Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Stochastic ultimatum game: Spite-driven resource feedback fosters fairness

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Slow resource growth turns spite into the engine that restores abundance and selects for fairness in a repeated ultimatum game.

desk verdict Genuinely new mechanism for spite–fairness coupling via resource feedback, but the missing value of the depleted-state payoff scale n makes the headline result conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14914 v1 pith:7EY5P2IQ submitted 2026-07-16 nlin.AO econ.THphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE

Arunava Patra , Prosanta Mandal , Sagar Chakraborty This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.AOecon.THphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE MSC 91A2292D1560J20
keywords stochasticultimatumgameresourcefeedbackspitefairnessreactivestrategiesmutation-selectiondynamicsgame-environmenttwo-speciespopulation
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 sets out to establish that spite and fairness can be two phases of a single resource-driven evolutionary cycle rather than mutually exclusive outcomes. The model is a repeated ultimatum game between an owner-offerer and an accepter, with a self-renewing resource that is either replete or depleted; the resource state rescales the payoffs, and the players' agreements or rejections in turn change the resource state. For resources with high growth rates, fairness dominates and spite stays low. For slowly growing resources, the long-run outcome is a spite-driven feedback loop: spiteful rejections dominate in the depleted state, allow the resource to recover, and the resulting abundance together with repeated interaction selects for fairness, which then depletes the resource again. The paper's contribution is a mechanism—built only from game-environment feedback and mutation-selection dynamics—that explains how costly antisocial behaviour can persist and even sustain prosocial fairness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-state stochastic mini-ultimatum game with deterministic transition vectors τ0010 and τ1111. These specify how the resource responds to each action pair: τ0010 represents a slowly growing resource, where successful agreements keep the resource depleted and only the spiteful (L,H) pair lets it recover; τ1111 represents a fast-growing resource, where any play in the depleted state restores it to replete. The argument runs through two nested Markov chains—an 8-state chain over resource-plus-action states that yields average payoffs, spite rates, and fairness rates under discounting, and a 256-state mutation–selection chain over strategy pairs that yields the lo

What would settle it

Vary n over (0,1) in the fixation-probability calculations and re-compute the long-run mutation–selection distribution; if the spite-fairness loop vanishes for some n, the result is an artifact of an unstated parameter choice. Alternatively, in a laboratory repeated ultimatum game with a slowly replenishing endowment, check whether fair offers and spiteful rejections actually alternate with endowment abundance as the model predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a slowly renewing resource converts the ultimatum game into a self-sustaining alternation between two behavioural regimes. In the depleted state the dominant outcome is the spiteful action pair (low offer, high demand), which blocks agreement and therefore halts exploitation; since the resource is self-renewing, the pause lets it return to the replete state. In the replete state, repeated interactions make the fair outcome (high offer, high demand) dominant—offering high avoids rejection, and demanding high builds a reputation that deters low offers. Fair agreements then harvest the resource and drive it back to depletion, closing the loop. The paper establishes thi

