Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Coordinating cooperation in stag-hunt game: Emergence of evolutionarily stable procedural rationality

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the stag-hunt dilemma, evolutionary stability belongs to bounded rationality, not full rationality: a population of one-shot samplers (procedurally rational players) resists invasion by fully rational mutants throughout the coordination-

desk verdict New idea, interesting result, but the key claim rests on an unvalidated mean-field approximation for mixed rationality pairs; with that fixed, it's a solid paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08301 v1 pith:HXUOUEBV submitted 2025-08-07 physics.soc-ph econ.THnlin.AOphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE

Joy Das Bairagya , Sagar Chakraborty This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phecon.THnlin.AOphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE MSC 91A2291A05
keywords coordinationgamesstag-huntgameboundedrationalityproceduralevolutionarilystablestrategycooperationsamplingequilibriumevolutionarytheory
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 cooperation in hunter-gatherer-style stag-hunt dilemmas may have been secured not despite, but because of, human bounded rationality. In the coordination-II game — a stag-hunt variant with payoff ordering $1 > 0 > S > T$, reflecting a preference for being cheated over cheating — the authors show that a population of procedurally rational players, who mentally sample each action once before choosing (PR(1)), is an evolutionarily stable strategy. Such a population resists invasion by more rational mutants, including fully rational expected-utility maximizers, across the whole coordination-II parameter range, and the stability survives finite population size, continuous mutation, and mutants with random belief updates. The upshot is a reversal of the usual default: full rationality is the fragile trait, and bounded rationality is what evolutionary forces select.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the belief-update recursions $x_{m+1} = \frac{m}{m+1} x_m + \frac{1}{m+1} BR(y_m)$ (and symmetrically for $y$), which formalize fictitious-play-style virtual experimentation for procedural samplers; the mean-field approximation $\langle BR(y)\rangle \approx BR(\langle y\rangle)$ that closes Eq. (2) and turns the recursions into differential equations; and the identification of PR(∞) with VR, which places full rationality at the infinite-sampling endpoint of the PR(k) family. The fitness matrix $\Pi$, with each entry the double average (over stochasticity and over initial beliefs) of asymptotic payoffs, is what the ESS inequalities are evaluated on.

What would settle it

Run the fully stochastic belief-updating rules, Eqs. (1), for PR(1)-VR and VR-VR pairs across a grid of $(x_0, y_0)$ and $(S, T)$ in the coordination-II region, compute the resulting asymptotic beliefs and the payoff matrix $\Pi$ without the mean-field approximation, and test the ESS inequalities; if any region of the $S$–$T$ plane admits a VR mutant that satisfies the invasion conditions against the simulated PR(1) resident, the paper's central claim fails as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PR(1) — the player who samples each action exactly once and picks the better sampled outcome — is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) against PR(2) and PR(∞) = VR mutants over the whole coordination-II parameter range $1 > 0 > S > T$. The case rests on the belief-update dynamics of Eq. (1), the mean-field closure $\langle BR(y)\rangle \approx BR(\langle y\rangle)$, and the fitness matrix $\Pi$ averaged over initial beliefs. The key asymmetry: two PR(1) players reach the cooperative equilibrium $(1,1)$ from almost every initial belief, while VR pairs end at $(1,1)$ or the defection equilibrium $(0,0)$ depending on initial conditions — so PR(1) outscores VR in the

