Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Serious Games: Human-AI Interaction, Evolution, and Coevolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that evolutionary game theory's three classic models—Hawk-Dove, Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and War of Attrition—are a suitable framework to predict human-AI interaction, evolution, and coevolution.

desk verdict A readable survey of three classic EGT models whose only promised novelty—a simulation—is missing, and whose human-AI predictions are analogies rather than model outputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16388 v2 pith:DIMM3CKQ submitted 2025-05-22 cs.AI cs.GT

Nandini Doreswamy (1 , 2) , Louise Horstmanshof (1) ((1) Southern Cross University , Lismore , New South Wales , Australia , (2) National Coalition of Independent Scholars) This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.GT
keywords evolutionarygametheoryhuman-AIinteractioncoevolutionHawk-DoveIteratedPrisoner'sDilemmaWarofAttritionneuroplasticityartificialintelligence
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 argues that Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) is a promising framework for understanding and predicting how humans and artificial intelligences will interact, evolve, and coevolve. It examines three classic EGT models—the Hawk-Dove Game, the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and the War of Attrition—and maps their predictions onto human-AI dynamics. The Hawk-Dove Game suggests mixed-strategy equilibria will emerge, with neither pure cooperation nor pure competition dominating. The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma suggests repeated interaction can foster reciprocity and cognitive coevolution, while the War of Attrition suggests resource competition will produce strategic coevolution, asymmetric equilibria, and resource-sharing conventions. Together, these models point toward cooperative equilibria rather than dominance by either side, while acknowledging that this is a limited theoretical exploration needing empirical validation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are three named EGT models. The Hawk-Dove Game is a model of conflict over a resource in which aggressive and passive strategies coexist at a mixed-strategy equilibrium determined by the costs of conflict. The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is a repeated two-player game in which players remember past choices and can cooperate or defect, allowing reciprocity-based strategies to emerge. The War of Attrition is a contest in which two players persist in costly displays until one withdraws, yielding an evolutionarily stable distribution of persistence times. The paper uses these models as the mechanisms that generate its predicted human-AI outcomes: balanced coevolution, cognitive coevolution through reciprocity, and strategic coevolution through resource contests, respectively.

What would settle it

Run a large-scale iterated Prisoner's Dilemma between human participants and current AI agents over many rounds. If cooperation does not rise with repetition and reciprocity, or if one side consistently dominates, the paper's central prediction of cooperative equilibrium would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that EGT can serve as a conceptual and predictive framework for the 'serious games' between humans and AI. It reads human-AI interaction as a population-level evolutionary process in which both entities adapt to each other's strategies. From the Hawk-Dove Game, the paper derives a predicted mixed-strategy equilibrium in which aggressive 'hawk' behavior by AI triggers defensive human responses such as regulation or disconnection, and mutual 'dove' behavior enables cooperative coevolution. From the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, it derives the prediction that repeated interaction, memory, and reciprocity will drive cognitive coevolution, potentially toward cooperation. From the War of Attrition, it derives the prediction that resource competition will drive strategic coevolution shaped by persistence thresholds and value assessments, possibly settling into asymmetric equilibria or sharing conventions. The paper concludes that human-AI evolution and coevolution may favor cooperative equilibrium over competitive escalation or unilateral dominance.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on treating AI as an evolving population whose strategies are shaped by selection dynamics like those of biological organisms, and on assuming AI capabilities scale predictably without a major paradigm shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If EGT applies, long-run human-AI interaction should tend toward mixed-strategy equilibria rather than domination by either side.
  • Repeated, remembered interactions between humans and AI should promote reciprocal cooperation, analogous to tit-for-tat behavior.
  • Resource competitions between humans and AI should produce persistence thresholds, conventions for sharing, and asymmetric equilibria.
  • Aggressive AI strategies should elicit defensive human responses such as regulation or disconnection, stabilizing the system.
  • If humans and AI coevolve, human neuroplasticity could change cognition in response to AI, raising ethical and cognitive stakes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the framework is analogical, so its predictions need empirical testing with real human-AI interaction data before they can be treated as more than suggestive.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test would be to run long-horizon iterated games between human subjects and current language-model agents; rising reciprocity and declining defection would support the framework, while persistent defection or unilateral dominance would undercut it.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's neuroplasticity speculation implies a measurable cognitive consequence—sustained reliance on AI for decisions should produce detectable shifts in attention, memory, or spatial reasoning over time.
  • Editorial inference: if the cooperative-equilibrium prediction is right, the design of AI reward structures and human interface defaults becomes a policy lever for steering the coevolutionary outcome, not just a technical detail.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript argues that Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT), specifically the Hawk-Dove Game, Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and War of Attrition, may provide a suitable framework for understanding and predicting human-AI interaction, evolution, and coevolution. The authors review the three models, discuss their textbook properties, and apply them by analogy to human-AI contexts, concluding that cooperative equilibria are likely. The abstract promises an illustrative computational simulation, and Section 6 states that data are included, but the body of the paper contains no simulation, payoff matrices, parameters, code, or output.

