pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13678 · v1 · pith:ZJBNJUIUnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · q-bio.PE

A model of local and global reciprocity

Mari Kawakatsu , Yohsuke Murase , Taylor A. Kessinger , Joshua B. Plotkin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 04:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph q-bio.PE
keywords reciprocityevolution of cooperationdirect reciprocityindirect reciprocitypublic reputationsocial normsconditional cooperation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining direct reciprocity among friends with indirect reciprocity among strangers allows conditional cooperators to resist invasion by both unconditional cooperators and unconditional defectors.

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

The paper builds a model that separates interactions into local games played with a small finite set of friends whose past actions can be observed directly and global games played with a large population of strangers known only through public reputation. In this separated setup, individuals apply direct reciprocity locally and indirect reciprocity globally. The resulting framework shows that conditional cooperators can resist invasion by both unconditional cooperators and unconditional defectors, overcoming the scoring dilemma that appears when indirect reciprocity operates alone. Forgiving strategies, which overlook the less favorable information when local observations conflict with public reputation, maximize overall cooperation and often remain robust to invasion.

Core claim

Separating local games with direct observation of friends from global games with reputation-based strangers allows conditional cooperators to persist against invasion by both unconditional cooperators and unconditional defectors. This combination resolves the scoring dilemma of indirect reciprocity alone. The strategies that maximize cooperation are forgiving ones that overlook whichever source of information is unfavorable when the two conflict.

What carries the argument

Separation of local direct-reciprocity games (finite neighborhood with direct action observation) from global indirect-reciprocity games (large population judged by public reputation).

If this is right

  • Conditional cooperators resist invasion by unconditional cooperators.
  • Conditional cooperators resist invasion by unconditional defectors.
  • Forgiving strategies that overlook unfavorable information maximize overall cooperation.
  • Forgiving strategies remain robust to invasion in many parameter regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The model predicts that small, observable social circles paired with broad reputation systems can sustain cooperation even when pure reputation systems fail.
  • Experiments could test whether humans apply forgiving rules when local observations conflict with public reputation information.
  • The separation may explain why real populations maintain both tight friendship networks and diffuse reputation tracking.

Load-bearing premise

Individuals can directly observe the past actions of only a small finite neighborhood of friends while relying solely on public reputations for the much larger pool of strangers.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment that removes the separation (for example by allowing direct observation of strangers or eliminating local observation) would show whether conditional cooperators lose their resistance to invasion by unconditional strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13678 by Joshua B. Plotkin, Mari Kawakatsu, Taylor A. Kessinger, Yohsuke Murase.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A model of direct and indirect reciprocity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Invasibility of tit-for-tat discriminators under direct and indirect reciprocity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Intermediate probabilities of local play solve the scoring dilemma. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forgiveness of neighbors promotes cooperation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of forgiveness on the scoring dilemma and fitness. A, B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We often decide how to treat friends based on observations of their past behavior, whereas actions toward strangers are typically guided by their public reputations. These two kinds of information underlie two classical mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation$\unicode{x2014}$direct and indirect reciprocity$\unicode{x2014}$which have largely been studied in isolation. They are not interchangeable: we can recall the past actions of only a small circle of close contacts, whereas for the far larger pool of strangers we must rely on public reputations. Here we develop a mathematical framework built on this distinction. Each individual engages in direct reciprocity in local games within a finite neighborhood of friends, whose actions they observe directly, and in indirect reciprocity in global games with a large population of strangers, known only by reputation. Separating local and global interactions allows us to address two questions. First, can cooperation persist under a cognitively simple norm of judgment? We show that combining direct and indirect reciprocity resolves the scoring dilemma: conditional cooperators resist invasion by both unconditional cooperators and unconditional defectors, where indirect reciprocity alone would fail. Second, how should one treat a friend whose past behavior conflicts with their public reputation? We find that the strategies that maximize cooperation are forgiving$\unicode{x2014}$overlooking whichever piece of information is unfavorable$\unicode{x2014}$and that these forgiving strategies can often remain robust to invasion. By distinguishing between local and global scales of interaction and integrating information across them, our framework offers a more cognitively realistic account of how reciprocity sustains cooperation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a mathematical framework separating local direct reciprocity (finite neighborhoods with direct observation of actions) from global indirect reciprocity (public reputations for strangers). It claims that integrating the two resolves the scoring dilemma, enabling conditional cooperators to resist invasion by both unconditional cooperators and unconditional defectors (unlike indirect reciprocity alone). It further shows that forgiving strategies—overlooking unfavorable information when local and global observations conflict—maximize cooperation and remain robust to invasion.