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that a player's average best response equals her best response to her average belief — a closure checked for two one-shot samplers but assumed without simulation for interactions between different rationality types; if it fails there, the fitness matrix and the claimed stability could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the coordination-II game, a resident PR(1) population cannot be invaded by any mutant that samples more times per action, including the fully rational VR mutant; cooperation stays in place.
  • A fully rational population is not safe: for most of the S-T parameter space VR is not ESS, so procedurally rational mutants can invade and restore cooperation.
  • The stability of PR(1) is not an artifact of the infinite-population idealization: it survives in finite populations of any size (ESS$_N$) under the Moran process.
  • PR(1) is also the unique stochastically stable equilibrium against continuously appearing mutants, while VR is never stochastically stable — noise in the mutation process cannot dislodge bounded rationality.
  • Because different PR(k) correspond to different sampling effort, the result ties the evolution of rationality to cognitive cost: the level of rationality that survives is the minimal one that still reaches the cooperative outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Editorial inference) The mean-field closure $\langle BR(y)\rangle \approx BR(\langle y\rangle)$ is validated in the paper only for two PR(1) players; a direct stochastic simulation of Eqs. (1) for PR(1)-VR and VR-VR pairs, without the closure, is the natural check that the reported ESS boundary in the S-T plane is not an artifact of that approximation.
  • (Editorial inference) If sampling cost is treated as a fitness penalty, PR(1) should become only more dominant, since it reaches the same cooperative payoff as PR(k>1) and VR while spending the least cognitive effort; adding a cost term to $\Pi$ is a direct extension.
  • (Editorial inference) The paper's logic suggests a behavioural prediction: in laboratory coordination-II games, players should systematically converge to the payoff-dominant cooperative equilibrium, and treatments that nudge subjects toward expected-utility reasoning should show more defection — a pattern consistent with the sampling-equilibrium experiments the paper cites.
  • (Editorial inference) The PR(k) family embeds the ESS question in a one-parameter ladder between bounded and full rationality; a continuous-strategy version (real-valued sampling effort) would let one ask whether the ESS result is robust to arbitrarily small increases in rationality.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the evolution of cooperation in a coordination-II modification of the stag-hunt game, defined by the payoff ordering 1>0>S>T. It contrasts VNM-rational (VR) players with procedurally rational PR(k) players, who estimate action utilities by sampling each action k times. The authors propose a belief-updating dynamics (Eq. 1), pass to a mean-field ODE (Eq. 2), and compute, by numerical averaging over initial beliefs, the payoff matrix Π for PR(1) versus VR. They then apply standard ESS criteria and report in Fig. 1 that PR(1) is an ESS over the entire coordination-II parameter region, while VR is not except in a small region. Appendices extend the claim to finite populations (ESS_N), stochastic stability, PR(2) mutants, and alternative belief-update rules. The paper concludes that bounded rationality can evolutionarily stabilize cooperation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant and novel: it offers a mechanism by which less rational decision-making is evolutionarily advantageous and provides a behavioral-game-theoretic resolution of the stag-hunt dilemma. The model is explicit, the results are numerically checkable, and the authors make the code available on GitHub; the ESS region is a concrete falsifiable prediction. However, the main quantitative conclusion currently rests on an unvalidated mean-field closure for mixed rationality types, and the robustness appendices contain gaps. These issues should be addressed before the claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Appendix A] The payoff matrix Π — and hence the central ESS claim — is obtained from the mean-field equations (2). The closure ⟨BR(y)⟩ ≈ BR(⟨y⟩) is validated in Appendix A only for two PR(1) players at S=-0.5, T=-1.5 (Fig. 2). No stochastic simulation of Eq. (1) is shown for the PR(1)-VR and VR-PR pairs that determine Π(PR,VR) and Π(VR,PR), nor for PR(2)-involving pairs used in Fig. 1(a). For VR, BR is a step function, so fluctuations of the opponent's belief across the mixed-NE threshold can make E[BR(y)] very different from BR(E[y]); the averaged payoffs and the basin structure in Fig. 1(b) may therefore be wrong. Please add stochastic validation for the mixed-type interactions across the parameter range, or state clearly that Fig. 1 is a mean-field prediction and reassess the ESS status if the closure fails.
  2. [Appendix C] The proof that PR is ESS_N for any population size states: 'since A corresponds to coordination-II game, we have a > d, b = c and a > b'. For the underlying payoff matrix A = [[1,S],[T,0]], b=c means S=T, which is not true in the coordination-II region (1>0>S>T, S≠T generally). The type-level payoff matrix Π of Section IV is not symmetric either. Unless b=c is proved from the averaging over initial beliefs, the two ESS_N inequalities do not follow. Please correct the argument or replace the finite-population claim with a numerical check.