Load-bearing premise

The loop rests on the depleted-state payoffs being a fixed fraction n (0<n<1) of the replete-state payoffs, but the paper never specifies n; because all selection in the depleted state flows through those payoff differences, the reported patterns in Figs. 3–4 cannot be reproduced from the text and may change for other n.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For slowly growing resources, the evolutionary outcome is not a single strategy but a cycle: depleted states select for spite, replete states select for fairness, so both behaviours coexist across time.
  • The model predicts that in a depleted environment, costly spiteful rejections function as a repair step, restoring the resource and creating the abundance under which fairness thrives.
  • The framework carries game–environment feedback beyond cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma into the ultimatum game, making spite and fairness themselves environmentally modulated traits.
  • The difference between the two transition vectors implies that the resource growth rate, not an intrinsic taste for fairness, can decide whether a population looks fair or oscillates between spite and fairness.
  • The results put qualitative experimental observations—scarcity triggering antisocial behaviour and repeated interactions promoting fairness—into one quantitative model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the loop is robust, managing a resource so that it stays moderately depleted could, in the short term, select for spiteful conflict before fairness returns; this is an inference beyond what the paper asserts.
  • A direct check the paper leaves open: the depleted-state payoff scaling factor n is never given a value, so re-running the Markov chain across n in (0,1) would test whether the loop survives all choices.
  • The owner–non-owner asymmetry may itself stabilise the cycle; modelling symmetric roles could reveal whether ownership is essential to the feedback or just a convenient frame.
  • A laboratory test with a slowly replenishing stake should show alternating fair offers and spiteful rejections tied to stake abundance, rather than a fixed bargaining norm.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a two-state stochastic mini-ultimatum game with repeated alternating interactions between an owner-offerer and an accepter. The resource switches between replete and depleted states according to one of two deterministic transition vectors, interpreted as high or low resource growth. The population consists of finite subpopulations of offerers and accepters using pure reactive strategies; a mutation-selection Markov chain built from simulated fixation probabilities yields long-run average fairness, spite, and resource-replete levels. The headline claim is that for low-growth resources (τ0010), spiteful (L,H) outcomes dominate in the depleted state, allowing the resource to replenish, and repeated interactions then promote fair (H,H) outcomes in the replete state, creating a self-sustaining spite-driven feedback loop; for high-growth resources (τ1111), fairness is maintained with little spite.

Significance. The manuscript extends the stochastic game-environment feedback literature, previously focused on cooperation, to the ultimatum game and to the joint evolution of spite and fairness. Strengths include an explicit Markov-chain derivation of fairness/spite rates for reactive strategies, a coherent two-species mutation-selection formulation, and publicly available code. If the numerical results are robust, the model offers a mechanistically plausible connection between resource scarcity, spite, and fairness. However, the quantitative results currently depend on an unstated depleted-state payoff parameter and on a qualitative rather than derived mapping from logistic growth to the transition vectors, so the significance is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II; Eq. (A9)] The depleted-state payoff scaling parameter n (0<n<1) is introduced in Section II and appears in Eq. (A9), where all depleted-state payoffs are multiplied by n. The manuscript never assigns n a numerical value, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. This parameter controls the cost of the spiteful (L,H) action in the depleted state and therefore directly affects the selective pressure that underlies the claimed feedback loop. Without a value, Figs. 3-4 cannot be reproduced from the text, and the robustness of the loop to n is unknown. The authors should specify the value used in the code and report how the results vary with n, or derive n from the coarse-graining procedure.
  2. [Section II.B] The identification of the transition vectors τ0010 and τ1111 with 'low' and 'high' resource growth rates is asserted through a heuristic interpretation rather than derived from the logistic equation. No mapping from r, m_thr, or the discretization time scale to the entries of τ is provided. Since the central claim is that resource growth rate controls whether the spite-driven feedback loop emerges, the paper currently demonstrates only that two hand-selected transition rules produce different outcomes. Please provide the coarse-graining calculation that yields these transition vectors, or at least an explicit parameter regime of the logistic model under which τ0010 and τ1111 arise.
  3. [Appendix C; Figs. 3-4] The fixation probabilities used to build the mutation-selection Markov chain are estimated from birth-death simulations, but the number of realizations, random seed, and Monte Carlo uncertainty are not reported. Every long-run quantity in Figs. 3-4 inherits this estimation noise, so the reported levels carry unknown error bars. This is not necessarily fatal, but the manuscript should report the simulation effort and provide standard errors or confidence intervals for the reported fairness, spite, and replete levels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the first and second columns correspond to τ0100 and τ1111, but the text uses τ0010 and τ1111. Please correct the typo.
  2. [Appendix C] Starting from (n_o,n_a)=(1,1), the two-species birth-death process also has the absorbing state (0,0), where both mutant types go extinct. The text states that there are exactly three absorbing states. Although the self-loop in the Markov chain can absorb the leftover probability, the statement is mathematically incorrect and should be revised.
  3. [Section II.B] 'To crystal clearly illustrate' should read 'To crisply illustrate' or similar.
  4. [Section V] 'a spite and fairness driven resource feedback loop' should be hyphenated for clarity ('spite-and-fairness-driven').
  5. [Figs. 3 and 4] Color maps are used without a color bar. Since the numerical values of the levels are central, adding a color scale or numeric labels would improve reproducibility and readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the model's predictions (fairness/spite levels, feedback loop) are computed outputs, not fitted inputs; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a self-contained computational modeling study. The central results—fairness and spite levels across discount factor and population size, and the outcome-profile frequencies—are obtained by simulating the mutation–selection process with parameters set a priori (h=0.5, l=0.05, w=0.5, μ=10⁻², δ and N scanned, transition vectors τ0010/τ1111). No quantity is fitted to data, and no prediction is the renaming of an input parameter. The only self-citations ([44], [65]) are used to justify modeling choices: the mini-UG payoff structure and the use of pure reactive strategies with simultaneous mutations. These are conventions, not results invoked to prove the headline claim. The 'spite-driven feedback loop' is a consequence of the assumed transition vector τ0010 (where (L,H) is the only action pair that transitions depleted→replete) combined with evolutionary selection; the paper computes that spiteful outcomes indeed occur frequently in the depleted state—that frequency is emergent, not assumed. The missing numerical value of n is a reproducibility gap, not a circularity: it affects quantitative results but does not make any output equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model rests on several domain simplifications: coarse-graining the resource, restricting to reactive pure strategies, and assuming rare mutation and weak selection. The most concerning omission is the unspecified value of n, which directly scales depleted-state payoffs and could alter the reported feedback loop. No fitting to data is done; all parameters are chosen a priori.

