pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.03772 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-04 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.MA· nlin.AO

Cooperation in public goods game on square lattices with agents changing interaction groups

Jaros{\l}aw Adam Miszczak This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.MAnlin.AO
keywords public goods gamecooperationsquare latticeinteraction groupsagent switchingspatial gamesevolutionary dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reevaluating interaction groups on square lattices increases cooperation in public goods games, but high switching rates reduce it.

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

The paper examines public goods games where agents on a square lattice can periodically switch between different interaction groups of fixed size according to a payoff comparison. Allowing this reevaluation raises overall cooperation levels even when no reputation or punishment mechanisms are present. At the same time, when a large fraction of agents actively switch groups, cooperative clusters form less readily. The results come from simulations that vary the fraction of switching agents and the group size while keeping the underlying lattice structure fixed. This setup isolates the effect of dynamic interaction networks on the emergence of cooperation.

Core claim

In the model, agents play public goods games within small groups on a square lattice and can reevaluate their current interaction group using payoffs from alternative groups. When this reevaluation is active, the fraction of cooperators rises relative to the fixed-group case. When the proportion of agents that switch is large, however, cooperation declines. The effect appears across different group sizes without requiring additional incentives.

What carries the argument

The payoff-based rule that lets agents switch between alternative interaction groups of fixed size on the square lattice.

If this is right

  • Cooperation appears without external mechanisms when agents can adjust their interaction groups.
  • An intermediate fraction of switching agents supports the highest cooperation levels.
  • Dynamic group membership creates effective diversity that stabilizes cooperative behavior on the lattice.
  • Fixed interaction groups alone produce lower cooperation than groups that are occasionally reevaluated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reevaluation logic might apply to real social or ecological systems where individuals periodically reassess group membership.
  • The model could be tested on other lattices or small-world networks to check whether the cooperation boost persists.
  • Human-subject experiments could replicate the payoff-based switching rule to observe whether cooperation patterns match the simulations.

Load-bearing premise

Agents compare payoffs across possible groups and switch in a manner that on average favors configurations supporting cooperation.

What would settle it

Simulations with the reevaluation rule turned off should show lower cooperation than runs with moderate switching enabled; runs with nearly all agents switching should show suppressed cooperation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03772 by Jaros{\l}aw Adam Miszczak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Impact of roaming agents on the formation of cooperation in the local scenario. The interaction group is selected from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Impact of the roaming agents in the global scenario with the fixed number of interacting agents. In this case the effect of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Impact of the increasing participation of roaming agents on the formation of cooperative behaviour in the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimal participation of roaming agents minimizing the synergy factor required for achieving the cooperation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the static model from [39] and the model with the roaming agents in the local and the global variant. The plots where prepared for δ = 0 (black dotted line), δ = 0.1 (green squares), and δ = 0.4 (red crosses). In two top plots and for the case δ = 0, the base model from [39] is obtained. Plots were obtained for square L × L grid, with L = 64 and periodic boundary conditions. Each configuratio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The emergence of cooperation in the groups of interacting agents is one of the most fascinating phenomena observed in many complex systems studied in social science and ecology, even in the situations where one would expect the agent to use a free-rider policy. This is especially surprising in the situation where no external mechanisms based on reputation or punishment are present. One of the possible explanations of this effect is the inhomogeneity of the various aspects of interactions, which can be used to clarify the seemingly paradoxical behaviour. In this work we demonstrate that the diversity of interaction networks helps to some degree explaining the emergence of cooperation. We extend the model of spatial interaction diversity by enabling the evaluation of the interaction groups. We show that the process of the reevaluation of the interaction group facilitates the emergence of cooperation. Furthermore, we also observe that a significant participation of agents switching their interaction neighbourhoods has a negative impact on the formation of cooperation. The introduced scenario can help to understand the formation of cooperation in the systems where no additional mechanisms for controlling agents are included.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extends models of spatial public goods games on square lattices by allowing agents to reevaluate and switch interaction groups according to a payoff-based rule. It claims that this reevaluation facilitates the emergence of cooperation in the absence of reputation or punishment, while a high fraction of agents participating in group switching has a negative impact on cooperation levels. The work is based on forward agent-based simulations exploring the effects of dynamic interaction networks.

