Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Direct reciprocity in asynchronous interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In asynchronous repeated games with environmental feedback, any cooperative memory-1 strategy is a Nash equilibrium once the benefit gap between environmental states reaches the cooperation cost.

desk verdict A nice extension of direct reciprocity to asynchrony, but the central 'Δ≥c' universality threshold only holds on the λ_CD=0 boundary and needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04264 v1 pith:SS2MHJX5 submitted 2025-06-03 physics.soc-ph q-bio.PE

Ketian Sun , Qi Su , Long Wang This is my paper
classification physics.soc-phq-bio.PE
keywords directreciprocityasynchronousinteractionsstochasticgamesenvironmentalfeedbackpartnerstrategiesNashequilibriumevolutionofcooperation
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 tackles a mismatch in reciprocity theory: most models assume players act at the same time, but real cooperation often happens in turns, with a changing environment. It sets up an asynchronous stochastic game in which one player moves first, the second responds, and the actions of both determine whether the next environment is high- or low-benefit. The authors prove that a memory-1 strategy is a partner strategy—meaning it achieves full cooperation against itself and no one can profit by deviating—exactly when it always cooperates after mutual cooperation and satisfies three quantitative conditions linking payoffs and the environment's transition rule. The decisive result is a threshold: when the benefit of the high state exceeds the low state by at least the cooperation cost ($\Delta \ge c$), every cooperative memory-1 strategy becomes a partner strategy. This shows that environmental feedback alone can make cooperation stable in turn-taking interactions without requiring a specific punishment or forgiveness pattern, and it explains why asynchronous interaction usually suppresses cooperation unless the feedback rule is tailored to the order of moves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-state environmental Markov process with transition vector $\lambda=(\lambda_{CC},\lambda_{CD},\lambda_{DC},\lambda_{DD})$, where each entry is the probability of moving to the high-benefit state given the two preceding actions. The paper focuses on $\lambda=(1,0,\eta,0)$, which encodes two real-world assumptions: mutual cooperation always restores the high state, the second mover's defection guarantees a move to the low state, and the first mover's defection sends the environment low with probability $1-\eta$, so more recent actions matter more. The strategy space is the eight-entry memory-1 vector $p=(p^H_{CC},\ldots,p^L_{DD})$ describing cooperation probabilities conditional on environment, one's own action two periods ago, and the co-player's action last period. The proof of the partner-strategy conditions computes the stationary distribution of the resulting Markov chain and compares the payoffs from cooperating forever versus deviating once, then checks that no deviation improves the long-term payoff.