  3. [Appendix D] The stochastic model in Eq. (D1) first imposes Γ(0)=Γ(1)=0 to ensure forward invariance of p∈[0,1], but then assumes Γ(p)=σ constant. These conditions are incompatible unless σ=0. The Fokker-Planck solution (D2) and the conclusion that p=1 is the stochastically stable equilibrium rely on the noise model. Please clarify the boundary treatment (e.g., use reflecting boundaries and admit Γ constant, or make Γ vanish at the boundaries) and re-derive the SSE claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The transition from the stochastic difference equation (1) to the differential equation for the mean is not fully explained. In particular, the notation BR(⟨y⟩) for PR(1) should be explicitly defined as the expected best response (i.e., the probability of choosing C), since in Eq. (1) BR is a random action. The current notation conflates the random variable and its expectation.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The word 'unequivocally' overstates what is shown: Fig. 1 is a numerical scan over the S-T plane without reported error bars or resolution analysis. Consider softening to 'numerically' or 'within the model's mean-field approximation'.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption and text refer to 'dashed line' and 'dotted line', but the figure is not reproduced in the manuscript text. Ensure the lines are clearly labelled in the final figure.
  4. [Section IV] The payoff matrix notation ⟨yPR∞⟩·A⟨xPR∞⟩ is hard to parse. Define x∞ and y∞ for each type combination explicitly (e.g., in a small table) before presenting the matrix.
  5. [Appendix A] The statement 'Our conclusion remains unchanged for any other such game' is a claim, not a demonstration, since the validation is shown for one parameter point. Please state the range of S,T checked or remove the generalization.
  6. [References] Reference [57] (Mukhopadhyay & Chakraborty, Chaos 2021) is cited for the replicator equation but appears unrelated to that specific statement; citing a standard textbook or the original replicator equation papers [53,56], already present, would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ESS results are emergent from the defined payoff matrix; self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper defines procedural rationality via a sampling process, derives the best-response function (e.g., BR(x)=2x−x^2 for PR(1) from the stated utilities), and then writes the mean-field belief dynamics Eq. (2) with an explicitly acknowledged closure approximation ⟨BR(y)⟩≈BR(⟨y⟩). The payoff matrix Π in Section IV is computed numerically from these dynamics and the asymptotic beliefs. The ESS conditions are applied to this computed matrix, so the ESS outcome is not an input but a consequence of the model. The coordination-II payoff ordering (1>0>S>T) is an external assumption from the literature, not fitted to the ESS result. The single self-citation [57] (Mukhopadhyay & Chakraborty 2021) is used only alongside the standard replicator-equation citation [53] (Taylor & Jonker 1978) to motivate the use of ESS conditions; it carries no load-bearing argument and does not substitute for any derivation. Appendix A validates the mean-field closure only for two PR(1) players, and the extension to PR(1)–VR and VR–VR pairs is an unvalidated approximation, but this is a limitation of model support rather than circular reasoning: the paper does not define PR(1)'s ESS in terms of this approximation, nor does it fit parameters to force the conclusion. No equation is replaced by its own output, and no prediction is a renamed fit. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained conditional on the stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions (coordination-II payoff ordering, belief-update schedule, uniform initial-belief averaging) and a mathematical approximation (mean-field closure for mixed types) rather than on fitted parameters. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The payoff structure of human gatherer-hunter interactions is coordination-II: 1 > 0 > S > T
    Section I: motivated by self-reputation literature (cheaters are more punished than cheated), not derived from within the model.
  • domain assumption Beliefs update according to Eq. (1): x_{m+1} = (m/(m+1)) x_m + (1/(m+1)) BR(y_m)
    Section III: this weighted-fictitious-play schedule is assumed; initial beliefs are then averaged uniformly.
  • ad hoc to paper Mean-field closure ⟨BR(y)⟩ = BR(⟨y⟩) holds for all type combinations
    Section III: 'a crucial approximation has been made'; Appendix A validates only PR(1)-PR(1) interactions.
  • domain assumption Fitness is the expected payoff averaged uniformly over all initial beliefs
    Section IV: 'additional averaging of the fitness over all possible beliefs is also appropriate'. A non-uniform distribution could change the payoff matrix.
  • standard math An ESS is an asymptotically stable fixed point of the replicator equation (folk theorem)
    Section IV: standard result from evolutionary game theory, used to justify checking ESS conditions directly.
  • standard math Finite-population stability uses Moran process with weak selection and the given ESS_N inequalities
    Appendix C: standard definitions from Nowak et al. [59].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coordinating cooperation in stag-hunt game: Emergence of evolutionarily stable procedural rationality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXUOUEBV

@misc{pith2026250808301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coordinating cooperation in stag-hunt game: Emergence of evolutionarily stable procedural rationality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXUOUEBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08301}
}
read the original abstract

Humans are bounded rational at best and this, we argue, has worked in their favour in the hunter-gatherer society where emergence of a coordinated action, leading to cooperation, is otherwise the standard stag-hunt dilemma (when individuals are rational). In line with the fact the humans strive for developing self-reputation by having less propensity to cheat than to be cheated, we observe that the payoff structure of the stag-hunt game appropriately modifies to that of coordination-II game. Subsequently, within the paradigm of evolutionary game theory, we establish that a population -- consisting of procedural rational players (a type of bounded rationality) -- is unequivocally evolutionarily stable against emergence of more rational strategies in coordination-II game. The cooperation is, thus, shown to have been established by evolutionary forces picking less rational individuals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.08301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    c(N − 1) < b+ a(N − 2),

    work page

  2. [2]

    Now, since A corresponds to coordination-II game, we havea > d, b = c and a > b; consequently, PR is ESSN for any finite population

    d(N − 2) + c(2N − 1) < b(N + 1) + a(2N − 4); where N is the fixed size of the population. Now, since A corresponds to coordination-II game, we havea > d, b = c and a > b; consequently, PR is ESSN for any finite population. In passing, in the backdrop of finite population, we re- mark here that there may be an alternative explanation of achieving equilibri...

    work page

  3. [3]

    for 1 + S >0, f (z) = 2z (1 − z),

    work page

  4. [4]

    for 1 + S <0, f (z) = 2z (1 − z) z2 + 2z(1 − z) ,

    work page

  5. [5]

    for 1 + S = 0 , f (z) = 2z (1 − z) z2 + 2z(1 − z) + 1 2 (1 − z)2 ; and

    work page

  6. [6]

    for 2S > T, g(z) = (1 − z)2 z2 + 2z(1 − z) ,

    work page

  7. [7]

    for 2S < T, g(z) = (1 − z)2z2,

    work page

  8. [8]

    In all the nine possible forms the above dynamical equa- tion, two fixed points are possible:(0, 0) and (1, 1)

    for 2S = T, g(z) = (1 − z)2 z2 + z(1 − z) . In all the nine possible forms the above dynamical equa- tion, two fixed points are possible:(0, 0) and (1, 1). Un- der linear stability analysis, one easily finds that the fixed pint (0, 0) stable if f ′(0) + g′(0) < 1 and the fixed point (1, 1) is stable if f ′(1) + g′(1) < −1; prime is derivative w.r.t. to th...