free parameters (6)
  • l (low offer/demand) = 0.05
    Chosen as minimum possible share; not fitted to data, but a free choice that could affect quantitative results.
  • h (high offer/demand) = 0.5
    Set to 0.5 to represent equal split; effectively a normalization.
  • w (selection strength) = 0.5
    Fixed at 0.5; not swept, no sensitivity analysis.
  • mutation rates mu_o, mu_a = 1e-2
    Fixed; rare mutation assumed.
  • n (depleted-state resource amount) = not specified in text
    Critical payoff scaling factor in depleted state; never assigned a numerical value, yet strongly affects selection. This is a significant omission.
  • transition vectors tau0010, tau1111 = deterministic values given
    Chosen to represent slow and fast resource growth; effectively a modeling choice, not derived from a specific r.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Resource dynamics can be coarse-grained into two states with deterministic transitions that depend only on current state and action pair.
    Section II: continuous logistic resource reduced to two states; no validation against the continuous model.
  • domain assumption Successful agreements deplete the resource; unsuccessful agreements allow replenishment.
    Used to justify restrictions on transition vectors; biologically plausible but not derived.
  • domain assumption Both players use memory-1 reactive pure strategies.
    Section II: for analytical tractability; higher memory or stochastic strategies excluded.
  • standard math Rare mutation, weak selection, exponential fitness, and fixation probabilities from a birth-death process describe long-term evolution.
    Appendix C; standard in evolutionary game theory, adapted from prior work.
  • domain assumption The stationary distribution of the 256-state Markov chain represents the long-term evolutionary outcome.
    Section III; assumes the mutation-selection process is ergodic and that mutation rates and selection allow this approximation.
  • domain assumption Players have complete information about the resource state.
    Discussion; acknowledged as a limitation.
invented entities (1)
  • Two-state coarse-grained resource (replete/depleted)
    purpose: Represent continuous logistic resource dynamics in a tractable stochastic game
    The reduction is heuristic; no quantitative mapping from growth rate r to transition vectors is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic ultimatum game: Spite-driven resource feedback fosters fairness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EY5P2IQ

