pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23444 · v1 · pith:JGZ7ZYE2new · submitted 2026-05-22 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · physics.bio-ph

Hyperedge approximation for stochastic processes on higher-order networks

Anzhi Sheng , Alex McAvoy , Ye Tian , Silun Zhang , Angela Fontan , Joshua B. Plotkin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph physics.bio-ph
keywords hyperedge approximationhigher-order networksevolutionary gamescomplex contagionsstochastic processeshypergraphsfixation probabilitypublic goods games
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ℓ-hyperedge approximation extends pairwise results to stochastic processes on regular hypergraphs with group interactions.

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

The paper develops the ℓ-hyperedge approximation as a method to analyze stochastic population processes on regular hypergraphs, where each individual participates in exactly k groups of size ℓ. This approach handles both higher-order interactions that set payoffs and higher-order rules for updating states based on those payoffs. It generalizes the classical condition b/c > k that favors cooperation in pairwise settings and supplies explicit critical benefit-to-cost ratios for nonlinear ℓ-player public goods games. The same framework delivers a closed-form expression for the fixation probability in models of complex contagion, where state inheritance occurs through entire hyperedges rather than single edges. By reducing the higher-order system to a tractable set of equations, the method couples payoff-driven selection with multi-way contagion into one stochastic model.

Core claim

The central claim is that the ℓ-hyperedge approximation on regular hypergraphs yields analytical expressions for evolutionary dynamics, including generalized thresholds for the spread of cooperation in ℓ-player games and exact fixation probabilities for complex contagions governed by a complexity parameter, thereby extending pair approximation techniques to interaction structures with no pairwise analog.

What carries the argument

The ℓ-hyperedge approximation, a closure method that averages states over hyperedges of size ℓ in a regular hypergraph to obtain reduced dynamical equations for both payoff calculation and state updating.

If this is right

  • Cooperation is favored when the benefit-to-cost ratio exceeds a threshold that depends explicitly on group size ℓ and group number k.
  • Nonlinear ℓ-player public goods games receive distinct critical benefit-to-cost ratios that cannot be recovered from pairwise reductions.
  • The fixation probability of a rare type in complex contagion takes a closed form controlled by a single complexity parameter.
  • Payoff-biased complex contagion becomes a single unified stochastic process on the hypergraph structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same closure could be tested on empirical contact data that record group memberships rather than only pairwise contacts.
  • The method suggests that increasing group size ℓ systematically shifts the threshold for cooperation or contagion spread in structured populations.
  • Similar reductions might apply to other multi-agent processes such as threshold-based opinion updates within cliques.

Load-bearing premise

The hypergraphs must be regular, with each individual belonging to exactly k groups of size ℓ, and the approximation closure must remain valid for payoff and updating steps without extra higher-order correlations.

What would settle it

Direct Monte Carlo simulations on a small regular hypergraph that produce fixation probabilities or cooperation thresholds measurably different from the closed-form predictions would show the approximation fails to capture the true dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23444 by Alex McAvoy, Angela Fontan, Anzhi Sheng, Joshua B. Plotkin, Silun Zhang, Ye Tian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Strategy evolution on graphs and hypergraphs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Threshold for cooperation in public goods games. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Monte Carlo simulations confirm theoretical predictions for evolutionary games on hypergraphs. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Complex contagion on hypergraphs. We consider complex contagion dynamics on third-order random regular hypergraphs generated by the configuration model (Algorithm 1 in SI). a, An illustrative example of a random regular hypergraph of size N = 9 and degree k = 2. b, Rescaled fixation probability, NρC, under neutral complex contagion, where the two strategies have the same fitness. Dots show results from 2 ×… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Graphs are a standard framework for describing dynamical processes shaped by pairwise interactions among agents. But many systems involve interactions in groups of three or more agents. Here, we develop a method of "$\ell$-hyperedge approximation", a framework to analyze stochastic population processes on regular hypergraphs, in which each individual belongs to $k$ groups of size $\ell$. The framework accommodates both higher-order interactions that determine payoffs and higher-order processes for updating states in response to payoffs. Applied to evolutionary game dynamics, the framework generalizes the classical pairwise result on benefits and costs, $b/c>k$, that favors the spread of cooperation; and it provides critical benefit-to-cost ratios for nonlinear $\ell$-player public goods games that cannot be reduced to pairwise interactions. Applied to complex contagions, where inheritance of states occurs within hyperedges rather than along parent-offspring edges, the framework gives a closed-form result for the fixation probability, which shows how a complexity parameter governs the spread of rare types. Coupling the two processes produces a single stochastic model of payoff-biased complex contagion in structured populations. These results extend pair approximation from graphs to hypergraphs, accommodating multi-way interactions and inheritance structures with no pairwise analog.