    work page

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Seeley and S. C. Buhrman, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45, 19–31 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    P. K. Visscher and T. D. Seeley, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61, 1615–1621 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    P. K. Visscher, Annual Review of Entomology 52, 255–275 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    N. R. Franks, F.-X. Dechaume-Moncharmont, E. Han- more, and J. K. Reynolds, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364, 845–852 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    H. G. Wallraff, Oikos30, 401 (1978)

    1978

  6. [14]

    Simons, Trends Ecol

    A. Simons, Trends Ecol. Evol.19, 453–455 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    D. Biro, D. J. Sumpter, J. Meade, and T. Guilford, Current Biology16, 2123–2128 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Kerth, C

    G. Kerth, C. Ebert, and C. Schmidtke, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences273, 2785–2790 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    J. Buhl, D. J. T. Sumpter, I. D. Couzin, J. J. Hale, E. De- spland, E. R. Miller, and S. J. Simpson, Science 312, 1402–1406 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    S. G. Reebs, Animal Behaviour59, 403–409 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    C. K. Hemelrijk and H. Hildenbrandt, Ethology 114, 245–254 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    A. J. W. Ward, D. J. T. Sumpter, I. D. Couzin, P. J. B. Hart, and J. Krause, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105, 6948–6953 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Shapiro and H

    C. Shapiro and H. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy , G - Refer- ence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (Harvard Business School Press, 1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Ballerini, N

    M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giardina, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Pro- caccini, M. Viale, and V. Zdravkovic, Animal Behaviour 76, 201–215 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    M. E. Gompper, Behavioral Ecology7, 254–263 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    Boesch and H

    C. Boesch and H. Boesch, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78, 547–573 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    Courchamp, Behavioral Ecology13, 20–27 (2002)

    F. Courchamp, Behavioral Ecology13, 20–27 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Gueron, S

    S. Gueron, S. A. Levin, and D. I. Rubenstein, Journal of Theoretical Biology182, 85–98 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    Conradt, Proc

    L. Conradt, Proc. R. Soc. B.265, 1359–1368 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    K. E. Ruckstuhl, Animal Behaviour56, 99–106 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    I. R. Fischhoff, S. R. Sundaresan, J. Cordingley, H. M. Larkin, M.-J. Sellier, and D. I. Rubenstein, Animal Be- haviour 73, 825 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Gautrais, P

    J. Gautrais, P. Michelena, A. Sibbald, R. Bon, and J.-L. Deneubourg, Animal Behaviour74, 1443 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    K. J. Stewart and A. H. Harcourt, Behaviour130, 29 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    J.Trillmich, C.Fichtel, andP.Kappeler,Behaviour 141, 1103 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Meunier, J.-B

    H. Meunier, J.-B. Leca, J.-L. Deneubourg, and O. Petit, 10 Behaviour 143, 1511 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Sellers, R

    W. Sellers, R. Hill, and B. Logan, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences362, 1699–1710 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Sueur and O

    C. Sueur and O. Petit, Behavioural Processes 78, 84 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Camerer, Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction, The Roundtable Series in Behav- ioral Economics (Princeton University Press, 2011)

    C. Camerer, Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction, The Roundtable Series in Behav- ioral Economics (Princeton University Press, 2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Wiessner and W

    P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhövel,Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective , Anthropology of Food and Nutrition Series (Berghahn Books, 1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Harvard University Press, 2009)

    C. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Harvard University Press, 2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Gurven, Behavioral and Brain Sciences27, 543–560 (2004)

    M. Gurven, Behavioral and Brain Sciences27, 543–560 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Hill, Human Nature13, 105–128 (2002)

    K. Hill, Human Nature13, 105–128 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Hewlett, Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental, and Cultural Perspectives , Evolutionary Foundations of Human Behavior Series (Taylor & Fran- cis, 2017)

    B. Hewlett, Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental, and Cultural Perspectives , Evolutionary Foundations of Human Behavior Series (Taylor & Fran- cis, 2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    K. Hill, M. Barton, and A. M. Hurtado, Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18, 187–200 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    M. A. Nowak, Science314, 1560–1563 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Skyrms, The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    B. Skyrms, The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Cosmides, Cognition31, 187–276 (1989)