Significance. If the central results hold after controls, the manuscript would add to the literature on how inhomogeneity and dynamism in interaction networks can promote cooperation in social dilemmas. It provides a concrete simulation framework for studying agent-driven group reevaluation on lattices, which could inform models in evolutionary game theory and complex systems without invoking external enforcement mechanisms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model section] Model section (and simulation setup): the central claim that payoff-based reevaluation specifically facilitates cooperation is not supported by a control comparing it to random switching at equivalent average rates and group sizes. Without this, it remains possible that the reported boost is a generic effect of network fluidity rather than the payoff dependence, undermining the load-bearing distinction in the abstract.
  2. [Results section] Results section: no details are provided on the number of independent runs, statistical tests for significance of cooperation levels, error bars, or robustness checks against initial conditions and lattice sizes. This absence prevents verification that the observed effects (positive from reevaluation, negative from high switching participation) are statistically reliable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly reference prior work on spatial interaction diversity to clarify the precise extension introduced here.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should include the exact parameter values (e.g., benefit-to-cost ratio, switching probability) used in each panel for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and outline the revisions we plan to make to strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model section] Model section (and simulation setup): the central claim that payoff-based reevaluation specifically facilitates cooperation is not supported by a control comparing it to random switching at equivalent average rates and group sizes. Without this, it remains possible that the reported boost is a generic effect of network fluidity rather than the payoff dependence, undermining the load-bearing distinction in the abstract.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this concern. To address it, we will incorporate additional simulations in the revised manuscript that compare our payoff-based group reevaluation to a control scenario with random group switching, maintaining equivalent average switching rates and group sizes. This will help demonstrate that the facilitation of cooperation is specifically due to the payoff-dependent mechanism rather than general network fluidity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section: no details are provided on the number of independent runs, statistical tests for significance of cooperation levels, error bars, or robustness checks against initial conditions and lattice sizes. This absence prevents verification that the observed effects (positive from reevaluation, negative from high switching participation) are statistically reliable.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. In the updated manuscript, we will provide comprehensive details on the simulation methodology, including the number of independent runs performed for each parameter combination, the inclusion of error bars in the figures, and results from robustness checks across different lattice sizes and initial conditions. We will also discuss any statistical analyses used to support the significance of the reported effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from forward agent-based simulation of defined model

full rationale

The paper defines an agent-based model for the public goods game on square lattices in which agents reevaluate and switch interaction groups according to a payoff-based rule, then reports observed cooperation levels and switching impacts directly from Monte Carlo simulation runs. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or self-citation chain; the central claims are empirical outputs of the explicitly stated dynamics rather than algebraic identities or renamed inputs. The model setup and simulation protocol are independent of the reported outcomes, rendering the derivation chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several standard modeling choices in evolutionary game theory plus new parameters for group switching that are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (2)
  • group switching probability or rate
    Controls how often agents reevaluate and change neighborhoods; directly affects the reported cooperation levels.
  • benefit-to-cost ratio in the public goods game
    Standard parameter that determines payoff structure and is typically scanned or fixed to demonstrate the effect.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Agents update their strategies or group memberships based on local payoff comparisons in an evolutionary process.
    Invoked in the model of agent behavior on the lattice.
  • domain assumption The square lattice topology and fixed group sizes provide a sufficient spatial structure for the diversity effect to appear.
    Underlying the spatial interaction setup.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5711 in / 1351 out tokens · 46589 ms · 2026-05-18T10:49:44.050169+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ratio-Dependent Contrarian Activation in Opinion Dynamics

    physics.soc-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Ratio-dependent contrarian activation in groups of three extends the Galam model to allow strategies that bias outcomes toward the initial majority or enforce random fifty-fifty results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adami, J

    C. Adami, J. Schossau, and A. Hintze. Evolutionary game theory using agent-based methods.Physics of Life Reviews, 19:1–26, 2016.doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2016.08.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2016.08.015 2016

  2. [3]

    Anzola, P

    D. Anzola, P. Barbrook-Johnson, and N. Gilbert. The ethics of agent-based social simulation.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 25(4), 2022.doi:10.18564/jasss.4907

    work page doi:10.18564/jasss.4907 2022

  3. [4]

