Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cheap talk promotes cooperation only in structured populations, where conditional cooperators act as catalysts for unconditional cooperators through cyclic dominance.

desk verdict A plausible catalyst mechanism for cheap talk, but the four-strategy reduction is an untested load-bearing assumption that needs addressing before the central claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08876 v1 pith:THLCSM4K submitted 2025-07-10 physics.soc-ph q-bio.PE

Zhao Song , Chen Shen , The Anh Han This is my paper
classification physics.soc-phq-bio.PE MSC 91A2292D15 PACS 89.65.-s87.23.Kg
keywords cheaptalkcooperationnetworkreciprocitycyclicdominanceconditionalevolutionarygametheorycognitivecostspatiallattice
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 asks why non-binding 'cheap talk' reliably boosts cooperation in experiments even though it changes no payoffs. The authors propose that the answer lies not in talk itself but in its interplay with population structure and cognitive costs. They model a two-stage Donation game on a square lattice with four strategies: unconditional cooperators, unconditional defectors, and two deliberative types that pay a reasoning cost. The paper's central claim is that cheap talk alone cannot sustain cooperation in well-mixed anonymous populations, matching experiments, but in structured populations it does—conditional cooperators act as catalysts that protect unconditional cooperators through cycles of invasion, with the effect strongest at intermediate reasoning costs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-stage cheap-talk Donation game with payoff matrix Eq. (1), where players first signal cooperative intention (S/N), then choose C/D, and deliberative strategies pay cognitive cost γ. On lattices, asynchronous Monte Carlo updating with Fermi imitation and small mutation generates spatial snapshots; the load-bearing object is the cyclic dominance relation among UC, CC, UD (and conditionally CD), with CC as catalyst. This cyclic structure converts the otherwise neutral or defection-favoring cheap talk into a dynamical protection mechanism when spatial clustering is available.

What would settle it

Run the same spatial evolutionary dynamics with all eight strategies from Table A1, including ones that condition on silence, and observe whether the UC-CC-UD cyclic dominance and the optimal-γ cooperation peak survive. If the full strategy space shifts the outcome so that defection dominates in the regimes where UC and CC currently persist, the central claim would be contradicted. Alternatively, a laboratory networked Donation game with cheap talk and manipulated reasoning costs could test the predicted non-monotonic effect of cognitive cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that non-binding signalling changes nothing about material payoffs yet still shapes evolution because players differ in how they respond to signals. Deliberative strategies (conditional cooperators CC and strategic defectors CD) pay a cognitive cost γ; intuitive strategies (UC, UD) do not. In well-mixed finite populations, the stationary distribution shows cheap talk fails: defection dominates under strong selection. On a square lattice with local imitation, the same payoff matrix supports coexistence of UC, UD, CC, and CD. The key dynamic is cyclic dominance—UC beats CC, CC beats UD, UD beats UC—sustained by CC even when rare; CD can enter an alternative cycle with CC and UD. With moderate γ, CC survives and shields UC from direct defector invasion; at strong dilemma strength r, a second cyclic dominance involving CD challenges UC at low cost, then gives way to UC-CC-UD dominance at higher cost. The paper concludes that network reciprocity is the scaffold that makes cheap talk evolutionarily effective, extending cooperation beyond the ranges available to either mechanism alone.