Significance. If the central claim were substantiated, the paper would offer a novel perspective on long-term human-AI dynamics. The authors correctly describe the three EGT models and cite relevant prior work, including applications to multi-agent reinforcement learning. However, the paper's original contribution is a set of qualitative analogies rather than a formal EGT model with explicit payoff mappings. There is no empirical evidence, no simulation, and no derivation connecting human/AI strategies to the models' equilibria. The promised simulation is absent, so the paper currently functions as a speculative position piece. The transparent listing of limitations is a strength, but it does not compensate for the missing formal support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6 vs. Sections 2-4] The abstract states that "an illustrative computational simulation is provided" and Section 6 (Data Availability) says "Data generated or analysed are included in this article," but the Methods, Results, and Discussion contain no simulation, no payoff matrices, no parameter values, no code, and no output. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency: the only original evidence promised by the paper is missing. The authors must either supply the simulation with full specification or remove these claims and reframe the paper as a non-empirical position/review piece.
  2. [Sections 4.1-4.3] The claimed predictions—mixed-strategy equilibria in Hawk-Dove, cooperative equilibria in IPD, asymmetric equilibria in War of Attrition—are restatements of textbook properties of these games, not consequences of a model of human-AI interaction. No explicit mapping is given from human/AI decision-making attributes to the strategies, payoffs, mutation rates, or replication dynamics of the games. Without such a mapping, the conclusion in Section 5 that "human-AI evolution and coevolution may well favor cooperative equilibrium" is an analogy, not a model-derived result.
  3. [Section 4.4 and Introduction] The premise that AI constitutes an evolving population subject to EGT dynamics is asserted by analogy and never examined. The acknowledged limitation in Section 4.4 ("current AI capabilities will scale predictably without major paradigm shifts") is weaker than the load-bearing assumption that AI systems exhibit heritable variation and payoff-driven replication at the population level. The paper needs to argue for or model this premise explicitly, or state clearly that EGT is used only as a heuristic metaphor.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The first sentence, "This examination of three established EGT models through the lens of human-AI interaction, evolution, and coevolution," is a sentence fragment; it needs a main verb.
  2. [Section 6] The Data Availability statement is misleading given that no data are analyzed; suggest "No new data were generated or analysed in this study."
  3. [Section 3 vs. Section 4] Section 3 uses definite language ("will likely emerge") while Section 4 uses cautious "may"; the epistemic status should be consistent throughout.
  4. [Section 2] Table 1 lists 13 models but only three are examined; the reader would benefit from one sentence explaining the selection criteria beyond "widespread acceptance and clear relevance."
  5. [Section 4.2] The statement that DeepMind applied IPD to AI [76] is relevant, but the cited paper is a multi-agent RL paper on sequential social dilemmas rather than a direct IPD study; the description should be checked against the source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an analogical literature application, not a fitted derivation; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that EGT 'may provide a suitable framework' for understanding human-AI interaction, evolution, and coevolution. No parameter is fitted, no quantity is estimated, and no equation is solved. The qualitative outcomes reported in Results and Discussion (Hawk-Dove mixed-strategy equilibria, IPD cooperation through repetition, War of Attrition asymmetric equilibria) are the standard, pre-existing properties of these textbook models; the paper applies them to human-AI language by analogy. This is a weakness of evidential support because the mapping from human/AI behavior to EGT payoffs is never specified, but it is not circularity: the paper does not claim to derive these equilibria from new data or from a fitted model. The self-citations [71-73] are used only to note that humans and AI have decision-making attributes; they do not carry the load of the EGT claim, so they do not raise the score. Section 4.4 explicitly acknowledges the assumption that AI capabilities will scale predictably and other limitations, which further shows the authors are not presenting a forced result. The Abstract's promise of an 'illustrative computational simulation' that never appears in the text is a completeness/verifiability failure, not a circular reduction. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, parameters, or math. It relies on biological analogy and a list of domain assumptions, several of which the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4.4.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AI can be modeled as an evolving population subject to selection dynamics
    The paper's entire framework rests on this analogy; see Introduction and Sections 4.1-4.3.
  • domain assumption Current AI capabilities will scale predictably without major paradigm shifts
    Explicitly stated in Section 4.4 as an assumption of the analysis.
  • domain assumption Repeated human-AI interactions will resemble the games modeled by EGT
    The application of each model presumes the interaction structure matches the game; not empirically established.
  • domain assumption Neuroplasticity means humans biologically evolve in response to AI
    The conclusion uses neuroplasticity to argue human evolution may be shaped by AI; this is a strong extrapolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Serious Games: Human-AI Interaction, Evolution, and Coevolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIMM3CKQ

