset, with N = 8 players and gains R = 7, S = 0, T = 10, P = 0. condition). Hence, the game proposed to the participants of this experiment presents the characteristics of a d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of DDM as a model for cooperation/defection choices. In the context of group dynamics, an individual (here represented in the center) makes a decision following a DDM process. Starting from an initial condition z · a, at each time step i, the subject will…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rationality values attained on the test dataset by using Eq.( 8) employing the parameters directly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 2,4 − 8 (results on round 3 are included in Fig.1, in section Results of the main paper). Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to …
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 9 − 14. Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to defection responses, while the right side (orange) corresponds to cooperation resp…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 15 − 20 (results on round 3 are included in Fig.1, in section Results of the main paper). Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 21 − 26. Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to defection responses, while the right side (orange) corresponds to cooperation res…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 27 − 32. Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to defection responses, while the right side (orange) corresponds to cooperation res…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 33 −36,38−39 (results on round 37 are included in Fig.1, in section Results of the main paper). Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) correspon…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 40 − 45. Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to defection responses, while the right side (orange) corresponds to cooperation res…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 46 − 50,52 (results on round 51 are included in Fig.1, in section Results of the main paper). Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Accuracy over the testing set. Response times PDFs for rounds 53 − 58. Results are obtained using i) data (dots), and ii) our predictive model (lines). The left side (pink) corresponds to defection responses, while the right side (orange) corresponds to cooperation re…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Accuracy over the training set. Panel 11a illustrates how to read the plots: the response times PDF in case of defection and cooperation are shown on the left side (pink), and right side (orange) respectively. Both curves are given by the upper equation for the PDFs, …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: R2 values attained on the training dataset by PDFs employing parameters directly fitted at each round via Bayesian Regression (gray), and by PDFs employing parameters predicted by our model (black) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: DDM parameters evolution over the training set. The figure includes parameters directly fitted at each round via Bayesian Regression (grey), and parameters predicted by our model (black). 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thinking and deciding

    Jonathan Baron. Thinking and deciding . Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Understanding complexity in the human brain

    Danielle S Bassett and Michael S Gazzaniga. Understanding complexity in the human brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(5):200–209, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    A spatiotemporal complexity architecture of human brain activity

    Stephan Krohn, Nina von Schwanenflug, Leonhard Waschke, Amy Romanello, Martin Gell, Douglas D Garrett, and Carsten Finke. A spatiotemporal complexity architecture of human brain activity. Science Advances, 9(5):eabq3851, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making

    Martin Hilbert. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological bulletin, 138(2):211, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Cognitive biases

    Johan E Korteling and Alexander Toet. Cognitive biases. Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Affect, emotion, and decision making

    Jennifer M George and Erik Dane. Affect, emotion, and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136:47–55, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Quantification of emotions in decision making

    Vyacheslav I Yukalov. Quantification of emotions in decision making. Soft Computing , 26(5):2419–2436, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Decision-making processes in social contexts

    Elizabeth Bruch and Fred Feinberg. Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual review of sociology, 43(1):207–227, 2017

    2017

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Extraneous factors in judicial decisions

    Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(17):6889–6892, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Cognitive dissonance

    Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills. Cognitive dissonance. Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association , 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    Thinking fast and slow

    Daniel Kahneman. Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Individual differences in decision-making

    Ingmar HA Franken and Peter Muris. Individual differences in decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5):991–998, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research

    Kirstin C Appelt, Kerry F Milch, Michel JJ Handgraaf, and Elke U Weber. The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision making , 6(3):252–262, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    The theory of decision making

    Ward Edwards. The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin, 51(4):380, 1954

    1954

  7. [15]

    Jonathan St.B.T. Evans. Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2):86–102, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment

    Daniel Kahneman, Shane Frederick, et al. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment , 49(49-81):74, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology

    Sandeep Mishra. Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 18(3):280–307, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual frame- work

    Lesley K Fellows. The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual frame- work. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews , 3(3):159–172, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Decision neuroscience and consumer decision making