Load-bearing premise

The four-strategy simplification: the two-stage game permits eight possible strategies, and the paper asserts without simulation or proof that including the remaining four 'would increase dynamical complexity without altering the main result'—if an excluded strategy destabilizes the cyclic dominance, the catalyst claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In well-mixed, one-shot anonymous populations, the model predicts cheap talk cannot sustain cooperation under strong selection, consistent with laboratory experiments.
  • On spatial networks, cheap talk plus moderate cognitive cost can maintain cooperation at dilemma strengths where neither cheap talk nor network reciprocity alone suffices.
  • Conditional cooperators, even at low frequency, are essential: their continued presence via mutation sustains the cyclic dominance that protects unconditional cooperators.
  • The optimal cognitive-cost window means populations that reason too cheaply or too expensively lose the catalytic benefit; the effect is tuned rather than monotonic.
  • The framework extends to repeated games, public goods dilemmas, and hybrid human-AI settings where cheap talk is empirically effective but lacks theoretical grounding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's four-strategy restriction, the full eight-strategy space includes strategies that condition on silence or signal deceptively in other patterns; if any of them destabilizes the UC-CC-UD cycle, the catalyst claim would be narrow. This is my editorial concern, not a result the paper reports.
  • The paper only tests square lattices; one might expect scale-free or dynamic networks to shift the optimal cost window while preserving the qualitative mechanism, but that remains untested.
  • An empirical prediction follows: in networked group experiments, the presence of conditional cooperators should be measurable as a catalyst, and imposing a cognitive load (e.g., time pressure) should change cooperation non-monotonically, peaking at intermediate deliberation cost.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage evolutionary game in which players may send a non-binding cooperative signal before playing a Donation game. Strategies differ in their signaling behavior, their response to a partner's signal, and whether they incur a cognitive cost for deliberation. Four strategies are considered: unconditional cooperators (UC), conditional cooperators (CC), unconditional defectors (UD), and strategic defectors (CD). Using a Moran process for well-mixed populations and Monte Carlo simulations on a square lattice, the authors find that cheap talk alone does not sustain cooperation in well-mixed, anonymous populations, whereas in structured populations an intermediate reasoning cost gamma sustains cooperation through cyclic dominance in which CC acts as a catalyst protecting UC. The paper claims this result extends cooperation far beyond what either cheap talk or network reciprocity can achieve individually.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a plausible evolutionary explanation for the empirical puzzle that non-binding communication promotes cooperation in structured or repeated settings but not in one-shot anonymous ones. The modeling framework is clean, the well-mixed null result is checked against external experiments, and the finite-size checks in Figure A1 are a useful addition. The main caveats are that the central mechanism rests on an untested reduction to four of eight possible strategies and on an implicit rather than explicit comparison with a no-communication baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Table A1, Discussion] The four-strategy reduction is load-bearing and is asserted rather than demonstrated. The two-stage game permits eight strategies (Table A1), and the Discussion states that including the remaining four 'would increase dynamical complexity without altering the main result', but no simulation, invasion analysis, or proof is provided. Excluded strategies such as SDC (signal, defect against signalers, cooperate with silent players) and NCD (silent, cooperate with signalers, defect with silent players) mix signal and response in ways that can directly attack the UC–CC–UD cycle: SDC exploits both UC and CC while being exploited by UD, and NCD can receive CC's cooperation without paying the signaling or reasoning cost, giving it a payoff advantage over CC. Since the catalyst claim depends on the stability of this cycle, the authors should simulate the full eight-strategy space (or provide a formal argument for extinction) and report whether the coexistence regions and the catalytic role of CC survive.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 2] The statement that cheap talk works 'far beyond what is possible under each mechanism individually' is not directly supported by the presented results. Figure 2 shows the phase diagram of the full model with cheap talk, but there is no explicit lattice baseline without communication, e.g., the standard Donation game on the same network with only unconditional strategies or with the signaling stage removed. The comparison with 'network reciprocity alone' is only implicit in the high-gamma limit of the same model. Adding such a baseline (and reporting cooperation frequencies or regions) is necessary to substantiate the central claim of synergy between cheap talk and network reciprocity.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The proposed cycle 'UC replaces CC, CC replaces UD, and UD replaces UC' is not evident from the payoff matrix in Eq. (1): pairwise CC–UD interactions yield 0 for both players, so CC does not have a direct payoff advantage over UD. The paper attributes the cycle to spatial structure, but it does not provide an invasion or pair-approximation analysis showing how CC can replace UD via clustering. Without this, the 'catalyst' mechanism remains a descriptive interpretation of snapshots rather than an established dynamical result. Please clarify the mechanism quantitatively or soften the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption ends with 'at weak'; this should read 'at weak dilemma strength'.
  2. [§2.3] The text uses '3 × 104 steps' and 'L2 = 200 2'; the superscripts are missing and should be 3×10^4 and 200^2.
  3. [§2.2] The transition-matrix formula 'TAB,A̸=B = ρAB/(q−1)' does not define q; please state q=4 for the four-strategy model.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The product over m=1 to k should be explicitly defined for k=0 as an empty product equal to 1.
  5. [References] Reference [30] lists 'The Anh Han and The Anh Han'; the author name appears to be duplicated.
  6. [Fig. A1 caption] The caption uses 'L2 = 8002' without superscript formatting; the dashed-line reference should also be described in the main text more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's model outputs are not fitted to the conclusions, and its few self-citations are not load-bearing; the main caveat is an untested robustness assertion, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular in the sense defined here. The payoff matrix (Eq. 1) is constructed directly from the four strategy definitions; reasoning cost gamma, dilemma strength r, and selection intensity s are scanned parameters, not fitted to reproduce the claimed cooperation. The well-mixed null result and the lattice phase diagrams are simulation outputs, and the well-mixed comparison is checked qualitatively against an external experiment [12], not against any fitted value. The claimed catalytic role of CC is an emergent spatial outcome: pairwise payoffs alone do not trivially encode the reported UC-CC-UD cycle, so the result is not equivalent to the input by construction. The paper does contain self-citations ([42] Shen et al. for mutation; [29,30,32,46] by Han as background), but none carries the central mechanism; the core relies on the model's own dynamics and on external network-reciprocity literature. A genuine limitation is present: the Discussion asserts that adding the four excluded strategies 'would increase dynamical complexity without altering the main result', with no simulation or proof; this is an unverified robustness claim that affects scope, but it is not a circular step. Overall, no prediction reduces to a fit or to a self-citation chain; score 2 reflects the minor self-citations and the untested four-strategy reduction as caveats rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds a reasoning cost parameter and restricts the strategy space to four archetypes. The central claim depends on the cost parameter being in an intermediate range and on the excluded strategies being harmless. No entities beyond the strategy types and payoffs are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Reasoning cost gamma = scanned in [0,1]; key windows about 0.01 to 0.3 depending on r
    Central model parameter: CC and CD pay this cost, and the cooperation window is defined by it. No empirical calibration is provided, and the authors acknowledge that varying these costs could shift the dynamics.
  • Selection intensity s (well-mixed) and k^-1 (lattice) = s = 0.1 or 1; k^-1 = 10
    The well-mixed null claim depends on strong selection; at weak selection (s <= 0.01) UC and CC coexist near 0.25. The lattice selection strength is fixed at k^-1 = 10.
  • Mutation rate mu = 1e-5
    Used to prevent finite-size effects, and in Figure 4 mutations replenish CC so that cyclic dominance persists. Results may depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard EGT machinery: finite-population Moran fixation probabilities, Fermi imitation, small-mutation limit, and Markov-chain stationary distribution (Eqs. 2-4)
    Used without proof from Traulsen et al. and Nowak et al.; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption Square lattice with von Neumann neighborhood and asynchronous update captures network reciprocity
    Section 2.3 defines the lattice; the Discussion calls it 'a standard but stylised representation' of local interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper Only four of eight possible two-stage strategies are considered; excluded strategies would not alter the main result
    The Discussion asserts this without simulation or proof; if false, the cyclic dominance mechanism could be invaded by an excluded strategy.
  • ad hoc to paper Deliberative strategies CC and CD incur the same cognitive cost gamma; intuitive strategies incur none
    Section 2.1 introduces this cost, motivated by dual-process theory but not calibrated to data; the authors note that varying these costs could change the dynamics.
  • domain assumption Prepared initial strategy distributions in Figures 4 and 5 are representative of random initial conditions
    Section 3.2 states that outcomes show no qualitative differences from random initial distributions, but the comparison is not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THLCSM4K