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 manuscript develops an ℓ-hyperedge approximation framework for stochastic processes on regular hypergraphs (each node in exactly k hyperedges of size ℓ). It extends pair approximation to accommodate both higher-order payoff interactions and hyperedge-based state updating. The framework generalizes the pairwise b/c > k threshold for cooperation to ℓ-player public-goods games (including nonlinear cases with no pairwise reduction) and supplies closed-form fixation probabilities for complex contagions controlled by a complexity parameter; the two processes are also coupled into a single payoff-biased contagion model.

Significance. If the closure is valid, the work supplies a useful analytic extension of mean-field and pair approximations to hypergraphs, yielding concrete, parameter-free predictions (generalized critical ratios and fixation expressions) for multi-way interactions that lack pairwise analogs. This could enable new analyses of group-structured dynamics in evolutionary games and contagion processes on higher-order networks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (framework): the claim of closed-form critical b/c ratios and fixation probabilities for nonlinear ℓ-player games and hyperedge inheritance rests on the ℓ-hyperedge closure exactly truncating all higher-order correlations; no error bound, regime of validity, or comparison to exact master equations for small hypergraphs is supplied to confirm that residual three-or-higher correlations induced by nonlinear payoffs or hyperedge updating do not invalidate the reduction.
  2. [§4 and §5] §4 (evolutionary games) and §5 (complex contagions): the reported thresholds and fixation formulas assume the same moment closure suffices for both payoff calculation and state-transition probabilities; any additional correlations arising specifically from the nonlinear public-goods payoff or from the hyperedge inheritance rule would break the claimed pairwise-like ODEs or master equations, yet no diagnostic or simulation test of this assumption is presented.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the regularity parameters (k, ℓ) and the complexity parameter should be introduced with explicit definitions in the introduction rather than deferred to the methods.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the hypergraph schematics would benefit from explicit indication of which panels illustrate payoff versus updating steps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting important aspects of the closure assumptions in our ℓ-hyperedge approximation. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (framework): the claim of closed-form critical b/c ratios and fixation probabilities for nonlinear ℓ-player games and hyperedge inheritance rests on the ℓ-hyperedge closure exactly truncating all higher-order correlations; no error bound, regime of validity, or comparison to exact master equations for small hypergraphs is supplied to confirm that residual three-or-higher correlations induced by nonlinear payoffs or hyperedge updating do not invalidate the reduction.

    Authors: The ℓ-hyperedge approximation is a moment-closure technique that reduces the master equation by expressing higher-order hyperedge correlations in terms of lower-order ones, exactly as pair approximation does on ordinary graphs. The closed-form expressions for critical ratios and fixation probabilities are derived exactly under this closure; they are not claimed to be exact for the full stochastic process. We do not supply rigorous a-priori error bounds because such bounds are not generally available for moment closures of this type and would require a separate analytic development. The manuscript does compare the resulting ODEs and fixation formulas against Monte-Carlo simulations on finite regular hypergraphs (see §§4–5 and the associated figures), which serves as a practical check on the truncation. We will add an explicit paragraph in §2 stating the closure assumption and the expected regime of validity (large population, moderate hyperedge size, and decaying spatial correlations). revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (evolutionary games) and §5 (complex contagions): the reported thresholds and fixation formulas assume the same moment closure suffices for both payoff calculation and state-transition probabilities; any additional correlations arising specifically from the nonlinear public-goods payoff or from the hyperedge inheritance rule would break the claimed pairwise-like ODEs or master equations, yet no diagnostic or simulation test of this assumption is presented.

    Authors: Because both the payoff function and the state-update rule are defined on the same hyperedge configurations, the identical closure is applied uniformly; this is the defining feature of the framework. The nonlinear public-goods payoffs enter directly through the hyperedge payoff vector and do not require an additional reduction step. The hyperedge-inheritance rule is likewise expressed in terms of the same hyperedge states. The assumption is tested by direct comparison of the closed-form predictions with individual-based stochastic simulations on finite hypergraphs, which are reported throughout §§4 and 5. These simulations incorporate the full nonlinear payoffs and hyperedge updating, so any systematic deviation caused by unclosed correlations would appear as a mismatch. We will insert a short diagnostic subsection that explicitly overlays the approximated transition rates against those measured from the simulations to make this check more transparent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation is a modeling approximation with independent content

full rationale

The provided abstract and description introduce an ℓ-hyperedge approximation as a new closure method that extends pair approximation to regular hypergraphs, yielding closed-form expressions for critical b/c ratios and fixation probabilities under stated assumptions. No equations or steps are quoted that reduce outputs to inputs by definition, rename fitted parameters as predictions, or rely on load-bearing self-citations whose prior results themselves depend on the target claim. The closure is presented as an explicit modeling choice whose accuracy is an external question, not a self-referential identity. This is the normal case of a self-contained approximation framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on the structural regularity of the hypergraph and the validity of the approximation closure; no free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are explicitly introduced in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The population is embedded on a regular hypergraph in which every individual belongs to exactly k hyperedges each of size ℓ.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the setting for the framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5755 in / 1342 out tokens · 21047 ms · 2026-05-25T02:52:57.008978+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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albert and A.-L