What would settle it

One can settle the universality claim by computing partner-strategy conditions for a transition rule in which the probability of entering the high state depends on the current environmental state, or in which the ordering $\lambda_{CC}\ge\lambda_{DC}\ge\lambda_{CD}\ge\lambda_{DD}$ is violated while keeping $\Delta\ge c$. If some strategy with $p^H_{CC}=1$ then fails the Nash-equilibrium inequalities, the paper's central threshold is an artifact of the state-independent rule rather than a general property of asynchronous feedback. A second check is to simulate the evolutionary process with $\Delta\ge c$ and state-dependent transitions and see whether the full-cooperation rate drops below the predicted level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a characterization of partner strategies in asynchronous stochastic games with transition vector $\lambda=(1,0,\eta,0)$. A strategy is a partner strategy if and only if it has $p^H_{CC}=1$, and the remaining parameters obey the inequalities in Eq. (5); in particular, defection after the environment has been driven low is heavily constrained. The striking corollary is that whenever $\Delta = b_H - b_L \ge c$, these inequalities are satisfied by every cooperative memory-1 strategy, so the entire cooperative strategy space becomes a set of Nash equilibria. In static asynchronous games, by contrast, partner strategies never fill the cooperative space, so this universality is a genuine effect of environmental feedback. The paper also demonstrates in evolutionary simulations that dynamic feedback raises cooperation rates and payoffs above static baselines, and that asynchronous play generally yields less cooperation than synchronous play unless the transition rule punishes the most recent defection hardest.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the environment is a two-state Markov process whose transition probabilities are state-independent and ordered as $\lambda_{CC}\ge\lambda_{DC}\ge\lambda_{CD}\ge\lambda_{DD}$, with the working rule that the second mover's defection always pushes the environment to the low state; if real-world feedback depends on the current state, or if the most recent defection is not the most damaging, the $\Delta\ge c$ threshold need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the threshold $\Delta \ge c$ holds, cooperation in turn-taking games requires no knowledge of which punishment or forgiveness pattern works; any strategy that cooperates after mutual cooperation is uninvadable.
  • Environmental feedback increases the abundance of partner strategies relative to static asynchronous games for every tested benefit gap and transition probability, so dynamic environments favor reciprocity even when players act sequentially.
  • Asynchronous interactions suppress cooperation relative to synchronous ones when both use the same symmetric transition rule, and this gap persists across population size, selection strength, error rate, and mutation rate.
  • A transition rule that gives the most recent defection the heaviest environmental penalty ($\lambda=(1,0,\eta,0)$) cancels much of asynchrony's harmful effect, providing a design principle for promoting cooperation in sequential interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same gap condition survives a third environmental state, then variation in resource abundance itself—not the details of reciprocity norms—may be the main stabilizer of turn-taking cooperation; adding an intermediate state and checking whether a similar threshold appears is the direct next test.
  • Because the second mover observes the first mover's action before choosing, the model attributes asynchrony's cost to information lag; one could test this by randomizing who moves first each round and asking whether the cooperation gap with synchronous play disappears.
  • The paper's transition rule is state-independent, so applying the same conditions to environments that recover slowly (where the low state persists after overuse) would require a new derivation; the authors themselves flag state-dependent transitions as the key open case.
  • The threshold result suggests an empirical target: systems with turn-taking reciprocity should show more stable cooperation when the payoffs of the two resource states differ by more than the cost of helping, a prediction that could be checked in sentinel or blood-sharing data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a model of direct reciprocity in asynchronous (alternating-move) interactions with dynamic environmental feedback. Two players alternate actions within each round, the environment switches between a high-benefit and a low-benefit state according to a transition vector that depends on the players' recent actions, and each player is modeled by a memory-one strategy. The authors derive partner-strategy conditions for this stochastic game and report that, for the transition vector λ=(1,0,η,0), every cooperative strategy with p^H_CC=1 is a partner strategy once the benefit difference Δ=b_H−b_L reaches the cooperation cost c. They further use evolutionary simulations and a weak-selection approximation to argue that environmental feedback promotes cooperation in asynchronous settings, while asynchrony generally inhibits cooperation relative to synchronous interactions except for a specific class of feedback rules.