Significance. If the derivations and simulation results hold, the work provides a cognitively plausible account of reciprocity by explicitly distinguishing scales of interaction and information sources. This addresses a known limitation in standalone indirect reciprocity models and identifies robust forgiving norms, which could inform studies of cooperation in mixed local-global social settings.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that the model is built on the distinction between local and global games, but the full text should include an explicit section defining the neighborhood size, observation limits, and how public reputations are updated to allow replication of the invasion-resistance results.
  2. Clarify in the methods or results section how the forgiving judgment rule is formalized when local observations conflict with global reputation; an equation or pseudocode example would improve reproducibility.
  3. The claim that forgiving strategies 'can often remain robust' would benefit from a table or figure summarizing invasion thresholds across parameter ranges (e.g., neighborhood size, population size) rather than qualitative statements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and positive assessment of the manuscript. The summary accurately reflects our framework and results. No specific major comments were provided in the report, and the recommendation is for minor revision. We will incorporate any minor editorial or presentational improvements in the revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The provided abstract and framework description state the model's premise as an explicit separation of local direct reciprocity (finite neighborhood with direct observation) from global indirect reciprocity (public reputations), then derive that their combination resolves the scoring dilemma under forgiving judgment rules. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are quoted that reduce any prediction or uniqueness claim to the inputs by construction. The central result follows from integrating the two scales as defined, without evidence of self-definitional loops, renamed empirical patterns, or load-bearing self-citation chains. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted. The model implicitly assumes finite local neighborhoods and large global populations as structural distinctions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5816 in / 1039 out tokens · 28734 ms · 2026-06-27T04:45:58.956119+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Hamilton, W

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.7466396 1981

  2. [2]

    Axelrod.Evolution of cooperation

    Robert M. Axelrod.Evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, 1984

    1984

  3. [3]

    Alexander.The biology of moral systems

    Richard D. Alexander.The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY , 1987

    1987

  4. [4]

    The nature of human altruism.Nature, 425(6960):785–791, 2003

    Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher. The nature of human altruism.Nature, 425(6960):785–791, 2003. doi: 10.1038/ nature02043

    2003

  5. [5]

    Richerson

    Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson. The evolution of indirect reciprocity.Social Networks, 11(3):213–236, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(89)90003-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0378-8733(89)90003-8 1989

  6. [6]

    Effect of private information on indirect reciprocity.Physical Review E, 82(3):036111, 2010

    Satoshi Uchida. Effect of private information on indirect reciprocity.Physical Review E, 82(3):036111, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.036111

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.82.036111 2010

  7. [7]

    Effect of assessment error and private information on stern-judging in indirect reciprocity.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 56:175–180, 2013

    Satoshi Uchida and Tatsuya Sasaki. Effect of assessment error and private information on stern-judging in indirect reciprocity.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 56:175–180, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2013.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2013.08.006 2013

  8. [8]

    The evolution of conditional moral assessment in indirect reciprocity

    Tatsuya Sasaki, Isamu Okada, and Yutaka Nakai. The evolution of conditional moral assessment in indirect reciprocity. Scientific Reports, 7(1):1–8, 2017. doi: 10.1038/srep41870

    work page doi:10.1038/srep41870 2017

  9. [9]

    Radzvilavicius, Alexander J

    Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, Alexander J. Stewart, and Joshua B. Plotkin. Evolution of empathetic moral evaluation. eLife, 8:e44269, 2019. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44269

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.44269 2019

  10. [10]

    Radzvilavicius, Taylor A

    Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, Taylor A. Kessinger, and Joshua B. Plotkin. Adherence to public institutions that foster cooperation.Nature Communications, 12(1):3567, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23783-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23783-9 2021

  11. [11]

    Kessinger, Joshua B

    Sebasti ´an Michel-Mata, Mari Kawakatsu, Joseph Sartini, Taylor A. Kessinger, Joshua B. Plotkin, and Corina E. Tar- nita. The evolution of private reputations in information-abundant landscapes.Nature, 634(8035):883–889, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07977-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07977-x 2024