    R. Albert and A.-L. Barab \'a si. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of modern physics, 74 0 (1): 0 47, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    M. E. J. Newman. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45 0 (2): 0 167--256, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Barrat, M

    A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani. The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 101 0 (11): 0 3747--3752, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Radicchi and A

    F. Radicchi and A. Arenas. Abrupt transition in the structural formation of interconnected networks. Nature Physics, 9 0 (11): 0 717--720, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. F. Mendes. Ising model on networks with an arbitrary distribution of connections. Physical Review E, 66 0 (1): 0 016104, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Ohtsuki, C

    H. Ohtsuki, C. Hauert, E. Lieberman, and M. A. Nowak. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441 0 (7092): 0 502--505, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Q. Su, B. Allen, and J. B. Plotkin. Evolution of cooperation with asymmetric social interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 0 (1): 0 e2113468118, 2022 a

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Durrett and S

    R. Durrett and S. Levin. The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theoretical Population Biology, 46 0 (3): 0 363--394, 1994

    work page 1994

  9. [9]

    Lambiotte, M

    R. Lambiotte, M. Rosvall, and I. Scholtes. From networks to optimal higher-order models of complex systems. Nature Physics, 15 0 (4): 0 313--320, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Battiston, E

    F. Battiston, E. Amico, A. Barrat, G. Bianconi, G. Ferraz de Arruda, et al. The physics of higher-order interactions in complex systems. Nature Physics, 17 0 (10): 0 1093--1098, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Grilli, G

    J. Grilli, G. Barab \'a s, M. J. Michalska-Smith, and S. Allesina. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature, 548 0 (7666): 0 210--213, 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    J. M. Levine, J. Bascompte, P. B. Adler, and S. Allesina. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature, 546 0 (7656): 0 56--64, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Fontan and S

    A. Fontan and S. Zhang. Collective decision-making dynamics in hypernetworks. In 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6222--6227. IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Battiston, G

    F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, V. Latora, M. Lucas, et al. Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 874: 0 1--92, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    F. C. Santos, M. D. Santos, and J. M. Pacheco. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454 0 (7201): 0 213--216, 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    A. Li, M. Broom, J. Du, and L. Wang. Evolutionary dynamics of general group interactions in structured populations. Physical Review E, 93 0 (2): 0 022407, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Alvarez-Rodriguez, F

    U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, F. Battiston, G. F. de Arruda, Y. Moreno, M. Perc, and V. Latora. Evolutionary dynamics of higher-order interactions in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 5 0 (5): 0 586--595, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    D. G. Rand, M. A. Nowak, J. H. Fowler, and N. A. Christakis. Static network structure can stabilize human cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 0 (48): 0 17093--17098, 2014

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    McAvoy, B

    A. McAvoy, B. Allen, and M. A. Nowak. Social goods dilemmas in heterogeneous societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 0 (8): 0 819--831, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Sheng, A

    A. Sheng, A. Li, and L. Wang. Evolutionary dynamics on sequential temporal networks. PLOS Computational Biology, 19 0 (8): 0 e1011333, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    M. Mobilia. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Physical Review Letters, 91 0 (2): 0 028701, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Durrett and S

    R. Durrett and S. A. Levin. Can stable social groups be maintained by homophilous imitation alone? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57 0 (3): 0 267--286, 2005

    work page 2005

  23. [23]

    F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco. Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical Review Letters, 95 0 (9): 0 098104, 2005

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81 0 (2): 0 591--646, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    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 0 (7): 0 2962--2966, 2010

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Barrat, M

    A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, and A. Vespignani. Dynamical processes on complex networks. Cambridge University Press, 2008

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    F. L. Pinheiro, M. D. Santos, F. C. Santos, and J. M. Pacheco. Origin of peer influence in social networks. Physical Review Letters, 112 0 (9): 0 098702, 2014

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Iacopini, S

    I. Iacopini, S. Milojevi \'c , and V. Latora. Network dynamics of innovation processes. Physical Review Letters, 120 0 (4): 0 048301, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Centola and M

    D. Centola and M. Macy. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113 0 (3): 0 702--734, 2007

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    D. Centola. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329 0 (5996): 0 1194--1197, 2010

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Campbell and M

    E. Campbell and M. Salath \'e . Complex social contagion makes networks more vulnerable to disease outbreaks. Scientific Reports, 3 0 (1): 0 1905, 2013

    work page 1905

  32. [32]