    Axelrod and W

    R. Axelrod and W. D. Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211(4489):1390–1396, mar 1981. doi:10.1126/science.7466396

    work page doi:10.1126/science.7466396 1981

  4. [5]

    T. C. Bergstrom. Evolution of social behavior: Individual and group selection.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2):67–88, may 2002.doi:10.1257/0895330027265

    work page doi:10.1257/0895330027265 2002

  5. [6]

    Bi and H

    Y. Bi and H. Yang. Heterogeneous reputation promotes cooperation in spatial public goods game. Physics Letters A, 488:129149, nov 2023.doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2023.129149

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2023.129149 2023

  6. [7]

    R. A. Bittencourt, H. B. de B. Pereira, M. A. Moret, S. Galam, and I. C. da Cunha Lima. Interplay of self, epiphany, and positive actions in shaping individual careers.Physical Review E, 108(2):024314, aug 2023.doi:10.1103/physreve.108.024314

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.108.024314 2023

  7. [8]

    J. C. Coats and W. S. Neilson. Beliefs about other-regarding preferences in a sequential public goods game.Economic Inquiry, 43(3):614–622, jul 2005.doi:10.1093/ei/cbi042

    work page doi:10.1093/ei/cbi042 2005

  8. [9]

    A. J. Daly, L. D. Visscher, J. M. Baetens, and B. D. Baets. Quo vadis, agent-based modelling tools? Environmental Modelling & Software, 157:105514, 2022.doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105514

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105514 2022

  9. [10]

    Edmonds and R

    B. Edmonds and R. Meyer, editors.Simulating Social Complexity. Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9 2013

  10. [11]

    J. D. Farmer and D. Foley. The economy needs agent-based modelling.Nature, 460(7256):685–686, aug 2009.doi:10.1038/460685a

    work page doi:10.1038/460685a 2009

  11. [12]

    J. D. Farmer, M. Shubik, and E. Smith. Is economics the next physical science?Physics Today, 58(9):37–42, sep 2005.doi:10.1063/1.2117821. 15

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2117821 2005

  12. [13]

    L. S. Flores, M. H. Vainstein, H. C. M. Fernandes, and M. A. Amaral. Heterogeneous contributions can jeopardize cooperation in the public goods game.Physical Review E, 108(2):024111, aug 2023. doi:10.1103/physreve.108.024111

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.108.024111 2023

  13. [14]

    Galam, Y

    S. Galam, Y. Gefen (Feigenblat), and Y. Shapir. Sociophysics: A new approach of sociological collective behaviour. i. mean-behaviour description of a strike.The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9(1):1–13, nov 1982.doi:10.1080/0022250x.1982.9989929

    work page doi:10.1080/0022250x.1982.9989929 1982

  14. [15]

    Grujić and T

    J. Grujić and T. Lenaerts. Do people imitate when making decisions? evidence from a spatial prisoner’s dilemma experiment.Royal Society Open Science, 7(7):200618, jul 2020.doi:10.1098/rsos.200618

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.200618 2020

  15. [16]

    Hauert, S

    C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, and K. Sigmund. Replicator dynamics for optional public good games.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218(2):187–194, Sept. 2002.doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.3067

    work page doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.3067 2002

  16. [17]

    M. Hu, J. Wang, L. Kong, K. An, T. Bi, B. Guo, and E. Dong. Incorporating the information from direct and indirect neighbors into fitness evaluation enhances the cooperation in the social dilemmas. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 77:47–52, aug 2015.doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2015.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2015.04.014 2015

  17. [18]

    Hu and X

    X. Hu and X. Liu. Unfixed-neighbor-mechanism promotes cooperation in evolutionary snowdrift game on lattice.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 572:125910, jun 2021.doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2021.125910

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2021.125910 2021

  18. [19]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Wan, J. Zheng, and W. Liu. Evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods game with interactive diversity.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 621:128794, jul 2023. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.128794

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.128794 2023

  19. [20]

    M. A. Javarone and F. Battiston. The role of noise in the spatial public goods game.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2016(7):073404, jul 2016.doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ 2016/07/073404

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ 2016

  20. [21]