@misc{pith2026260714914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic ultimatum game: Spite-driven resource feedback fosters fairness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EY5P2IQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14914}
}
read the original abstract

Resource scarcity can fundamentally encourage antisocial behaviour, whereas resource abundance can promote fair behaviour. Experimental evidence indeed suggests that scarcity induces spiteful behaviour, while repeated interactions enhance fairness. However, existing studies of game--environment feedback systems are largely confined to the evolution of cooperation and they overlook the interplay between resources, spite, and fairness. To address this lacuna, we develop a stochastic ultimatum game framework in which an offerer and an accepter repeatedly interact to negotiate exploitation of a self-renewable resource under the ownership of the offerer. Successful agreements deplete the resource, whereas unsuccessful agreements inhibit exploitation and facilitate replenishment. The mutation--selection driven two-species stochastic evolutionary dynamics reveal that the emergence of spite and fairness strongly depends on the resource growth rate. Fairness predominantly prevails for resources with high growth rates. Intriguingly, low resource growth rates give rise to a resource feedback loop driven by spite: spiteful behaviour dominates in the depleted state, facilitating transition of the resource state to replete state which, in turn, promotes fairness through repeated interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14914 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the coarse-graining of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the two-state stochastic game: The pure reactive strategies in state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The fairness, spite, and replete state levels are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Histogram illustrating the distribution of outcome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prediger, B

    S. Prediger, B. Vollan, and B. Herrmann, Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior, Journal of Public Eco- nomics119, 1–9 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    W. D. Hamilton, Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evo- lutionary model, Nature228, 1218–1220 (1970)

    1970

  3. [3]

    Knowlton and G

    N. Knowlton and G. A. Parker, An evolutionarily stable strategy approach to indiscriminate spite, Nature279, 419–421 (1979)

    1979

  4. [4]

    K. R. Foster, F. L. Ratnieks, and T. Wenseleers, Spite in social insects, Trends in Ecology &; Evolution15, 469–470 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Gardner and S

    A. Gardner and S. A. West, Spite and the scale of com- petition, Journal of Evolutionary Biology17, 1195–1203 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Gardner and S

    A. Gardner and S. A. West, Spite among siblings, Science 305, 1413–1414 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Hawlena, F

    H. Hawlena, F. Bashey, and C. M. Lively, The evolution of spite: Population structure and bacteriocin-mediated antagonism in two natural populations of xenorhabdus bacteria: Evolution of spite, Evolution64, 3198–3204 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Darwin,On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life.(John Murray, 1860)

    C. Darwin,On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life.(John Murray, 1860)

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Gardner, I

    A. Gardner, I. C. W. Hardy, P. D. Taylor, and S. A. West, Spiteful soldiers and sex ratio conflict in polyembryonic parasitoid wasps, The American Naturalist169, 519–533 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Keller and K

    L. Keller and K. G. Ross, Selfish genes: a green beard in the red fire ant, Nature394, 573–575 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Forber and R

    P. Forber and R. Smead, The evolution of fairness through spite, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Bi- ological Sciences281, 20132439 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    D.G.Rand, C.E.Tarnita, H.Ohtsuki,andM.A.Nowak, Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultima- tum game, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences110, 2581–2586 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Debove, N

    S. Debove, N. Baumard, and J.-B. André, Models of the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game: a review and classification, Evolution and Human Behavior37, 245–254 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Heinrich,Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Ad- ventures with Wolf-Birds(HarperCollins, 2009)

    B. Heinrich,Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Ad- ventures with Wolf-Birds(HarperCollins, 2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    S. F. Brosnan and F. B. M. de Waal, Monkeys reject unequal pay, Nature425, 297–299 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Bekoff, Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, for- giveness, and morality in animals, Biology & amp; Phi- losophy19, 489–520 (2004)