  12. [13]

    The evolution of indirect reciprocity under action and assessment generosity.Scientific Reports, 11(1):17443, 2021

    Laura Schmid, Pouya Shati, Christian Hilbe, and Krishnendu Chatterjee. The evolution of indirect reciprocity under action and assessment generosity.Scientific Reports, 11(1):17443, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96932-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96932-1 2021

  13. [14]

    Quantitative assessment can stabi- lize indirect reciprocity under imperfect information.Nature Communications, 14(1):2086, 2023

    Laura Schmid, Farbod Ekbatani, Christian Hilbe, and Krishnendu Chatterjee. Quantitative assessment can stabi- lize indirect reciprocity under imperfect information.Nature Communications, 14(1):2086, 2023. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-023-37817-x

    2086

  14. [15]

    Laura Schmid, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Christian Hilbe, and Martin A. Nowak. A unified framework of direct and indirect reciprocity.Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10):1292–1302, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01114-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01114-8 2021

  15. [16]

    The evolution of moral rules in a model of indirect reciprocity with private assessment.Scientific Reports, 11(1):23581, 2021

    Cedric Perret, Marcus Krellner, and The Anh Han. The evolution of moral rules in a model of indirect reciprocity with private assessment.Scientific Reports, 11(1):23581, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02677-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02677-2 2021

  16. [17]

    Tolerant indirect reciprocity can boost social welfare through sol- idarity with unconditional cooperators in private monitoring.Scientific Reports, 7(1):9737, 2017

    Isamu Okada, Tatsuya Sasaki, and Yutaka Nakai. Tolerant indirect reciprocity can boost social welfare through sol- idarity with unconditional cooperators in private monitoring.Scientific Reports, 7(1):9737, 2017. doi: 10.1038/ s41598-017-09935-2

    2017

  17. [18]

    A solution for private assessment in indirect reciprocity using solitary observation.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 455:7–15, 2018

    Isamu Okada, Tatsuya Sasaki, and Yutaka Nakai. A solution for private assessment in indirect reciprocity using solitary observation.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 455:7–15, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.06.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.06.018 2018

  18. [19]

    Evolutionary stability of cooperation in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(20):e2300544120, 2023

    Yuma Fujimoto and Hisashi Ohtsuki. Evolutionary stability of cooperation in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(20):e2300544120, 2023. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.2300544120

    2023

  19. [20]

    Reputation structure in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment

    Yuma Fujimoto and Hisashi Ohtsuki. Reputation structure in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment. Scientific Reports, 12(1):10500, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14171-4. Page 21 of 45

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-14171-4 2022

  20. [21]

    Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1468):745–753, 2001

    Olof Leimar and Peter Hammerstein. Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1468):745–753, 2001. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1573

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1573 2001

  21. [22]

    How should we define goodness? - reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity

    Hisashi Ohtsuki and Yoh Iwasa. How should we define goodness? - reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(1):107–120, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.005 2004

  22. [23]

    The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity

    Hisashi Ohtsuki and Yoh Iwasa. The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239(4):435–44, 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.008 2006

  23. [24]

    Pacheco, Francisco C

    Jorge M. Pacheco, Francisco C. Santos, and Fabio A.C.C. Chalub. Stern-judging: a simple, successful norm which promotes cooperation under indirect reciprocity.PLoS Computational Biology, 2(12):1634–1638, 2006. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pcbi.0020178

    2006

  24. [25]

    Santos, Francisco C

    Fernando P. Santos, Francisco C. Santos, and Jorge M. Pacheco. Social norms of cooperation in small-scale societies. PLOS Computational Biology, 12(1):e1004709, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004709

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004709 2016

  25. [26]

    Santos, Francisco C

    Fernando P. Santos, Francisco C. Santos, and Jorge M. Pacheco. Social norm complexity and past reputations in the evolution of cooperation.Nature, 555(7695):242–245, 2018. doi: 10.1038/nature25763

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25763 2018

  26. [27]

    Social norms in indirect reciprocity with ternary reputations

    Yohsuke Murase, Minjae Kim, and Seung Ki Baek. Social norms in indirect reciprocity with ternary reputations. Scientific Reports, 12(1):455, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04033-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-04033-w 2022