    Jusup, P

    M. Jusup, P. Holme, K. Kanazawa, M. Takayasu, I. Romić, Z. Wang, S. Geček, T. Lipić, B. Podobnik, L. Wang, W. Luo, T. Klanjšček, J. Fan, S. Boccaletti, and M. Perc. Social physics.Physics Reports, 948:1–148, feb 2022.doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.10.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.10.005 2022

  21. [22]

    Kurzban and D

    R. Kurzban and D. Houser. Individual differences in cooperation in a circular public goods game. European Journal of Personality, 15(1_suppl):S37–S52, nov 2001.doi:10.1002/per.420

    work page doi:10.1002/per.420 2001

  22. [23]

    Y. Liu, Z. Li, X. Chen, and L. Wang. Memory-based prisoner’s dilemma on square lattices.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(12):2390–2396, June 2010.doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010. 02.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010 2010

  23. [24]

    Lucas, A

    P. Lucas, A. C. M. de Oliveira, and S. Banuri. The effects of group composition and social preference heterogeneity in a public goods game: An agent-based simulation.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(3):5, 2014.doi:10.18564/jasss.2522

    work page doi:10.18564/jasss.2522 2014

  24. [25]

    X. Ma, J. Quan, and X. Wang. Evolution of cooperation with nonlinear environment feedback in repeated public goods game.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 452:128056, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.amc. 2023.128056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc 2023

  25. [26]

    Maynard Smith

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

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-2789(86)90232-0 1986

  26. [27]

    J. A. Miszczak. Model of public goods game with spatial diversity, Nov. 2023. URL: http: //modelingcommons.org/browse/one_model/7289

    work page 2023

  27. [28]

    J. A. Miszczak. Rule switching mechanisms in the game of life with synchronous and asynchronous updating policy.Physica Scripta, 98(11):115210, Oct. 2023.doi:10.1088/1402-4896/acfc6c. 16

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/acfc6c 2023

  28. [29]

    J. A. Miszczak. Source code for numerical experimentes for improving the cooperation in spatial public goods game by reevaluating the interaction neighbourhoods, Oct. 2025. URL: https://github.com/ jmiszczak/pgg_group_diversity

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    J. Newton. Evolutionary game theory: A renaissance.Games, 9(2), 2018.doi:10.3390/g9020031

    work page doi:10.3390/g9020031 2018

  30. [31]

    M. A. Nowak. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.Science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006.doi: 10.1126/science.1133755

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1133755 2006

  31. [32]

    Ostrom.Governing the Commons

    E. Ostrom.Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, sep 2015. doi:10.1017/ cbo9781316423936

    work page 2015

  32. [33]

    Perc and A

    M. Perc and A. Szolnoki. Social diversity and promotion of cooperation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma game.Physical Review E, 77(1):011904, jan 2008.doi:10.1103/physreve.77.011904

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.77.011904 2008

  33. [34]

    Polania-Reyes and D

    S. Polania-Reyes and D. F. E. Perez. Identification of other-regarding preferences: Evidence from a common pool resource game in colombia.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015.doi:10.2139/ssrn.2634244

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.2634244 2015

  34. [35]

    W. H. Sandholm. Evolutionary game theory. InEncyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, pages 1–38. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_188-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_188-3 2017

  35. [36]

    F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco. Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation.Physical Review Letters, 95(9):098104, aug 2005.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.098104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.098104 2005

  36. [37]

    F. C. Santos, M. D. Santos, and J. M. Pacheco. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games.Nature, 454(7201):213–216, jul 2008.doi:10.1038/nature06940

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06940 2008

  37. [38]

    Schweitzer

    F. Schweitzer. Sociophysics.Physics Today, 71(2):40–46, feb 2018.doi:10.1063/pt.3.3845

    work page doi:10.1063/pt.3.3845 2018

  38. [39]

    Shang, S

    L. Shang, S. Sun, J. Ai, and Z. Su. Cooperation enhanced by the interaction diversity for the spatial public goods game on regular lattices.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 593:126999, 2022.doi:10.1016/j.physa.2022.126999

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2022.126999 2022

  39. [40]

    Y. Shen, W. Yin, H. Kang, H. Zhang, and M. Wang. High-reputation individuals exert greater influence on cooperation in spatial public goods game.Physics Letters A, 428:127935, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2022.127935