    Carolyn Yoon, Richard Gonzalez, Antoine Bechara, Gregory S Berns, Alain A Dagher, Laurette Dub´ e, Scott A Huettel, Joseph W Kable, Israel Liberzon, Hilke Plassmann, et al. Decision neuroscience and consumer decision making. Marketing letters , 23:473–485, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making

    Steve Dale. Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32(2):93– 99, 2015. 21

    2015

  13. [21]

    Theories of decision- making in economics and behavioural science

    American Economic Association, Royal Economic Society, and Herbert A Simon. Theories of decision- making in economics and behavioural science . Springer, 1966

    1966

  14. [22]

    Vaccine hesitancy: an overview

    Eve Dub´ e, Caroline Laberge, Maryse Guay, Paul Bramadat, R´ eal Roy, and Julie A Bettinger. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics , 9(8):1763–1773, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Qualitative analysis of mothers’ decision-making about vaccines for infants: the importance of trust

    Andrea L Benin, Daryl J Wisler-Scher, Eve Colson, Eugene D Shapiro, and Eric S Holmboe. Qualitative analysis of mothers’ decision-making about vaccines for infants: the importance of trust. Pediatrics, 117(5):1532–1541, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    The social psychology of decision making

    Icek Ajzen. The social psychology of decision making. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles , pages 297–325, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Social groups in action and interaction

    Charles Stangor. Social groups in action and interaction . Routledge, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Social rank and social cooperation: Impact of social comparison processes on cooperative decision-making

    Xu Gong and Alan G Sanfey. Social rank and social cooperation: Impact of social comparison processes on cooperative decision-making. PLoS One, 12(4):e0175472, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Human cooperation

    David G Rand and Martin A Nowak. Human cooperation. Trends in cognitive sciences , 17(8):413–425, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Competition, volume 26

    Paul A Keddy. Competition, volume 26. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Strategic use of preference confirmation in group decision making: The role of competition and dissent

    Claudia Toma, Ingrid Gilles, and Fabrizio Butera. Strategic use of preference confirmation in group decision making: The role of competition and dissent. British Journal of Social Psychology , 52(1):44–63, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective

    Stephen M Garcia, Avishalom Tor, and Tyrone M Schiff. The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(6):634–650, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Altruism in humans

    C Daniel Batson. Altruism in humans . Oxford University Press, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Neurocomputational models of altruistic decision-making and social motives: Advances, pitfalls, and future directions

    Anita Tusche and Lisa M Bas. Neurocomputational models of altruistic decision-making and social motives: Advances, pitfalls, and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 12(6):e1571, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Direct reciprocity among humans

    Charlotte SL Rossetti and Christian Hilbe. Direct reciprocity among humans. Ethology, 130(4):e13407, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Measuring and making decisions for social reciprocity

    Antonio Solanas, David Leiva, Vicenta Sierra, and Llu ´ ıs Salafranca. Measuring and making decisions for social reciprocity. Behavior research methods, 41(3):742–754, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Reciprocity outperforms conformity to promote cooperation

    Angelo Romano and Daniel Balliet. Reciprocity outperforms conformity to promote cooperation. Psy- chological Science, 28(10):1490–1502, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Regimes of expectations: an active inference model of social conformity and human decision making.Frontiers in psychology, 10:679, 2019

    Axel Constant, Maxwell JD Ramstead, Samuel PL Veissi` ere, and Karl Friston. Regimes of expectations: an active inference model of social conformity and human decision making.Frontiers in psychology, 10:679, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Influence of agent type and task ambiguity on conformity in social decision making

    Nicholas Hertz and Eva Wiese. Influence of agent type and task ambiguity on conformity in social decision making. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , volume 60, pages 313–317. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Natural conflict resolution

    Filippo Aureli, Frans De Waal, et al. Natural conflict resolution. University of California Press Berkeley, 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Has conflict resolution grown up? toward a developmental model of decision making and conflict resolution