  27. [28]

    Indirect reciprocity with stochastic and dual reputation updates.PLOS Compu- tational Biology, 19(7):e1011271, 2023

    Yohsuke Murase and Christian Hilbe. Indirect reciprocity with stochastic and dual reputation updates.PLOS Compu- tational Biology, 19(7):e1011271, 2023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011271

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011271 2023

  28. [29]

    The evolution of cooperation and diversity under integrated indirect reciprocity.Games, 15(2), 2024

    Tatsuya Sasaki, Satoshi Uchida, Isamu Okada, and Hitoshi Yamamoto. The evolution of cooperation and diversity under integrated indirect reciprocity.Games, 15(2), 2024. doi: 10.3390/g15020015

    work page doi:10.3390/g15020015 2024

  29. [30]

    Glynatsi, Christian Hilbe, and Yohsuke Murase

    Nikoleta E. Glynatsi, Christian Hilbe, and Yohsuke Murase. Exact conditions for evolutionary stability in indirect reciprocity under noise.PLOS Computational Biology, 21(10):e1013584, 2025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013584

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013584 2025

  30. [31]

    Glynatsi

    Saptarshi Pal, Christian Hilbe, and Nikoleta E. Glynatsi. The co-evolution of direct, indirect and generalized reci- procity.arXiv:2411.03488, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03488

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03488 2024

  31. [32]

    Stable strategies of direct and indirect reciprocity across all social dilemmas.PNAS Nexus, 4(5):pgaf154, 2025

    Valentin H ¨ubner, Laura Schmid, Christian Hilbe, and Krishnendu Chatterjee. Stable strategies of direct and indirect reciprocity across all social dilemmas.PNAS Nexus, 4(5):pgaf154, 2025. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf154

    work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf154 2025

  32. [33]

    Tolerant integrated reciprocity sustains cooperation in a noisy environment.Scientific Reports, 15(1):28912, 2025

    Hitoshi Yamamoto, Isamu Okada, and Takahisa Suzuki. Tolerant integrated reciprocity sustains cooperation in a noisy environment.Scientific Reports, 15(1):28912, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-14538-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-14538-3 2025

  33. [34]

    Cooperation through image scoring in humans.Science, 288(5467):850–852,

    Claus Wedekind and Manfred Milinski. Cooperation through image scoring in humans.Science, 288(5467):850–852,

  34. [35]

    doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.850

    work page doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.850

  35. [36]

    Indirect reciprocity, image scoring, and moral hazard.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(7):2666–2670, 2005

    Hannelore Brandt and Karl Sigmund. Indirect reciprocity, image scoring, and moral hazard.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(7):2666–2670, 2005. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407370102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0407370102 2005

  36. [37]

    Princeton University Press, 2010

    Karl Sigmund.The calculus of selfishness. Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  37. [38]

    A review of theoretical studies on indirect reciprocity.Games, 11(3):27, 2020

    Isamu Okada. A review of theoretical studies on indirect reciprocity.Games, 11(3):27, 2020. doi: 10.3390/g11030027

    work page doi:10.3390/g11030027 2020

  38. [39]

    Two ways to overcome the three social dilemmas of indirect reciprocity.Scientific Reports, 10(1): 16799, 2020

    Isamu Okada. Two ways to overcome the three social dilemmas of indirect reciprocity.Scientific Reports, 10(1): 16799, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73564-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73564-5 2020

  39. [40]

    Learning to cooperate via indirect reciprocity.Games and Economic Behavior, 72(1):30–37, 2011

    Ulrich Berger. Learning to cooperate via indirect reciprocity.Games and Economic Behavior, 72(1):30–37, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2010.08.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2010.08.009 2011

  40. [41]

    On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information

    Ulrich Berger and Ansgar Gr ¨une. On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information. Games and Economic Behavior, 98:19–33, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2016.05.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2016.05.003 2016

  41. [42]

    Indirect reciprocity under opinion synchronization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48):e2418364121, 2024

    Yohsuke Murase and Christian Hilbe. Indirect reciprocity under opinion synchronization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48):e2418364121, 2024. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2418364121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2418364121 2024

  42. [43]