@misc{pith2026250516388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Serious Games: Human-AI Interaction, Evolution, and Coevolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIMM3CKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16388}
}
read the original abstract

The serious games between humans and AI have only just begun. Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) models the competitive and cooperative strategies of biological entities. EGT could help predict the potential evolutionary equilibrium of humans and AI. The objective of this work was to examine EGT models relevant to human-AI interaction, evolution, and co-evolution. Of thirteen EGT models considered, three were examined: the Hawk-Dove Game, Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and the War of Attrition. This selection was based on the widespread acceptance and clear relevance of these models to potential human-AI evolutionary dynamics and co-evolutionary trajectories. The Hawk-Dove Game predicts balanced mixed-strategy equilibria based on the costs of conflict. Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that repeated interaction may lead to cognitive co-evolution. The War of Attrition suggests that competition for resources may result in strategic co-evolution, asymmetric equilibria, and conventions on sharing resources. Each model was examined from the perspective of human and AI decision-making, from psychological and biological perspectives, and from an AI viewpoint. AI is being shaped by human input and is evolving in response to it. So too, neuroplasticity allows the human brain to evolve in response to stimuli. If humans and AI converge in future, what might be the result of human neuroplasticity combined with an ever-evolving AI? There are profound ethical and cognitive implications. EGT may provide a suitable framework to understand and predict human-AI interaction, evolution, and co-evolution. However, future research should extend beyond EGT and explore additional frameworks, empirical validation methods, and interdisciplinary perspectives. In the spirit of further exploration, an illustrative computational simulation is provided.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Morgenstern, O

    Deming, W., Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 40 (1944), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280142 7

    work page doi:10.2307/2280142 1944

  2. [2]

    and Morgenstern, O

    von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1944

    1944

  3. [3]

    Nash, J. F. Equilibrium points in n -Person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 36, 1 (1950), 48. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48

    doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48 1950

  4. [4]

    Flood, M. M. Some Experimental Games. Management Science, 5, 1 (1958/10/01 1958), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.5.1.5

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.5.1.5 1958

  5. [6]

    and Seung, H

    Loewenstein, Y., Prelec, D. and Seung, H. S. Operant matching as a Nash equilibrium of an intertemporal game. Neural Computation, 21, 10 (2009), 2755-

    work page 2009

  6. [7]

    An alternative view of pre-volitional processes in decision making: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence

    Perugini, M. An alternative view of pre-volitional processes in decision making: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence . Psychology Press, City, 2004.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203645031

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203645031 2004

  7. [8]

    A., & Wood, W

    Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 1 (1998), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 1998

  8. [9]

    Smith, J. M. and Price, G. R. The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 5427 (1973), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/246015A0

    doi:10.1038/246015a0 1973

Show all 81 references
  1. [11]

    Smith, J. M. Evolutionary game theory. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 22, 1-3 (1986), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(86)90232-0

    1986 doi

  2. [12]

    and Hamilton, W

    Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. D. The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 211, 4489 (1981), 1390-1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396

    1981 doi

  3. [13]

    Sandholm, W. H. Local stability under evolutionary game dynamics. Theoretical Economics, 5, 1 (2010/01/01 2010), 27-50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3982/TE505

    2010 doi

  4. [14]

    and Ratliff, L

    Skoulakis, S., Fiez, T., Sim, R., Piliouras, G. and Ratliff, L. Evolutionary Game Theory Squared: Evolving Agents in Endogenously Evolving Zero -Sum Games. City, 2021.https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i13.17352