@misc{pith2026250708876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THLCSM4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08876}
}
read the original abstract

Non-binding communication is common in daily life and crucial for fostering cooperation, even though it has no direct payoff consequences. However, despite robust empirical evidence, its evolutionary basis remains poorly understood. Here, we develop a game-theoretic model in which individuals can signal an intention to cooperate before playing a Donation game. Strategies differ in how they respond to these signals, ranging from unconditional to conditional types, with the latter incurring a cognitive cost for deliberation. Through evolutionary analysis, we show that non-binding communication alone cannot sustain cooperation in well-mixed, anonymous populations, consistent with empirical observations. In contrast, structured populations support the emergence of cooperation, with conditional cooperators acting as catalysts that protect unconditional cooperators through context-dependent patterns of cyclic dominance. These findings offer an evolutionary explanation for how non-binding communication promotes cooperation and provide a modelling framework for exploring its effects in diverse social settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cheap talk cannot sustain cooperation in well-mixed finite populations unless the selection intensity is weak. Panels (a) and (b) show the stationary distributions of each strategy against the selection intensity s, with no reasoning cost (γ = 0) and with small reasoning cost (γ = 0.1), respectively. Panels (c) and (d) show the stationary distributions of each strategy against the reasoning cost when selection inten… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cheap talk sustains cooperation when it adheres to network reciprocity. Panel (a) shows the full r − γ phase diagram obtained by Monte Carlo simulations on the square lattice network. Five main co-existences of strategies, including UD, UC + UD, UC + CC + UD, CC + UD + CD, and UC +CC +UD +CD, are coloured as green, red, yellow, blue, and purple, respectively. Panel (b) shows the zoomed-in results when reasoning cost… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optimal ranges of the reasoning cost bring about and sustain cooperation by various co-existence states. Shown are the frequencies of each strategy as a function of reasoning cost γ in the first column, and the frequencies of each strategy over time in the other columns. Parameters are set r = 0.02 in the top row, r = 0.2 in the bottom row, and (b) γ = 0.01, (c) γ = 0.02, (d) γ = 0.1, (f) γ = 0.1, (g) γ = 0.15, (h) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Conditional cooperation (CC) acts as the catalyst for unconditional cooperation (UC) at weak. Shown are evolutionary snapshots at specific time steps (columns) and for different reasoning costs (rows). With the dilemma strength r = 0.02, the top row shows the evolution…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: At strong dilemma strength, CC remains the catalyst of UC, though challenged by strategic defection CD. Shown are evolutionary snapshots at specific time steps (columns) and for different reasoning costs (rows). With the dilemma strength r = 0.2, the top row shows the …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Emergence of Cooperation and Commitment in Optional Prisoner's Dilemma