    M. Bekoff, Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, for- giveness, and morality in animals, Biology & amp; Phi- losophy19, 489–520 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    S. F. Brosnan, H. C. Schiff, and F. B. M. de Waal, Tol- erance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Bio- logical Sciences272, 253–258 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    S. F. Brosnan, Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness, Social Justice Re- search19, 153–185 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    F.Range, L.Horn, Z.Viranyi,andL.Huber,Theabsence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences106, 340–345 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Milinski, An evolutionarily stable feeding strategy in sticklebacks1, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie51, 36–40 (2010)

    M. Milinski, An evolutionarily stable feeding strategy in sticklebacks1, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie51, 36–40 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Binmore,Natural Justice(Oxford University Press, New York, 2005)

    K. Binmore,Natural Justice(Oxford University Press, New York, 2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    S. F. Brosnan and F. B. M. de Waal, Evolution of re- sponses to (un)fairness, Science346(2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Debove, N

    S. Debove, N. Baumard, and J.-B. André, On the evo- lutionary origins of equity, PLOS ONE12, e0173636 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Maynard Smith and G

    J. Maynard Smith and G. R. Price, The logic of animal conflict, Nature246, 15–18 (1973)

    1973

  17. [25]

    J.MaynardSmith,Thetheoryofgamesandtheevolution of animal conflicts, Journal of Theoretical Biology47, 209–221 (1974)

    1974

  18. [26]

    Maynard Smith,Did Darwin Get It Right?(Springer US, 1988) p

    J. Maynard Smith,Did Darwin Get It Right?(Springer US, 1988) p. 202–215

    1988

  19. [27]

    M. A. Nowak, K. M. Page, and K. Sigmund, Fair- ness versus reason in the ultimatum game, Science289, 1773–1775 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Z. Yang, Z. Li, T. Wu, and L. Wang, Effects of part- ner choice and role assignation in the spatial ultimatum game, EPL (Europhysics Letters)109, 40013 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Henrich, R

    J. Henrich, R. McElreath, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, C. Barrett, A. Bolyanatz, J. C. Cardenas, M. Gur- ven, E. Gwako, N. Henrich, C. Lesorogol, F. Marlowe, D. Tracer, and J. Ziker, Costly punishment across hu- man societies, Science312, 1767–1770 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    X. Han, S. Cao, Z. Shen, B. Zhang, W.-X. Wang, R. Cressman, and H. E. Stanley, Emergence of communi- ties and diversity in social networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 2887–2891 (2017)

    2017

  23. [32]

    T. Slembeck,Reputations and Fairness in Bargaining - Experimental Evidence from a Repeated Ultimatum Game With Fixed Opponents, Experimental 9905002 (Univer- 13 sity Library of Munich, Germany, 1999)

    1999

  24. [33]

    K. M. Page, M. A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, The spa- tial ultimatum game, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences267, 2177–2182 (2000)

    2000

  25. [34]

    McKenzie Alexander,The Structural Evolution of Morality(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    J. McKenzie Alexander,The Structural Evolution of Morality(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  26. [35]

    Killingback and E

    T. Killingback and E. Studer, Spatial ultimatum games, collaborations and the evolution of fairness, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sci- ences268, 1797–1801 (2001)

    2001

  27. [36]

    X. Wang, X. Chen, and L. Wang, Random allocation of pies promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game, Scientific Reports4(2014)

    2014

  28. [37]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Chen, A. Liu, and C. Sun, The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness, Applied Mathe- matics and Computation321, 641–653 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    J.Gale, K.G.Binmore,andL.Samuelson,Learningtobe imperfect: The ultimatum game, Games and Economic Behavior8, 56–90 (1995)

    1995

  30. [39]

    Page, Empathy leads to fairness, Bulletin of Mathe- matical Biology64, 1101–1116 (2002)

    K. Page, Empathy leads to fairness, Bulletin of Mathe- matical Biology64, 1101–1116 (2002)

    2002

  31. [40]