    2021 doi

  5. [15]

    Society: The rise of the 'technium'

    Baber, Z. Society: The rise of the 'technium'. Nature, 468, 7322 (2010/11/01 2010), 372-373. https://doi.org/10.1038/468372a

    2010 doi

  6. [16]

    Habib, M. K. Handbook of Research on New Investigations in Artificial Life, AI, and Machine Learning . Engineering Science Reference, City, 2022.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8686-0

    2022 doi

  7. [17]

    O., Clune, J., Lehman, J

    Stanley, K. O., Clune, J., Lehman, J. and Miikkulainen, R. Designing neural networks through neuroevolution. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 1 (2019/01/01 2019), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-018-0006-z

    2019 doi

  8. [18]

    A brief history of artificial intelligence research

    Adami, C. A brief history of artificial intelligence research. Artificial life, 27, 2 (2021), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl_a_00349

    2021 doi

  9. [19]

    Turing, A. M. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59, 236 (1950), 433-460

    1950

  10. [20]

    Samuel, A. L. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of research and development , 3, 3 (1959), 210-229

    1959

  11. [21]

    L., Rochester, N

    McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N. and Shannon, C. E. A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Ar tificial Intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27, 4 (2006), 12-14. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904

    2006 doi

  12. [22]

    and Tamilarasu, A

    Shanmugasundaram, M. and Tamilarasu, A. The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on c ognitive functions: a review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077

    2023

  13. [23]

    Bakdash, J. Z. Guided navigation impairs spatial knowledge: Using aids to improve spatial representations . University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA, 2010.https://doi.org/10.31237/osf.io/cnb8h

    2010 doi

  14. [24]

    What Technology Wants

    Kelly, K. What Technology Wants. Penguin Books, 2011

    2011

  15. [25]

    The tethered self: Technology reinvents intimacy and solitude

    Turkle, S. The tethered self: Technology reinvents intimacy and solitude. Continuing higher education review, 75 (2011), 28-31

    2011

  16. [26]

    Mijwil, M. M. and Abttan, R. A. Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution and future trends. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, 9, 2 (2021), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.24203/ajas.v9i2.6589

    2021 doi

  17. [28]

    and Kahneman, D

    Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference -dependent model. The quarterly journal of economics, 106, 4 (1991), 1039-

    1991

  18. [29]

    J., Brenner, L

    Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L. A. and Tversky, A. The enhancement effect in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 10, 4 (1997), 293-

    1997

  19. [30]

    Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making

    Camerer, C. Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making. Experimental Economics, 1, 2 (1998/09/01 1998), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009944326196

    1998 doi

  20. [31]

    and Hsee, C

    Rottenstreich, Y. and Hsee, C. K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological science, 12, 3 (2001), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00334

    2001

  21. [32]

    Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics

    Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 5 (2003), 1449-1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392

    2003 doi

  22. [33]

    and Tversky, A

    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 2 (1979), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

    1979 doi

  23. [34]

    Mellers, B. A. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological bulletin, 126, 6 (2000), 910. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.910

    2000 doi

  24. [35]

    Artificial neural networks

    Abraham, A. Artificial neural networks. City, 2005.https://doi.org/10.1002/0471497398.mm421

    2005 doi

  25. [37]

    and Brocardo, P

    Marzola, P., Melzer, T., Pavesi, E., Gil-Mohapel, J. and Brocardo, P. S. Exploring the role of neuroplasticity in development, aging, and neurodegeneration. Brain sciences, 13, 12 (2023), 1610. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13121610

    2023 doi

  26. [38]

    Yang, G. R. and Wang, X. J. Artificial Neural Networks for Neuroscientists: A Primer. Neuron, 107, 6 (Sep 23 2020), 1048-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.005

    2020 doi

  27. [39]

    and Thagard, P

    Litt, A., Eliasmith, C. and Thagard, P. Neural affective decision theory: Choices, brains, and emotions. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 4 (2008/10/01/ 2008), 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.11.001

    2008 doi

  28. [40]

    I., Geanakoplos, J

    Bulow, J. I., Geanakoplos, J. D. and Klemperer, P. D. Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements. The journal of political economy. , 93, 3 (1985), 488-511. https://doi.org/10.1086/261312