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper makes a valuable conceptual contribution: it extends the theory of direct reciprocity from static synchronous games to asynchronous stochastic games and shows that the environment can act as a second 'shadow of the future' that stabilizes cooperation. The analytical partner-strategy conditions are parameter-free in the sense that no payoff data are fitted, and the threshold Δ≥c is a derived rather than assumed consequence. The comparison between asynchronous and synchronous games using a matched average transition probability is a thoughtful design. However, the central threshold claim is currently tied to a boundary transition vector, and the derivations are deferred to an absent SI, so the significance is somewhat reduced until these issues are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5), Fig. 3, Abstract] The headline threshold Δ≥c is established only for the transition vector λ=(1,0,η,0), i.e. for λ_CD=0, which is a boundary point of the ordering λ_CC≥λ_DC≥λ_CD≥λ_DD introduced in Section 2. The claim that 'when Δ≥c, any cooperative strategy qualifies as a partner strategy' is not a consequence of that ordering alone. To see this, take λ=(1,q,η,0) with q>0 and let Player 2 use Always Cooperate. A Player 1 who always defects receives b_L+qΔ per round, because after Player 1's defection the environment is H with probability q before Player 2's action; mutual cooperation gives b_H−c=b_L+Δ−c. For Δ=c, defection is strictly profitable for every q>0, so Always Cooperate is not a partner strategy. Thus the general condition is at least Δ≥c/(1−λ_CD), and the universal statements in the abstract and in Section 3 must either be restricted to λ_CD=0 or re-derived for general transition vectors. As written, Eq. (5) and Fig. 3 overgeneralize the boundary case.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5) and Methods] The main analytical results—the partner-strategy conditions in Eq. (5) and the weak-selection approximation in Methods—are stated as 'derived in SI Appendix section 3' and 'SI Appendix section 4', but the SI is not included in this arXiv version. Because these derivations are load-bearing for the central claims, I could not verify them from the manuscript. Please include the SI in the review version, or summarize the key steps of the Markov-chain analysis in the main text or an appendix.
  3. [Section 3, 'Stability of cooperative strategies'] The statement that 'any cooperative strategy qualifies as a partner strategy' should specify the domain precisely: it holds for the error-free case and for strategies with p^H_CC=1, but it is not true for arbitrary memory-one strategies once implementation errors are introduced, because the modified strategy p^ε=ε+(1−2ε)p no longer satisfies p^H_CC=1. The paper does later discuss robustness to errors, but the universal claim in the abstract and in the stability subsection is stated without these qualifications.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The second inequality in Eq. (5) is typeset ambiguously in the main text; please add explicit parentheses, e.g. ((1−p^L_CD+p^L_DD)b_H−c)/b_L, so that the expression is unambiguous.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3] The phrase 'above a critical environmental threshold, any cooperative strategy can form a Nash equilibrium' should be qualified to 'for the transition vector λ=(1,0,η,0) and error-free play', as the paper itself uses this transition vector for most of its analytical results.
  3. [Figure 5] The red-box exception is described qualitatively as 'ζ=0 and η moderate or small'. Please state the precise range of η used in the figure, since the text elsewhere describes η=0.5 as moderate.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The notation λ_{a\tilde a} is introduced compactly; a sentence clarifying that the first index is the focal player's own previous action and the second is the co-player's previous action would help readers parse Eqs. (5) and (6).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper derives its threshold and partner-strategy conditions from an explicit Markov-chain analysis rather than assuming them.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central result, Eq. (5), gives the partner-strategy conditions for asynchronous stochastic games; these conditions are obtained analytically from the stationary distribution of the interaction Markov chain (SI Appendix section 3), not from a fitted parameter or from the conclusion. The threshold claim that any cooperative strategy with p^H_CC = 1 is a partner strategy when Δ ≥ c is a consequence of substituting the transition vector λ = (1,0,η,0) into the derived inequalities, as shown in Fig. 3 and the surrounding text. The paper does cite prior work for definitions and baselines: [35] defines partner strategies, and [51] provides the asynchronous static-game partner criteria, which the authors recover as the special case in Eq. (6). These citations are used as context, not as the source of the stochastic-game result. The weaker assumption that the universal threshold holds only for λ_CD = 0 is a robustness/generality concern about the chosen transition vector, not a circularity: the claimed derivation does not secretly assume the conclusion. There are no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; b_H, b_L, c, η, β, N, and µ are chosen model inputs. The analysis relies on standard assumptions of repeated-game theory (average payoff, memory-1 strategies, pairwise comparison dynamics) and a specific state-independent transition rule.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Players use average payoff per round (limit-of-means) as the fitness criterion for Nash equilibria.
    Standard in the repeated-game literature the paper builds on [35,51]; the partner conditions in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) are derived under this criterion.
  • domain assumption The environment follows a state-independent two-state Markov chain with transition ordering λ_CC ≥ λ_DC ≥ λ_CD ≥ λ_DD, and most results use λ = (1, 0, η, 0).
    This is the modeling assumption in Section 2, Eq. (1); the threshold Δ ≥ c and the asynchrony comparison rely on this specific transition rule.
  • domain assumption Analytical partner-strategy conditions are derived for error-free play (ε = 0); implementation error is treated only in simulations and the weak-selection approximation.
    The Methods section introduces errors to guarantee a unique stationary distribution; the main theorems in Section 3 are stated for ε = 0.
  • domain assumption Partner strategies are defined as in Hilbe et al. [35] (full cooperation in self-play and Nash equilibrium).
    The paper adopts the existing equilibrium concept from [35]; this is a benchmark, not an assumption of its own.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct reciprocity in asynchronous interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SS2MHJX5