    The logic of reprobation: assessment and action rules for indirect reciprocation

    Hannelore Brandt and Karl Sigmund. The logic of reprobation: assessment and action rules for indirect reciprocation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(4):475–486, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.032. Page 22 of 45

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.032 2004

  43. [44]

    A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 224(1):115–126, 2003

    Karthik Panchanathan and Robert Boyd. A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 224(1):115–126, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(03)00154-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00154-1 2003

  44. [45]

    Jeff Bezanson, Alan Edelman, Stefan Karpinski, and Viral B. Shah. Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review, 59(1):65–98, 2017. doi: 10.1137/141000671

    work page doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  45. [46]

    Role of generosity and forgiveness: return to a cooperative society.Physical Review E, 95(4):042314, 2017

    Hye Jin Park, Beom Jun Kim, and Hyeong-Chai Jeong. Role of generosity and forgiveness: return to a cooperative society.Physical Review E, 95(4):042314, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042314

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.95.042314 2017

  46. [47]

    The other side of the coin: Recipient norms and their impact on indirect reciprocity and cooperation.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 513:129790, 2026

    Alina Glaubitz and Feng Fu. The other side of the coin: Recipient norms and their impact on indirect reciprocity and cooperation.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 513:129790, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2025.129790

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2025.129790 2026

  47. [48]

    Kessinger, Corina E

    Taylor A. Kessinger, Corina E. Tarnita, and Joshua B. Plotkin. Evolution of norms for judging social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(24):e2219480120, 2023. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2219480120

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2219480120 2023

  48. [49]

    The training process of many deep networks explores the same low-dimensional manifold

    Yohsuke Murase and Christian Hilbe. Computational evolution of social norms in well-mixed and group-structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(33):e2406885121, 2024. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2406885121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2024

  49. [50]

    Evolution of rumours that discriminate lying defectors.Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6(2):261–283, 2004

    Mayuko Nakamaru and Masakado Kawata. Evolution of rumours that discriminate lying defectors.Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6(2):261–283, 2004

    2004

  50. [51]

    A model for gossip-mediated evolution of altruism with various types of false information by speakers and assessment by listeners.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 407:90–105, 2016

    Motohide Seki and Mayuko Nakamaru. A model for gossip-mediated evolution of altruism with various types of false information by speakers and assessment by listeners.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 407:90–105, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.07.001 2016

  51. [52]

    Kessinger and Joshua B

    Taylor A. Kessinger and Joshua B. Plotkin. Institutions of public judgment established by social contract and taxation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26):e2506537122, 2025. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2506537122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2506537122 2025

  52. [53]

    Manfred Milinski, Dirk Semmann, Theo C. M. Bakker, and Hans-J ¨urgen Krambeck. Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy?Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1484): 2495–2501, 2001. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1809

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1809 2001

  53. [54]

    Justified defection is neither justified nor unjustified in indirect reciprocity.PLOS ONE, 15(6):e0235137, 2020

    Hitoshi Yamamoto, Takahisa Suzuki, and Ryohei Umetani. Justified defection is neither justified nor unjustified in indirect reciprocity.PLOS ONE, 15(6):e0235137, 2020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235137

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235137 2020

  54. [55]

    Social norms and group-bounded indirect reciprocity.Evolutionary Human Sciences, 8:e13, 2026

    Wakaba Tateishi and Hirotaka Imada. Social norms and group-bounded indirect reciprocity.Evolutionary Human Sciences, 8:e13, 2026. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2026.10045. Page 23 of 45 Supplementary Information Contents S1 Full model description 24 S1.1 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

    work page doi:10.1017/ehs.2026.10045 2026

  55. [56]

    (S8) into Eq

    (S9) Substituting Eq. (S8) into Eq. (S9) yields E[h AR(k+ 1)|h(k)] =λ (1) z }| {X A1R1 X A2R2 hA1R1(k)h A2R2(k) X A′ 2R′ 2 P local AR|A2R2 ·P local A′ 2R′ 2|A1R1 + (1−λ) X A1R1 X A2R2 hA1R1(k)h A2R2(k) X A′ 2R′ 2 δA2,A′ 2 P global R|R2 ·δ A1,A P global R′ 2|R1 | {z } (2) . Page 27 of 45 SinceP A′ 2R′ 2 P local A′ 2R′ 2|A1R1 = 1and P A1R1 hA1R1 = 1, expres...