    1985 doi

  29. [41]

    and Selten, R

    Hammerstein, P. and Selten, R. Game theory and evolutionary biology. Handbook of game theory with economic applications , 2 (1994), 929-993. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0005(05)80060-8

    1994 doi

  30. [42]

    Richter, X. L. and Lehtonen, J. Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future dire ctions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 378, 1876 (May 8 2023), 20210492. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0492

    2023

  31. [43]

    Fletcher, J. A. and Zwick, M. The evolution of altruism: Game theory in multilevel selection and inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 245 (2007), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.09.030

    2007 doi

  32. [44]

    Hauert, C., Michor, F., Nowak, M. A. and Doebeli, M. Synergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239 (2006), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.040

    2006 doi

  33. [45]

    The Evolution of Conformist Transmission in Social Learning when the Environment Changes Periodically

    Nakahashi, W. The Evolution of Conformist Transmission in Social Learning when the Environment Changes Periodically. Theoretical Population Biology, 72 (2007), 52-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2007.03.003

    2007 doi

  34. [46]

    The Grammar of Society

    Bicchieri, C. The Grammar of Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    2006

  35. [47]

    Biological altruism in hostile environments

    Harms, W. Biological altruism in hostile environments. Complexity, 5, 2 (1999/11/01 1999), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 0526(199911/12)5:2<23::AID-CPLX4>3.0.CO;2-F

    1999 doi

  36. [48]

    and Nowe, A

    Tuyls, K. and Nowe, A. Evolutionary game theory and multi -agent reinforcement learning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20 (03/01 2005), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988890500041X

    2005 doi

  37. [49]

    C., Eiben, A

    Buzing, P. C., Eiben, A. E. and Schut, M. C. Emerging communication and cooperation in evolving agent societies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8, 1 (2005)

    2005

  38. [50]

    Evolution and game theory

    Samuelson, L. Evolution and game theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 2 (2002), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330027256

    2002 doi

  39. [51]

    Prisoner’s Dilemma

    Rapoport, A. Prisoner’s Dilemma. Palgrave Macmillan UK, City, 1989.https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -1-349-20181-5_23

    1989 doi

  40. [52]

    Smith, J. M. and Parker, G. A. The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal behaviour, 24, 1 (1976), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80110-8

    1976 doi

  41. [53]

    F., Taylor, P

    Norman, R. F., Taylor, P. D. and Robertson, R. J. Stable equilibrium strategies and penalty functions in a game of attri tion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 65, 3 (1977), 571-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(77)90215-6

    1977 doi

  42. [54]

    and Parker, G

    Hammerstein, P. and Parker, G. A. The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 4 (1982), 647-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- 5193(82)90235-1 8

    1982 doi

  43. [55]

    Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment

    Bohm, P. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 2 (1972), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014- 2921(72)90001-3

    1972 doi

  44. [56]

    Taylor, P. D. and Jonker, L. B. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical biosciences, 40, 1-2 (1978), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(78)90077-9

    1978 doi

  45. [57]

    Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly review of biology, 46, 1 (1971), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755

    1971 doi

  46. [58]

    Alexander, R. D. The evolution of social behavior. Annual review of ecology and systematics (1974), 325-383. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.001545

    1974

  47. [59]

    Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, 7063 (2005/10/01 2005), 1291-1298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131

    2005 doi

  48. [60]

    Nowak, M. A. and May, R. M. Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature, 359, 6398 (1992/10/01 1992), 826-829. https://doi.org/10.1038/359826a0

    1992 doi

  49. [61]

    A., Page, K

    Nowak, M. A., Page, K. M. and Sigmund, K. Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289, 5485 (2000), 1773-1775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5485.1773

    2000

  50. [62]

    Wynne-Edwards, V. C. Intergroup Selection in the Evolution of Social Systems. Nature, 200, 4907 (1963/11/01 1963), 623-626. https://doi.org/10.1038/200623a0

    1963 doi

  51. [63]

    A., Kisdi, E., Mesze´ NA, G

    Geritz, S. A., Kisdi, E., Mesze´ NA, G. and Metz, J. A. Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and b ranching of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionary ecology, 12 (1998), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006554906681

    1998 doi

  52. [64]

    and Law, R

    Dieckmann, U. and Law, R. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. Journal of mathematical biology , 34 (1996), 579-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02409751

    1996 doi

  53. [65]