    Tamarit and A

    I. Tamarit and A. Sánchez, Emotions and strategic be- haviour: The case of the ultimatum game, PLOS ONE 11, e0158733 (2016)

    2016

  32. [41]

    Z.Fulker, P.Forber, R.Smead,andC.Riedl,Spiteiscon- tagious in dynamic networks, Nature Communications 12(2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    Smead and P

    R. Smead and P. Forber, The evolutionary dynamics of spite in finite populations: Evolutionary dynamics of spite, Evolution67, 698–707 (2012)

    2012

  34. [43]

    R. A. Johnstone and R. Bshary, Evolution of spite through indirect reciprocity, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences271, 1917–1922 (2004)

    1917

  35. [44]

    Patra, C

    A. Patra, C. F. S. Zephania, and S. Chakraborty, Prejudice-driven spite: A discontinuous phase transition in the ultimatum game, Physical Review E112(2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    Wobker, The price of envy—an experimental investiga- tion of spiteful behavior, Managerial and Decision Eco- nomics36, 326–335 (2014)

    I. Wobker, The price of envy—an experimental investiga- tion of spiteful behavior, Managerial and Decision Eco- nomics36, 326–335 (2014)

    2014

  37. [46]

    M. M. Pillutla and J. Murnighan, Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers, Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes68, 208–224 (1996)

    1996

  38. [47]

    Hardin, The tragedy of the commons, Science162, 1243 (1968)

    G. Hardin, The tragedy of the commons, Science162, 1243 (1968)

    1968

  39. [48]

    Ostrom, Tragedy of the commons, inThe New Pal- grave Dictionary of Economics(Palgrave Macmillan UK,

    E. Ostrom, Tragedy of the commons, inThe New Pal- grave Dictionary of Economics(Palgrave Macmillan UK,

  40. [49]

    D. Hare, H. K. Reeve, and B. Blossey, Evolutionary routes to stable ownership, Journal of Evolutionary Bi- ology29, 1178–1188 (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    D. H. Cole and E. Ostrom, The variety of property sys- tems and rights in natural resources, SSRN Electronic Journal (2010)

    2010

  42. [51]

    C.Hilbe, S.Simsa, K.Chatterjee,andM.A.Nowak,Evo- lution of cooperation in stochastic games, Nature559, 246–249 (2018)

    2018

  43. [52]

    L. S. Shapley, Stochastic games, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences39, 1095–1100 (1953)

    1953

  44. [53]

    Rapoport and A

    A. Rapoport and A. M. Chammah,Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Study in Conflict and Cooperation(University of Michigan Press, 1965)

    1965

  45. [54]

    Fudenberg and L

    D. Fudenberg and L. A. Imhof, Imitation processes with small mutations, Journal of Economic Theory131, 251–262 (2006)

    2006

  46. [55]

    L. A. Imhof and M. A. Nowak, Stochastic evolutionary dynamics of direct reciprocity, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences277, 463–468 (2009)

    2009

  47. [56]

    P. S. Park, M. A. Nowak, and C. Hilbe, Cooperation in alternating interactions with memory constraints, Nature Communications13(2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    L. Chen, F. Lin, P. Tang, K. Wang, R. Wang, and S. Wang, K-memory strategies in repeated games, in Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Vol- ume 1, AAMAS ’04 (IEEE Computer Society, 2017) p. 1493–1498

    2017

  49. [58]

    W. H. Press and F. J. Dyson, Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary oppo- nent, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 10409–10413 (2012)

    2012

  50. [59]

    Hauert and H

    C. Hauert and H. G. Schuster, Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated pris- oner’s dilemma: a numerical approach, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sci- ences264, 513–519 (1997)

    1997

  51. [60]

    Hilbe, L

    C. Hilbe, L. A. Martinez-Vaquero, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak, Memory- <i>n</i> strategies of direct reciprocity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences114, 4715–4720 (2017)