    Hossain B Danesh and Roshan Danesh. Has conflict resolution grown up? toward a developmental model of decision making and conflict resolution. International Journal of Peace Studies , pages 59–76, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Interactive problem-solving: A social-psychological approach to conflict resolution

    Herbert C Kelman. Interactive problem-solving: A social-psychological approach to conflict resolution. In Conflict: Readings in management and resolution , pages 199–215. Springer, 1990. 22

    1990

  33. [41]

    The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review

    Mina Cikara and Jay J Van Bavel. The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3):245–274, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    How social cognition can inform social decision making

    Victoria Lee and Lasana Harris. How social cognition can inform social decision making. Frontiers in neuroscience, 7:259, 12 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    The neuroscience of social decision-making

    James K Rilling and Alan G Sanfey. The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual review of psychology, 62:23–48, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience

    Alan G Sanfey. Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318(5850):598–602, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Solving the puzzle of human cooperation

    Robert Boyd and Peter J Richerson. Solving the puzzle of human cooperation. Evolution and culture , pages 105–132, 2006

    2006

  38. [46]

    Peace through cooperation or peace through strength? how to achieve peace in the very intractable conflict society

    Young-Mi Kwon and Juhwa Park. Peace through cooperation or peace through strength? how to achieve peace in the very intractable conflict society. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 44(4 (170):269–292, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    From conflict to cooperation? environmental cooper- ation as a tool for peace-building

    Achim Maas, Alexander Carius, and Anja Wittich. From conflict to cooperation? environmental cooper- ation as a tool for peace-building. In Environmental security, pages 102–120. Routledge, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Mutual aid: When does resource scarcity favour group cooperation? Ecological Complexity, 40:100790, 2019

    Etienne Delay and Cyril Piou. Mutual aid: When does resource scarcity favour group cooperation? Ecological Complexity, 40:100790, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management

    Jetske Bouma, Erwin Bulte, and Daan Van Soest. Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management. Journal of environmental economics and management , 56(2):155–166, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Industrial cooperation and its influence on sustainable economic growth

    Alena V Fomina, Oksana N Berduygina, and Alexander A Shatsky. Industrial cooperation and its influence on sustainable economic growth. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues , 5(3):467–479, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Relationship between regional cooperation and political stability and prosperity

    Anna Louise Strachan. Relationship between regional cooperation and political stability and prosperity. K4D Helpdesk Report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies , 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Culture and the evolution of human cooperation

    Robert Boyd and Peter J Richerson. Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 364(1533):3281–3288, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    Cooperation and the use of technology

    David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson. Cooperation and the use of technology. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology , pages 777–803. Routledge, 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    Cooperation in modern society

    Mark Van Vugt, Mark Snyder, Tom R Tyler, and Anders Biel. Cooperation in modern society. Promoting the welfare of communities, states and organizations: Routledge , 2000

    2000

  47. [55]

    Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review

    Victor Suarez-Lledo and Javier Alvarez-Galvez. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research , 23(1):e17187, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations

    Briony Swire-Thompson, David Lazer, et al. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health , 41(1):433–451, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Iterated n-player prisoner’s dilemma games

    John W Carroll. Iterated n-player prisoner’s dilemma games. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition , 53(3):411–415, 1988

    1988

  50. [58]

    Information and strategy in iterated prisoner’s dilemma

    Kaushik Basu. Information and strategy in iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Theory and Decision , 8(3):293, 1977

    1977

  51. [59]

    Game theory and neural basis of social decision making

    Daeyeol Lee. Game theory and neural basis of social decision making. Nature neuroscience, 11(4):404–409, 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation

    David G Rand. Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological science, 27(9):1192–1206, 2016

    2016

  53. [61]

    Cooperation in rats playing the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game

    Ruth I Wood, Jessica Y Kim, and Grace R Li. Cooperation in rats playing the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game. Animal behaviour, 114:27–35, 2016. 23

    2016

  54. [62]

    Risk consideration and cooperation in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma

    Weijun Zeng, Minqiang Li, Fuzan Chen, and Guofang Nan. Risk consideration and cooperation in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Soft Computing , 20:567–587, 2016

    2016

  55. [63]

    Changing the intensity of interaction based on individual behavior in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game

    Jiaqi Li, Chunyan Zhang, Qinglin Sun, Zengqiang Chen, and Jianlei Zhang. Changing the intensity of interaction based on individual behavior in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , 21(4):506–517, 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    Resolving the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: theory and reality

    Nichola J Raihani and Redouan Bshary. Resolving the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: theory and reality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology , 24(8):1628–1639, 2011

    2011

  57. [65]

    Evolution of cooperative behavior in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma under random pairing in game playing

    Hisao Ishibuchi and Naoki Namikawa. Evolution of cooperative behavior in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma under random pairing in game playing. In 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation , volume 3, pages 2637–2644. IEEE, 2005

    2005

  58. [66]

    Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history

    Roger Ratcliff, Philip L Smith, Scott D Brown, and Gail McKoon. Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(4):260–281, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    A theory of memory retrieval

    Roger Ratcliff. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological review, 85(2):59, 1978

    1978

  60. [68]

    A quantitative description of the transition between intuitive altruism and rational deliberation in iterated prisoner’s dilemma experiments

    Riccardo Gallotti and Jelena Gruji´ c. A quantitative description of the transition between intuitive altruism and rational deliberation in iterated prisoner’s dilemma experiments. Scientific reports, 9(1):17046, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications

    Cendri A Hutcherson, Benjamin Bushong, and Antonio Rangel. A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications. Neuron, 87(2):451–462, 2015

    2015

  62. [70]

    A common mechanism underlying food choice and social decisions

    Ian Krajbich, Todd Hare, Bj¨ orn Bartling, Yosuke Morishima, and Ernst Fehr. A common mechanism underlying food choice and social decisions. PLoS computational biology, 11(10):e1004371, 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    Response time modelling reveals evidence for multiple, distinct sources of moral decision caution

    Milan Andrejevi´ c, Joshua P White, Daniel Feuerriegel, Simon Laham, and Stefan Bode. Response time modelling reveals evidence for multiple, distinct sources of moral decision caution. Cognition, 223:105026, 2022

    2022

  64. [72]

    The physics of opti- mal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks

    Rafal Bogacz, Eric Brown, Jeff Moehlis, Philip Holmes, and Jonathan D Cohen. The physics of opti- mal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological review, 113(4):700, 2006

    2006

  65. [73]

    The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks

    Roger Ratcliff and Gail McKoon. The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural computation, 20(4):873–922, 2008

    2008

  66. [74]

    Applied regression: An introduction , volume 22

    Colin Lewis-Beck and Michael Lewis-Beck. Applied regression: An introduction , volume 22. Sage publi- cations, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial prisoner’s dilemma

    Jelena Gruji´ c, Constanza Fosco, Lourdes Araujo, Jos´ e A Cuesta, and Angel S´ anchez. Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial prisoner’s dilemma. PloS one , 5(11):e13749, 2010

    2010

  68. [76]

    Dynamic social networks promote coopera- tion in experiments with humans

    David G Rand, Samuel Arbesman, and Nicholas A Christakis. Dynamic social networks promote coopera- tion in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(48):19193–19198, 2011

    2011

  69. [77]

    Human strategy updating in evolutionary games

    Arne Traulsen, Dirk Semmann, Ralf D Sommerfeld, Hans-J¨ urgen Krambeck, and Manfred Milinski. Human strategy updating in evolutionary games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107(7):2962–2966, 2010

    2010

  70. [78]

    Resilient cooperators stabilize long-run cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma

    Andrew Mao, Lili Dworkin, Siddharth Suri, and Duncan J Watts. Resilient cooperators stabilize long-run cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Nature communications, 8(1):13800, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis

    Daniel Balliet, Laetitia B Mulder, and Paul AM Van Lange. Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 137(4):594, 2011

    2011

  72. [80]

    Cooperation and decision time

    Anthony M Evans and David G Rand. Cooperation and decision time. Current opinion in psychology , 26:67–71, 2019. 24

    2019

  73. [81]

    Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation

    David G Rand, Alexander Peysakhovich, Gordon T Kraft-Todd, George E Newman, Owen Wurzbacher, Martin A Nowak, and Joshua D Greene. Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature communi- cations, 5(1):3677, 2014

    2014

  74. [82]

    Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation

    Adam Bear and David G Rand. Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(4):936–941, 2016

    2016

  75. [83]

    Spontaneous giving and calculated greed

    David G Rand, Joshua D Greene, and Martin A Nowak. Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416):427–430, 2012

    2012

  76. [84]

    Deliberation erodes cooperative behavior—even towards competitive out-groups, even when using a control condition, and even when eliminating selection bias

    Jim AC Everett, Zach Ingbretsen, Fiery Cushman, and Mina Cikara. Deliberation erodes cooperative behavior—even towards competitive out-groups, even when using a control condition, and even when eliminating selection bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 73:76–81, 2017

    2017

  77. [85]

    Predicting human cooperation

    John J Nay and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik. Predicting human cooperation. PloS one , 11(5):e0155656, 2016

    2016

  78. [86]

    Cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma

    Matthew Embrey, Guillaume R Fr´ echette, and Sevgi Yuksel. Cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 133(1):509–551, 2018

    2018

  79. [87]

    Predicting human cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma using case-based decision theory

    Todd Guilfoos and Andreas Duus Pape. Predicting human cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma using case-based decision theory. Theory and Decision , 80:1–32, 2016

    2016

  80. [88]

    Split q learning: reinforcement learning with two-stream rewards

    Baihan Lin, Djallel Bouneffouf, and Guillermo Cecchi. Split q learning: reinforcement learning with two-stream rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.12350 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

  81. [89]

    A story of two streams: Reinforcement learning models from human behavior and neuropsychiatry

    Baihan Lin, Guillermo Cecchi, Djallel Bouneffouf, Jenna Reinen, and Irina Rish. A story of two streams: Reinforcement learning models from human behavior and neuropsychiatry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11286, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Unified models of human behavioral agents in bandits, contextual bandits and rl

    Baihan Lin, Guillermo Cecchi, Djallel Bouneffouf, Jenna Reinen, and Irina Rish. Unified models of human behavioral agents in bandits, contextual bandits and rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04544 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Models of human behavioral agents in bandits, contextual bandits and rl

    Baihan Lin, Guillermo Cecchi, Djallel Bouneffouf, Jenna Reinen, and Irina Rish. Models of human behavioral agents in bandits, contextual bandits and rl. In Human Brain and Artificial Intelligence: Second International Workshop, HBAI 2020, Held in Conjunction with IJCAI-PRICAI ...

    2020

  84. [92]

    Online learning in iterated prisoner’s dilemma to mimic human behavior

    Baihan Lin, Djallel Bouneffouf, and Guillermo Cecchi. Online learning in iterated prisoner’s dilemma to mimic human behavior. In Pacific rim international conference on artificial intelligence , pages 134–147. Springer, 2022

    2022

  85. [93]

    Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience: Advantages, applications, and extensions

    Birte U Forstmann, Roger Ratcliff, and E-J Wagenmakers. Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience: Advantages, applications, and extensions. Annual review of psychology , 67:641–666, 2016

    2016

  86. [94]

    The mechanistic foundation of weber’s law

    Jose L Pardo-Vazquez, Juan R Casti˜ neiras-de Saa, Mafalda Valente, Iris Dami˜ ao, Tiago Costa, M Inˆ es Vicente, Andr´ e G Mendon¸ ca, Zachary F Mainen, and Alfonso Renart. The mechanistic foundation of weber’s law. Nature neuroscience, 22(9):1493–1502, 2019