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2022.127935 2022

  40. [41]

    E. A. Sicardi, H. Fort, M. H. Vainstein, and J. J. Arenzon. Random mobility and spatial structure often enhance cooperation.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256(2):240–246, jan 2009.doi:10.1016/j.jtbi. 2008.09.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi 2009

  41. [42]

    Sigmund.The Calculus of Selfishness.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    K. Sigmund.The Calculus of Selfishness.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010. Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources

    work page 2010

  42. [43]

    Evolutionary games on graphs

    G. Szabó and G. Fáth. Evolutionary games on graphs.Physics Reports, 446(4-6):97–216, jul 2007. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004 2007

  43. [44]

    Szabó, A

    G. Szabó, A. Szolnoki, and J. Vukov. Selection of dynamical rules in spatial prisoner’s dilemma games. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 87(1):18007, July 2009.doi:10.1209/0295-5075/87/18007

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/87/18007 2009

  44. [45]

    Takahara and T

    A. Takahara and T. Sakiyama. Twisted strategy may enhance the evolution of cooperation in spatial prisoner’s dilemma.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 629:129212, nov 2023. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.129212

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.129212 2023

  45. [46]

    Tisue and U

    S. Tisue and U. Wilensky. Netlogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. InInternational conference on complex systems, volume 21, pages 16–21. Boston, MA, 2004. URL: https://ccl.northwestern. edu/papers/netlogo-iccs2004.pdf. 17

    work page 2004

  46. [47]

    Tomassini and A

    M. Tomassini and A. Antonioni. Computational behavioral models in public goods games with migration between groups.Journal of Physics: Complexity, 2(4):045013, nov 2021. doi:10.1088/2632-072x/ ac371b

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-072x/ 2021

  47. [48]

    Traulsen, D

    A. Traulsen, D. Semmann, R. D. Sommerfeld, H.-J. Krambeck, and M. Milinski. Human strategy updating in evolutionary games.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(7):2962–2966, feb 2010.doi:10.1073/pnas.0912515107

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0912515107 2010

  48. [49]

    Beyer, R

    J. Vukov, G. Szabó, and A. Szolnoki. Cooperation in the noisy case: Prisoner’s dilemma game on two types of regular random graphs.Physical Review E, 73(6):067103, June 2006.doi:10.1103/physreve. 73.067103

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve 2006

  49. [50]

    Wang and C

    C. Wang and C. Huang. Between local and global strategy updating in public goods game.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 606:128097, nov 2022.doi:10.1016/j.physa.2022.128097

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2022.128097 2022

  50. [51]

    X.-W. Wang, S. Nie, L.-L. Jiang, B.-H. Wang, and S.-M. Chen. Cooperation in spatial evolutionary games with historical payoffs.Physics Letters A, 380(36):2819–2822, Aug. 2016.doi:10.1016/j.physleta. 2016.06.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta 2016

  51. [52]

    C.-Y. Xia, S. Meloni, and Y. Moreno. Effects of environment knowledge on agglomeration and cooperation in spatial public goods games.Advances in Complex Systems, 15(supp01):1250056, jun 2012. doi: 10.1142/s0219525912500567

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219525912500567 2012

  52. [53]

    Xu and P

    C. Xu and P. Hui. Evolution of cooperation in public goods game in populations of dynamic groups of varying sizes.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 613:128519, mar 2023.doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2023.128519

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.128519 2023

  53. [54]

    Xu and P

    C. Xu and P. M. Hui. Enhanced cooperation in multiplayer snowdrift games with random and dynamic groupings.Physical Review E, 105(5):054309, may 2022.doi:10.1103/physreve.105.054309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.105.054309 2022

  54. [55]

    Zhang, X

    Z. Zhang, X. Jiang, and C. Xia. Zero-determinant strategy of finite games with implementation errors and its application into group decision-making.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 486:129055, Feb. 2025.doi:10.1016/j.amc.2024.129055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2024.129055 2025

  55. [56]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. Yang, W. Han, and C. Xia. Co-evolutionary dynamics of threshold pggs with collective-risk environment feedback.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 658:130275, Jan. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.130275. 18

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.130275 2025