    A., Geritz, S

    Metz, J. A., Geritz, S. A., Meszéna, G., Jacobs, F. J. and Van Heerwaarden, J. S. Adaptive dynamics: a geometrical study of the consequences of nearly faithful reproduction (1995)

    1995

  54. [66]

    and Nowak, M

    Lieberman, E., Hauert, C. and Nowak, M. A. Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature, 433, 7023 (Jan 20 2005), 312-316. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03204

    2005 doi

  55. [67]

    Moran, P. A. P. Publications of P.A.P. Moran. Journal of Applied Probability, 19, A (1982), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021900200034410

    1982 doi

  56. [68]

    Price, G. R. Selection and Covariance. Nature, 227, 5257 (1970/08/01 1970), 520-521. https://doi.org/10.1038/227520a0

    1970 doi

  57. [69]

    Evolutionary stability: states and strategies

    Thomas, B. Evolutionary stability: states and strategies. Theoretical Population Biology , 26, 1 (1984), 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(84)90023- 6

    1984 doi

  58. [70]

    Zeeman, E. C. Population dynamics from game theory . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, City, 1980.https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0087009

    1980 doi

  59. [71]

    and Horstmanshof, L

    Doreswamy, N. and Horstmanshof, L. A Comparison Between Human and Generative AI Decision -Making Attributes in Complex Health Services. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08360 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  60. [72]

    and Horstmanshof, L

    Doreswamy, N. and Horstmanshof, L. Generative AI Decision -Making Attributes in Complex Health Services: A Rapid Review. Cureus, 17, 1 (2025/1/30 2025), e78257. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.78257

    2025 doi

  61. [73]

    and Horstmanshof, L

    Doreswamy, N. and Horstmanshof, L. Attributes That Influence Human Decision -Making in Complex Health Services: Scoping Review. JMIR Hum Factors, 10 (Dec 20 2023), e46490. https://doi.org/10.2196/46490

    2023 doi

  62. [74]

    Press, W. H. and Dyson, F. J. Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 26 (2012), 10409-10413. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206569109

    2012 doi

  63. [75]

    Y., Humble, J., Kendall, G., Li, J

    Chong, S. Y., Humble, J., Kendall, G., Li, J. and Yao, X. Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma and Evolutionary Game Theory . World Scientific Publishing Company, City, 2007.https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812770684_0002

    2007 doi

  64. [76]

    Z., Zambaldi, V., Lanctot, M., Marecki, J

    Leibo, J. Z., Zambaldi, V., Lanctot, M., Marecki, J. and Graepel, T. Multi -agent reinforcement learning in sequential social dilemmas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03037 (2017). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.03037

    2017 doi arXiv

  65. [77]

    Kahneman, D

    Krämer, W. Kahneman, D. (2011): Thinking, Fast and Slow. Statistical Papers, 55, 3 (2014/08/01 2014), 915-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-013- 0533-y

    2011 doi

  66. [78]

    and Adams, E

    Mesterton-Gibbons, M. and Adams, E. S. Animal contests as evolutionary games: paradoxical behavior can be understood in the context of evolutionary stable strategies. The trick is to discover which game the animal is playing. American Scientist, 86, 4 (1998), 334-341

    1998

  67. [79]

    Bishop, D. T. and Cannings, C. A generalized war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 70, 1 (1978/01/07/ 1978), 85-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(78)90304-1

    1978 doi

  68. [80]

    and Graepel, T

    Balduzzi, D., Garnelo, M., Bachrach, Y., Czarnecki, W., Perolat, J., Jaderberg, M. and Graepel, T. Open-ended learning in symmetric zero-sum games. arXiv, City, 2019.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.08106

    2019 doi arXiv

  69. [81]

    and Smirnov, O

    Johnson, T., Dawes, C., Fowler, J. and Smirnov, O. Slowing COVID -19 transmission as a social dilemma: Lessons for government officials from interdisciplinary research on cooperation. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 3, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.150

    2020 doi

  70. [82]

    D., Krambeck, H

    Milinski, M., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Reed, F. A. and Marotzke, J. The collective -risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105, 7 (Feb 19 2008), 2291-2294. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709546105

    2008 doi

  71. [313]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199712)10:4<293::AID-BDM256>3.0.CO;2-P

    doi

  72. [1061]

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956

    doi

  73. [2773]

    https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2009.09-08-854

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.