    Karsai, G

    M. Karsai, G. Iniguez, K. Kaski, and J. Kert \'e sz. Complex contagion process in spreading of online innovation. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 11 0 (101): 0 20140694, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    D. Centola. How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions, volume 3. Princeton University Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    V. V. Vasconcelos, S. A. Levin, and F. L. Pinheiro. Consensus and polarization in competing complex contagion processes. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16 0 (155): 0 20190196, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Chiba-Okabe and J

    H. Chiba-Okabe and J. B. Plotkin. Social learning with complex contagion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 0 (49): 0 e2414291121, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Allen, G

    B. Allen, G. Lippner, Y.-T. Chen, B. Fotouhi, N. Momeni, S.-T. Yau, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure. Nature, 544 0 (7649): 0 227--230, 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    McAvoy and B

    A. McAvoy and B. Allen. Fixation probabilities in evolutionary dynamics under weak selection. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 82 0 (3): 0 14, 2021

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Q. Su, A. McAvoy, and J. B. Plotkin. Strategy evolution on dynamic networks. Nature Computational Science, 3 0 (9): 0 763--776, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Sheng, Q

    A. Sheng, Q. Su, L. Wang, and J. B. Plotkin. Strategy evolution on higher-order networks. Nature Computational Science, 4: 0 274--284, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    M. A. Nowak, A. Sasaki, C. Taylor, and D. Fudenberg. Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature, 428 0 (6983): 0 646--650, 2004

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    T. Ohta. Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 0 (25): 0 16134--16137, 2002

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    B. Wu, P. M. Altrock, L. Wang, and A. Traulsen. Universality of weak selection. Physical Review E, 82 0 (4): 0 046106, 2010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    H. Akashi. Inferring weak selection from patterns of polymorphism and divergence at "silent" sites in Drosophila DNA . Genetics, 139 0 (2): 0 1067--1076, 1995

    work page 1995

  44. [44]

    Traulsen, J

    A. Traulsen, J. C. Claussen, and C. Hauert. Coevolutionary dynamics: from finite to infinite populations. Physical Review Letters, 95 0 (23): 0 238701, 2005

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Szab \'o and G

    G. Szab \'o and G. Fath. Evolutionary games on graphs. Physics Reports, 446 0 (4-6): 0 97--216, 2007

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Hauert, F

    C. Hauert, F. Michor, M. A. Nowak, and M. Doebeli. Synergy and discounting of cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239 0 (2): 0 195--202, 2006

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. McAvoy. A mathematical formalism for natural selection with arbitrary spatial and genetic structure. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 78 0 (4): 0 1147--1210, 2019

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Allen and C

    B. Allen and C. E. Tarnita. Measures of success in a class of evolutionary models with fixed population size and structure. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 68 0 (1): 0 109--143, 2014

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    G. R. Price. Selection and covariance. Nature, 227: 0 520--521, 1970

    work page 1970

  50. [50]

    ben Avraham and J

    D. ben Avraham and J. K \"o hler. Mean-field (n, m)-cluster approximation for lattice models. Physical Review A, 45 0 (12): 0 8358, 1992

    work page 1992

  51. [51]

    H.-N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, et al. Four-body ring-exchange interactions and anyonic statistics within a minimal toric-code hamiltonian. Nature Physics, 13 0 (12): 0 1195--1200, 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Iacopini, G

    I. Iacopini, G. Petri, A. Barrat, and V. Latora. Simplicial models of social contagion. Nature Communications, 10 0 (1): 0 2485, 2019

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    C. E. Tarnita, T. Antal, H. Ohtsuki, and M. A. Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics in set structured populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 0 (21): 0 8601--8604, 2009

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    Q. Su, A. McAvoy, Y. Mori, and J. B. Plotkin. Evolution of prosocial behaviours in multilayer populations. Nature Human Behaviour, 6 0 (3): 0 338--348, 2022 b

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    McAvoy and J

    A. McAvoy and J. Wakeley. Evaluating the structure-coefficient theorem of evolutionary game theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 0 (28): 0 e2119656119, 2022

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. McAvoy. The coalescent in finite populations with arbitrary, fixed structure. Theoretical Population Biology, 158: 0 150--169, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    J. A. DiMasi, R. W. Hansen, and H. G. Grabowski. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics, 22 0 (2): 0 151--185, 2003

    work page 2003

  58. [58]

    Cuijpers, H

    M. Cuijpers, H. Guenter, and K. Hussinger. Costs and benefits of inter-departmental innovation collaboration. Research Policy, 40 0 (4): 0 565--575, 2011

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Chegut, P

    A. Chegut, P. Eichholtz, and N. Kok. The price of innovation: An analysis of the marginal cost of green buildings. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 98: 0 102248, 2019

    work page 2019