    cs.GT 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In an optional prisoner's dilemma with pre-game commitments, allowing players to exit raises commitment but not cooperation; strict rewards to committed cooperators promote cooperation best, while flexible rewards can...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Determining the credibility of com- mitments in international climate policy

    David G Victor, Marcel Lumkowsky, and Astrid Dannenberg. Determining the credibility of com- mitments in international climate policy. Nature Climate Change , 12(9):793–800, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Using social and behavioural science to support covid-19 pandemic response

    Jay J Van Bavel, Katherine Baicker, Paulo S Boggio, Valerio Capraro, Aleksandra Cichocka, Mina Cikara, Molly J Crockett, Alia J Crum, Karen M Douglas, James N Druckman, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support covid-19 pandemic response. Nature human behaviour, 4(5):460– 471, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Communication and collective action: language and the evolution of human cooperation

    Eric Alden Smith. Communication and collective action: language and the evolution of human cooperation. Evolution and human behavior , 31(4):231–245, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    The struggle to govern the commons

    Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C Stern. The struggle to govern the commons. science, 302(5652):1907–1912, 2003

    work page 1907

  5. [5]

    Culture and the evolution of human cooperation

    Robert Boyd and Peter J Richerson. Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 364(1533):3281–3288, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Human cooperation

    David G Rand and Martin A Nowak. Human cooperation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(8):413– 425, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Statistical physics of human cooperation

    Matjaˇ z Perc, Jillian J Jordan, David G Rand, Zhen Wang, Stefano Boccaletti, and Attila Szolnoki. Statistical physics of human cooperation. Physics Reports, 687:1–51, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    The genetical evolution of social behaviour

    William D Hamilton. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. ii. Journal of theoretical biology , 7(1):17–52, 1964

    work page 1964

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk

    Vincent Crawford. A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic theory, 78(2):286–298, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Credible communication and cooperation: experimental evi- dence from multi-stage games

    Ola Andersson and Erik Wengstr¨ om. Credible communication and cooperation: experimental evi- dence from multi-stage games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 81(1):207–219, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    More than words: the effects of cheap talk in a volunteer’s dilemma

    Christoph Feldhaus and Julia Stauf. More than words: the effects of cheap talk in a volunteer’s dilemma. Experimental Economics, 19:342–359, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Do actions speak louder than words? an experimental comparison of observation and cheap talk

    John Duffy and Nick Feltovich. Do actions speak louder than words? an experimental comparison of observation and cheap talk. Games and Economic Behavior , 39(1):1–27, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Communication and deliberation for environmental governance

    James T Erbaugh, Charlotte H Chang, Yuta J Masuda, and Jesse Ribot. Communication and deliberation for environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 49, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Promises and partnership

    Gary Charness and Martin Dufwenberg. Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74(6):1579–1601, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    The effects of costless pre-play communication: Experimen- tal evidence from games with pareto-ranked equilibria

    Andreas Blume and Andreas Ortmann. The effects of costless pre-play communication: Experimen- tal evidence from games with pareto-ranked equilibria. Journal of Economic theory, 132(1):274–290, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Can cheap talk deter? an experimental analysis

    Dustin H Tingley and Barbara F Walter. Can cheap talk deter? an experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 55(6):996–1020, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Communication, cooperation and collusion in team tournaments—an experimental study

    Matthias Sutter and Christina Strassmair. Communication, cooperation and collusion in team tournaments—an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior , 66(1):506–525, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review

    Daniel Balliet. Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 54(1):39–57, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992

    David Sally. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and society , 7(1):58–92, 1995

    1958

  12. [20]

    i’m just a soul whose intentions are good

    Antonio A Arechar, Anna Dreber, Drew Fudenberg, and David G Rand. “i’m just a soul whose intentions are good”: the role of communication in noisy repeated games. Games and Economic Behavior, 104:726–743, 2017. 12