    L. Cosmides, Cognition31, 187–276 (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    Tomasello, A

    M. Tomasello, A. P. Melis, C. Tennie, E. Wyman, and E. Herrmann, Current Anthropology53, 673 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Milinski, D

    M. Milinski, D. Semmann, and H.-J. Krambeck, Nature 415, 424–426 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Hummert, K

    S. Hummert, K. Bohl, D. Basanta, A. Deutsch, S. Werner, G. Theißen, A. Schroeter, and S. Schuster, Mol. BioSyst.10, 3044–3065 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    von Neumann, O

    J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, and A. Rubinstein, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th An- niversary Commemorative Edition) (Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1944)

    1944

  42. [50]

    Brandenburger, Journal of Economic Perspectives6, 83–101 (1992)

    A. Brandenburger, Journal of Economic Perspectives6, 83–101 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    J. R. Busemeyer and J. T. Townsend, Psychological Re- view 100, 432–459 (1993)

    1993

  44. [52]

    Rieskamp, J

    J. Rieskamp, J. R. Busemeyer, and B. A. Mellers, Jour- nal of Economic Literature44, 631–661 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Selten and T

    R. Selten and T. Chmura, American Economic Review 98, 938 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Milgrom and J

    P. Milgrom and J. Roberts, Econometrica 58, 1255 (1990)

    1990

  47. [55]

    Matsui, Journal of Economic Theory 57, 343–362 (1992)

    A. Matsui, Journal of Economic Theory 57, 343–362 (1992)

    1992

  48. [56]

    Sethi, Games and Economic Behavior 32, 85–104 (2000)

    R. Sethi, Games and Economic Behavior 32, 85–104 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cam- bridge University Press, 1982)

    J. Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cam- bridge University Press, 1982)

    1982

  50. [58]

    A. I. Houston, J. M. McNamara, and M. D. Steer, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 1531–1543 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    A. J. Waksberg, A. B. Smith, and M. Burd, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology63, 461–471 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    T. J. Brennan, A. W. Lo, and R. Zhang, Quarterly Jour- nal of Finance08, 1850009 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    P. D. Taylor and L. B. Jonker, Mathematical Biosciences 40, 145–156 (1978)

    1978

  54. [62]

    M. J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein, American Economic Review , 834 (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    Gaunersdorfer and J

    A. Gaunersdorfer and J. Hofbauer, Games and Economic Behavior 11, 279–303 (1995)

    1995

  56. [64]

    Cressman and Y

    R. Cressman and Y. Tao, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 10810–10817 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Mukhopadhyay and S

    A. Mukhopadhyay and S. Chakraborty, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science31, 023123 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    https://github.com/joydasbairagya/ Code-procedurally-rational

  59. [67]

    M. A. Nowak, A. Sasaki, C. Taylor, and D. Fudenberg, Nature 428, 646–650 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Foster and P

    D. Foster and P. Young, Theoretical Population Biology 38, 219–232 (1990)

    1990

  61. [69]

    Persky, The Journal of Economic Perspectives9, 221 (1995)

    J. Persky, The Journal of Economic Perspectives9, 221 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    Rapoport and A

    A. Rapoport and A. Chammah, Prisoner’s Dilemma (University of Michigan Press, 1965)

    1965

  63. [71]

    D. O. Stahl, Games and Economic Behavior5, 604–617 (1993)

    1993

  64. [72]

    B. D. Bernheim, Econometrica52, 1007 (1984)

    1984

  65. [73]

    P. A. P. Moran, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society54, 60–71 (1958)

    1958

  66. [74]

    D. W. Bird, R. B. Bird, B. F. Codding, and D. W. Zeanah,JournalofHumanEvolution 131,96–108(2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.