@misc{pith2026250604264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct reciprocity in asynchronous interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SS2MHJX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04264}
}
read the original abstract

Cooperation is vital for the survival of living systems but is challenging due to the costs borne by altruistic individuals. Direct reciprocity, where actions are based on past encounters, is a key mechanism fostering cooperation. However, most studies assume synchronous decision-making, whereas real-world interactions are often asynchronous, with individuals acting in sequence. This asynchrony can undermine standard cooperative strategies like Tit-for-Tat and Win-Stay Lose-Shift. To better understand cooperation in real-world contexts, it is crucial to explore the theory of direct reciprocity in asynchronous interactions. To address this, we introduce a framework based on asynchronous stochastic games, incorporating asynchronous decisions and dynamic environmental feedback. We analytically derive the conditions under which strategies form cooperative Nash equilibria. Our results demonstrate that the order of interactions can significantly alter outcomes: interaction asynchrony generally inhibits cooperation, except under specific conditions where environmental feedback effectively mitigates its negative impact. When environmental feedback is incorporated, a variety of stable reciprocal strategies can be sustained. Notably, above a critical environmental threshold, any cooperative strategy can form a Nash equilibrium. Overall, our work underscores the importance of interaction order in long-term evolutionary processes and highlights the pivotal role of environmental feedback in stabilizing cooperation in asynchronous interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Asynchronous interactions with environmental feedback. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Partner strategies in asynchronous static and stochastic games. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Environmental feedback promotes the stability of cooperative strategies. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emergence of cooperation in evolutionary asynchronous stochastic games. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Interaction asynchrony inhibits the evolution of cooperation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The inhibitory effects of asynchronous interactions are robust with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spatial dilemmas of diffusible public goods.Elife, 2:e01169, 2013

    Benjamin Allen, Jeff Gore, and Martin A Nowak. Spatial dilemmas of diffusible public goods.Elife, 2:e01169, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms.Nature Reviews Microbiology, 14:589–600, 2016

    Carey D Nadell, Knut Drescher, and Kevin R Foster. Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms.Nature Reviews Microbiology, 14:589–600, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat.Nature, 308:181–184, 1984

    Gerald S Wilkinson. Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat.Nature, 308:181–184, 1984

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Bernhard V oelkl, Steven J Portugal, Markus Uns¨old, James R Usherwood, Alan M Wilson, and Johannes Fritz. Matching times of leading and following suggest cooperation through direct reciprocity during v-formation flight in ibis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112:2115–2120, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Chimpanzees share food for many reasons: the role of kinship, reciprocity, social bonds and harassment on food transfers.Animal Behaviour, 85:941–947, 2013

    Joan B Silk, Sarah F Brosnan, Joseph Henrich, Susan P Lambeth, and Steven Shapiro. Chimpanzees share food for many reasons: the role of kinship, reciprocity, social bonds and harassment on food transfers.Animal Behaviour, 85:941–947, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    How is human cooperation different?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365:2663–2674, 2010

    Alicia P Melis and Dirk Semmann. How is human cooperation different?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365:2663–2674, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Human cooperation.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17:413–425, 2013

    David G Rand and Martin A Nowak. Human cooperation.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17:413–425, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.Science, 162:1243–1248, 1968

    Garrett Hardin. The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.Science, 162:1243–1248, 1968

    work page 1968

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Super-additive coop- eration.Nature, 626:1034–1041, 2024

    Charles Efferson, Helen Bernhard, Urs Fischbacher, and Ernst Fehr. Super-additive coop- eration.Nature, 626:1034–1041, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Cooper- ating with the future.Nature, 511:220–223, 2014