    2019

  87. [95]

    Predicting human decision making in psychological tasks with recurrent neural networks

    Baihan Lin, Djallel Bouneffouf, and Guillermo Cecchi. Predicting human decision making in psychological tasks with recurrent neural networks. PloS one , 17(5):e0267907, 2022

    2022

  88. [96]

    Scaffolding cooperation in human groups with deep reinforcement learning

    Kevin R McKee, Andrea Tacchetti, Michiel A Bakker, Jan Balaguer, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Richard Everett, and Matthew Botvinick. Scaffolding cooperation in human groups with deep reinforcement learning. Nature Human Behaviour , pages 1–10, 2023

    2023

  89. [97]

    Analyzing complex strategic interactions in multi-agent systems

    William E Walsh, Rajarshi Das, Gerald Tesauro, and Jeffrey O Kephart. Analyzing complex strategic interactions in multi-agent systems. In AAAI-02 Workshop on Game-Theoretic and Decision-Theoretic Agents, pages 109–118, 2002

    2002

  90. [98]

    Methods for empirical game-theoretic analysis

    Michael P Wellman. Methods for empirical game-theoretic analysis. In AAAI, volume 980, pages 1552– 1556, 2006. 25

    2006

  91. [99]

    Multi-agent rein- forcement learning in sequential social dilemmas

    Joel Z Leibo, Vinicius Zambaldi, Marc Lanctot, Janusz Marecki, and Thore Graepel. Multi-agent rein- forcement learning in sequential social dilemmas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03037 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmas

    Edward Hughes, Joel Z Leibo, Matthew Phillips, Karl Tuyls, Edgar Due˜ nez-Guzman, Antonio Garc ´ ıa Casta˜ neda, Iain Dunning, Tina Zhu, Kevin McKee, Raphael Koster, et al. Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmas. Advances in neural information ...

    2018

  93. [101]

    Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities

    Thomas C Schelling. Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities. Journal of Conflict resolution , 17(3):381–428, 1973

    1973

  94. [102]

    A multi-agent reinforcement learning model of common-pool resource appropriation

    Julien Perolat, Joel Z Leibo, Vinicius Zambaldi, Charles Beattie, Karl Tuyls, and Thore Graepel. A multi-agent reinforcement learning model of common-pool resource appropriation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  95. [103]

    A note on modeling accumulation of information when the rate of accumulation changes over time

    Roger Ratcliff. A note on modeling accumulation of information when the rate of accumulation changes over time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , 1980

    1980

  96. [104]

    Modeling response times for two-choice decisions

    Roger Ratcliff and Jeffrey N Rouder. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological science, 9(5):347–356, 1998

    1998

  97. [105]

    Optimal decision making in heterogeneous and biased environments

    Rani Moran. Optimal decision making in heterogeneous and biased environments. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22:38–53, 2015

    2015

  98. [106]

    Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing

    Ward Edwards. Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , 2(2):312–329, 1965

    1965

  99. [107]

    Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time

    Roger Ratcliff, Trisha Van Zandt, and Gail McKoon. Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychological review, 106(2):261, 1999

    1999

  100. [108]

    An introduction to probability theory and its applications , volume 81

    William Feller. An introduction to probability theory and its applications , volume 81. John Wiley & Sons, 1991

    1991

  101. [109]

    Fast deliberation is related to unconditional behaviour in iterated prisoners’ dilemma experiments

    Eladio Montero-Porras, Tom Lenaerts, Riccardo Gallotti, and Jelena Grujic. Fast deliberation is related to unconditional behaviour in iterated prisoners’ dilemma experiments. Scientific Reports, 12(1):20287, 2022

    2022

  102. [110]

    Hddm: Hierarchical bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in python

    Thomas V Wiecki, Imri Sofer, and Michael J Frank. Hddm: Hierarchical bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in python. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, page 14, 2013. 26 Supplementary Information Rationality regimes over time Figure 1: Rationality values attained on th...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.