    2017

  13. [21]

    Negotiating cooperation under uncertainty: Communica- tion in noisy, indefinitely repeated interactions

    Fabian Dvorak and Sebastian Fehrler. Negotiating cooperation under uncertainty: Communica- tion in noisy, indefinitely repeated interactions. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , 16(3):232–258, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    When does communication improve coordination? American Economic Review, 100(4):1695–1724, 2010

    Tore Ellingsen and Robert ¨Ostling. When does communication improve coordination? American Economic Review, 100(4):1695–1724, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Communication and cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma games

    Eric Bahel, Sheryl Ball, and Sudipta Sarangi. Communication and cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior , 133:126–137, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Coalition-proof nash equilibria i

    B Douglas Bernheim, Bezalel Peleg, and Michael D Whinston. Coalition-proof nash equilibria i. concepts. Journal of economic theory , 42(1):1–12, 1987

    1987

  17. [25]

    The evolution of cooperation

    Robert Axelrod and William D Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation. science, 211(4489):1390– 1396, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life

    Martin A Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life . Harvard university press, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Costly signaling and cooperation

    Herbert Gintis, Eric Alden Smith, and Samuel Bowles. Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of theoretical biology, 213(1):103–119, 2001

    2001

  20. [28]

    The role of costly commitment signals in assorting cooperators during intergroup conflict

    Martin Lang, Radim Chvaja, and Benjamin G Purzycki. The role of costly commitment signals in assorting cooperators during intergroup conflict. Evolution and human behavior , 45(2):131–143, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Emergence of social punishment and cooperation through prior commitments

    The Anh Han. Emergence of social punishment and cooperation through prior commitments. In Proceedings of the thirtieth aaai conference on artificial intelligence , pages 2494–2500, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    The emergence of commitments and cooperation

    The Anh Han and The Anh Han. The emergence of commitments and cooperation. Intention Recog- nition, Commitment and Their Roles in the Evolution of Cooperation: From Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Evolutionary Game Theory Models , pages 109–121, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Evolution of costly signaling and partial cooperation

    Mohammad Salahshour. Evolution of costly signaling and partial cooperation. Scientific reports, 9(1):8792, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations

    Manh Hong Duong and The Anh Han. Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 477(2254):20210568, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A cognitive hierarchy model of games

    Colin F Camerer, Teck-Hua Ho, and Juin-Kuan Chong. A cognitive hierarchy model of games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 119(3):861–898, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation

    Adam Bear and David G Rand. Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(4):936–941, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: A study of response times

    Ariel Rubinstein. Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: A study of response times. The Economic Journal, 117(523):1243–1259, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    The further evolution of cooperation

    Robert Axelrod and Douglas Dion. The further evolution of cooperation. Science, 242(4884):1385– 1390, 1988

    1988

  29. [37]

    Universal scaling for the dilemma strength in evolutionary games

    Zhen Wang, Satoshi Kokubo, Marko Jusup, and Jun Tanimoto. Universal scaling for the dilemma strength in evolutionary games. Physics of life reviews , 14:1–30, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons

    Karl Sigmund, Hannelore De Silva, Arne Traulsen, and Christoph Hauert. Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature, 466(7308):861–863, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation

    Arne Traulsen, Martin A Nowak, and Jorge M Pacheco. Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 74(1):011909, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations

    Martin A Nowak, Akira Sasaki, Christine Taylor, and Drew Fudenberg. Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature, 428(6983):646–650, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection

    Lorens A Imhof, Drew Fudenberg, and Martin A Nowak. Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 102(31):10797–10800, 2005. 13

    2005

  34. [42]

    Mutation mitigates finite-size effects in spatial evolutionary games

    Chen Shen, Zhixue He, Lei Shi, and Jun Tanimoto. Mutation mitigates finite-size effects in spatial evolutionary games. Communications Physics, 8(1):1–8, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Evolutionary games and spatial chaos

    Martin A Nowak and Robert M May. Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. nature, 359(6398):826– 829, 1992

    1992

  36. [44]

    Open problems in cooperative ai

    Allan Dafoe, Edward Hughes, Yoram Bachrach, Tantum Collins, Kevin R McKee, Joel Z Leibo, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. Open problems in cooperative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Five rules for the evolution of cooperation

    Martin A Nowak. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006

    2006

  38. [46]

    Institutional incentives for the evolution of committed cooperation: ensuring participation is as important as enhancing compliance

    The Anh Han. Institutional incentives for the evolution of committed cooperation: ensuring participation is as important as enhancing compliance. Journal of The Royal Society Interface , 19(188):20220036, 2022. 14

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.