    2017

  52. [61]

    Nowak and K

    M. Nowak and K. Sigmund, The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoner’s dilemma, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae20, 247–265 (1990)

    1990

  53. [62]

    Hofbauer and K

    J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund,Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics(Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    1998

  54. [63]

    Bacaër, Verhulst and the logistic equation (1838), in A Short History of Mathematical Population Dynamics (Springer London, 2011) p

    N. Bacaër, Verhulst and the logistic equation (1838), in A Short History of Mathematical Population Dynamics (Springer London, 2011) p. 35–39

    2011

  55. [64]

    J. D. Murray,Mathematical Biology I: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, Vol. 17 (Springer, New York, 2002)

    2002

  56. [65]

    Mandal, A

    P. Mandal, A. Patra, and S. Chakraborty, Overcoming unfairness via repeated interactions in mini-ultimatum game, arXiv:2604.03625 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Kleshnina, C

    M. Kleshnina, C. Hilbe, Š. Šimsa, K. Chatterjee, and M. A. Nowak, The effect of environmental information on evolution of cooperation in stochastic games, Nature Communications14(2023)

    2023

  58. [67]

    P. R. Blake, D. G. Rand, D. Tingley, and F. Warneken, The shadow of the future promotes cooperation in a re- peated prisoner’s dilemma for children, Scientific Reports 5, 10.1038/srep14559 (2015)

    2015 doi

  59. [68]

    P. D. Bó, Cooperation under the shadow of the future: Experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games, American Economic Review95, 1591–1604 (2005)

    2005

  60. [69]

    Sebastián-Enesco and F

    C. Sebastián-Enesco and F. Warneken, The shadow of the future: 5-year-olds, but not 3-year-olds, adjust their sharing in anticipation of reciprocation, Journal of Ex- perimental Child Psychology129, 40–54 (2015)

    2015

  61. [70]

    García and M

    J. García and M. van Veelen, In and out of equilibrium i: Evolution of strategies in repeated games with discount- ing, Journal of Economic Theory161, 161–189 (2016)

    2016

  62. [71]

    Veller and L

    C. Veller and L. K. Hayward, Finite-population evolu- tion with rare mutations in asymmetric games, Journal of Economic Theory162, 93–113 (2016). 14

    2016

  63. [72]

    Patra, J

    A. Patra, J. Das Bairagya, and S. Chakraborty, Bayesian ecoevolutionary game dynamics, Physical Review E111 (2025)

    2025

  64. [73]

    Doucouliagos, A note on the evolution of homo eco- nomicus, Journal of Economic Issues28, 877–883 (1994)

    C. Doucouliagos, A note on the evolution of homo eco- nomicus, Journal of Economic Issues28, 877–883 (1994)

    1994

  65. [74]

    A. E. Roth and I. Erev, Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term, Games and Economic Behav- ior8, 164–212 (1995)

    1995

  66. [75]

    LaPorte, C

    P. LaPorte, C. Hilbe, and M. A. Nowak, Adaptive dy- namics of memory-one strategies in the repeated dona- tion game, PLOS Computational Biology19, e1010987 (2023)

    2023

  67. [76]

    Iosifescu and R

    M. Iosifescu and R. Theodorescu, On bush-mosteller stochastic models for learning, Journal of Mathematical Psychology2, 196–203 (1965)

    1965

  68. [77]

    Camerer and T

    C. Camerer and T. Hua Ho, Experience-weighted attrac- tion learning in normal form games, Econometrica67, 827–874 (1999)

    1999

  69. [78]

    M. W. Macy and A. Flache, Learning dynamics in so- cial dilemmas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99, 7229–7236 (2002)

    2002

  70. [79]

    Patra, S

    A. Patra, S. Sengupta, and S. Chakraborty, Bayesian tit-for-tat fosters cooperation in evolutionary stochastic games, Physical Review E113(2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.