    Oliver P Hauser, David G Rand, Alexander Peysakhovich, and Martin A Nowak. Cooper- ating with the future.Nature, 511:220–223, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    The evolution of eusociality

    Martin A Nowak, Corina E Tarnita, and Edward O Wilson. The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466:1057–1062, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Altruism in viscous populations—an inclusive fitness model.Evolutionary Ecology, 6:352–356, 1992

    Peter D Taylor. Altruism in viscous populations—an inclusive fitness model.Evolutionary Ecology, 6:352–356, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    A theoretical basis for measures of kin selection in subdivided populations: finite populations and localized dispersal.Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13:814–825, 2000

    Rousset and Billiard. A theoretical basis for measures of kin selection in subdivided populations: finite populations and localized dispersal.Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13:814–825, 2000. 17

    2000

  6. [14]

    Evolu- tionary instability of selfish learning in repeated games.PNAS nexus, 1:pgac141, 2022

    Alex McAvoy, Julian Kates-Harbeck, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Christian Hilbe. Evolu- tionary instability of selfish learning in repeated games.PNAS nexus, 1:pgac141, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Mutation enhances cooperation in direct reciprocity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120:e2221080120, 2023

    Josef Tkadlec, Christian Hilbe, and Martin A Nowak. Mutation enhances cooperation in direct reciprocity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120:e2221080120, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Indirect reciprocity with optional interactions.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 365:1–11, 2015

    Whan Ghang and Martin A Nowak. Indirect reciprocity with optional interactions.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 365:1–11, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    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

    2018

  10. [18]

    The leading eight: social norms that can maintain coop- eration by indirect reciprocity.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239:435–444, 2006

    Hisashi Ohtsuki and Yoh Iwasa. The leading eight: social norms that can maintain coop- eration by indirect reciprocity.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239:435–444, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks.Nature, 441:502–505, 2006

    Hisashi Ohtsuki, Christoph Hauert, Erez Lieberman, and Martin A Nowak. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks.Nature, 441:502–505, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Evolutionary dynamics on any population struc- ture.Nature, 544:227–230, 2017

    Benjamin Allen, Gabor Lippner, Yu-Ting Chen, Babak Fotouhi, Naghmeh Momeni, Shing-Tung Yau, and Martin A Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics on any population struc- ture.Nature, 544:227–230, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Strategy evolution on dynamic networks

    Qi Su, Alex McAvoy, and Joshua B Plotkin. Strategy evolution on dynamic networks. Nature Computational Science, 3:763–776, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Strategy evolution on higher- order networks.Nature Computational Science, 4:274–284, 2024

    Anzhi Sheng, Qi Su, Long Wang, and Joshua B Plotkin. Strategy evolution on higher- order networks.Nature Computational Science, 4:274–284, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Evolution of prosocial be- haviours in multilayer populations.Nature Human Behaviour, 6:338–348, 2022

    Qi Su, Alex McAvoy, Yoichiro Mori, and Joshua B Plotkin. Evolution of prosocial be- haviours in multilayer populations.Nature Human Behaviour, 6:338–348, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Evolution of cooperation with asymmetric social interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119:e2113468118, 2022

    Qi Su, Benjamin Allen, and Joshua B Plotkin. Evolution of cooperation with asymmetric social interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119:e2113468118, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Social goods dilemmas in hetero- geneous societies.Nature Human Behaviour, 4:819–831, 2020

    Alex McAvoy, Benjamin Allen, and Martin A Nowak. Social goods dilemmas in hetero- geneous societies.Nature Human Behaviour, 4:819–831, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Evolution of cooperation on temporal networks.Nature communications, 11:2259, 2020

    Aming Li, Lei Zhou, Qi Su, Sean P Cornelius, Yang-Yu Liu, Long Wang, and Simon A Levin. Evolution of cooperation on temporal networks.Nature communications, 11:2259, 2020. 18

    2020

  19. [27]

    Evolutionary dynamics within and among competing groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120:e2216186120, 2023

    Daniel B Cooney, Simon A Levin, Yoichiro Mori, and Joshua B Plotkin. Evolutionary dynamics within and among competing groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120:e2216186120, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Evolution of cooperation by generalized reciprocity.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272:1115–1120, 2005

    Thomas Pfeiffer, Claudia Rutte, Timothy Killingback, Michael Taborsky, and Sebastian Bonhoeffer. Evolution of cooperation by generalized reciprocity.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272:1115–1120, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations.Nature, 428:646–650, 2004

    Martin A Nowak, Akira Sasaki, Christine Taylor, and Drew Fudenberg. Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations.Nature, 428:646–650, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Memory-n strategies of direct reciprocity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 114:4715–4720, 2017

    Christian Hilbe, Luis A Martinez-Vaquero, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A Nowak. Memory-n strategies of direct reciprocity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 114:4715–4720, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Compar- ing reactive and memory-one strategies of direct reciprocity.Scientific Reports, 6:25676, 2016

    Seung Ki Baek, Hyeong-Chai Jeong, Christian Hilbe, and Martin A Nowak. Compar- ing reactive and memory-one strategies of direct reciprocity.Scientific Reports, 6:25676, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Adaptive dynamics of memory- one strategies in the repeated donation game.PLoS Computational Biology, 19:e1010987, 2023

    Philip LaPorte, Christian Hilbe, and Martin A Nowak. Adaptive dynamics of memory- one strategies in the repeated donation game.PLoS Computational Biology, 19:e1010987, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Cooperation and con- trol in multiplayer social dilemmas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111:16425–16430, 2014

    Christian Hilbe, Bin Wu, Arne Traulsen, and Martin A Nowak. Cooperation and con- trol in multiplayer social dilemmas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111:16425–16430, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Outlearning extortioners: unbending strategies can foster reciprocal fairness and cooperation.PNAS nexus, 2:pgad176, 2023

    Xingru Chen and Feng Fu. Outlearning extortioners: unbending strategies can foster reciprocal fairness and cooperation.PNAS nexus, 2:pgad176, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Partners and rivals in direct reciprocity.Nature Human Behaviour, 2:469–477, 2018

    Christian Hilbe, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A Nowak. Partners and rivals in direct reciprocity.Nature Human Behaviour, 2:469–477, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: a numerical approach.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Christoph Hauert and Heinz Georg Schuster. Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: a numerical approach.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 264:513–519, 1997

    1997

  29. [37]

    Crosstalk in concurrent repeated games impedes direct reciprocity and requires stronger levels of forgiveness.Nature Communications, 9:555, 2018

    Johannes G Reiter, Christian Hilbe, David G Rand, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A Nowak. Crosstalk in concurrent repeated games impedes direct reciprocity and requires stronger levels of forgiveness.Nature Communications, 9:555, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    From extortion to generosity, evolution in the it- erated prisoner’s dilemma.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110:15348– 15353, 2013

    Alexander J Stewart and Joshua B Plotkin. From extortion to generosity, evolution in the it- erated prisoner’s dilemma.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110:15348– 15353, 2013. 19

    2013

  31. [39]

    Evo- lution of all-or-none strategies in repeated public goods dilemmas.PLoS Computational Biology, 10:e1003945, 2014

    Flavio L Pinheiro, Vitor V Vasconcelos, Francisco C Santos, and Jorge M Pacheco. Evo- lution of all-or-none strategies in repeated public goods dilemmas.PLoS Computational Biology, 10:e1003945, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211:1390–1396, 1981

    Robert Axelrod and William D Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211:1390–1396, 1981

    1981

  33. [41]

    Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations.Nature, 355:250–253, 1992

    Martin A Nowak and Karl Sigmund. Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations.Nature, 355:250–253, 1992

    1992

  34. [42]

    A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game.Nature, 364:56–58, 1993

    Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game.Nature, 364:56–58, 1993

    1993

  35. [43]

    Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:10409–10413, 2012

    William H Press and Freeman J Dyson. Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:10409–10413, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    What you gotta know to play good in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma.Games, 6:175–190, 2015

    Ethan Akin. What you gotta know to play good in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma.Games, 6:175–190, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Functional significance of social grooming in primates.Folia Prima- tologica, 57:121–131, 1991

    Robin IM Dunbar. Functional significance of social grooming in primates.Folia Prima- tologica, 57:121–131, 1991

    1991

  38. [46]

    Is sentinel behaviour safe? An experimental investigation.Animal Behaviour, 85:137–142, 2013

    Amanda R Ridley, Martha J Nelson-Flower, and Alex M Thompson. Is sentinel behaviour safe? An experimental investigation.Animal Behaviour, 85:137–142, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    The alternating prisoner’s dilemma.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 168:219–226, 1994

    Martin A Nowak and Karl Sigmund. The alternating prisoner’s dilemma.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 168:219–226, 1994

    1994

  40. [48]

    The prisoner’s dilemma without synchrony.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Marcus R Frean. The prisoner’s dilemma without synchrony.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 257:75–79, 1994

    1994

  41. [49]

    Forgiver triumphs in alternating prisoner’s dilemma.PLoS One, 8:e80814, 2013

    Benjamin M Zagorsky, Johannes G Reiter, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A Nowak. Forgiver triumphs in alternating prisoner’s dilemma.PLoS One, 8:e80814, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Autocratic strategies for alternating games.Theo- retical Population Biology, 113:13–22, 2017

    Alex McAvoy and Christoph Hauert. Autocratic strategies for alternating games.Theo- retical Population Biology, 113:13–22, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Cooperation in alternating interac- tions with memory constraints.Nature Communications, 13:737, 2022

    Peter S Park, Martin A Nowak, and Christian Hilbe. Cooperation in alternating interac- tions with memory constraints.Nature Communications, 13:737, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Evolutionary games with environ- mental feedbacks.Nature Communications, 11:915, 2020

    Andrew R Tilman, Joshua B Plotkin, and Erol Akc ¸ay. Evolutionary games with environ- mental feedbacks.Nature Communications, 11:915, 2020. 20

    2020

  45. [53]

    Evolutionary dynamics with game transitions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116:25398–25404, 2019

    Qi Su, Alex McAvoy, Long Wang, and Martin A Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics with game transitions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116:25398–25404, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Evolution of state-dependent strategies in stochastic games.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 527:110818, 2021

    Guocheng Wang, Qi Su, and Long Wang. Evolution of state-dependent strategies in stochastic games.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 527:110818, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Rhoda F Aderinto, J Alfonso Ortega-S, Ambrose O Anoruo, Richard Machen, and Ben- jamin L Turner. Can the tragedy of the commons be avoided in common-pool forage resource systems? An application to small-holder herding in the semi-arid grazing lands of Nigeria.Sustainability, 1...

    2020

  48. [56]

    The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity

    Angela M Gurnell. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity. Progress in Physical Geography, 22:167–189, 1998

    1998

  49. [57]

    Elephants in the understory: opposing direct and indirect effects of consumption and ecosystem en- gineering by megaherbivores.Ecology, 97:3219–3230, 2016

    Tyler C Coverdale, Tyler R Kartzinel, Kathryn L Grabowski, Robert K Shriver, Ab- dikadir A Hassan, Jacob R Goheen, Todd M Palmer, and Robert M Pringle. Elephants in the understory: opposing direct and indirect effects of consumption and ecosystem en- gineering by megaherbivore...

    2016

  50. [58]

    Evolution of cooperation in stochastic games.Nature, 559:246–249, 2018

    Christian Hilbe, ˇStˇep´an ˇSimsa, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A Nowak. Evolution of cooperation in stochastic games.Nature, 559:246–249, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Multiple strategies in structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:2334–2337, 2011

    Corina E Tarnita, Nicholas Wage, and Martin A Nowak. Multiple strategies in structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:2334–2337, 2011. 21

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.