Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 115 references

A brief review of evolutionary game dynamics in the reinforcement learning paradigm

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-21 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Reinforcement learning replaces imitation copying in evolutionary games to better explain how cooperation, fairness, and trust arise in real populations.

desk verdict This is a review that organizes RL work in evolutionary games but skips the direct quantitative comparisons needed to support its claim about fixing theory-experiment gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.04150 v2 pith:TMRVILSB submitted 2026-02-04 q-bio.PE cond-mat.dis-nnnlin.AO

Guozhong Zheng , Xin Ou , Shengfeng Deng , Jiqiang Zhang , Li Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEcond-mat.dis-nnnlin.AO
keywords evolutionarygametheoryreinforcementlearningcooperationfairnesstrustresourcecoordinationecologicaldynamics
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationalpha_pin_under_high_calibration
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

The paper reviews recent work that applies reinforcement learning to evolutionary game dynamics as a way to address mismatches between standard theoretical predictions and observed human and animal behavior. In the RL approach, agents adjust their strategies through repeated trial and error using feedback from the environment rather than simply copying successful neighbors according to fixed rules. This shift allows models to capture phenomena such as the evolution of cooperation, trust, fairness, and efficient resource use more closely than imitation-based models have achieved. A reader would care because these behaviors underpin social coordination yet have resisted consistent explanation by earlier frameworks.

What carries the argument

Reinforcement learning paradigm applied to evolutionary game dynamics, in which individuals update strategies introspectively from environmental feedback instead of copying neighbors under fixed rules.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which reinforcement-learning versions of standard games such as the Prisoner's Dilemma produce cooperation rates that match laboratory experiment data more closely than imitation-learning versions across multiple population sizes and payoff structures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By synthesizing studies that replace imitation learning with reinforcement learning in evolutionary games, the review shows that agents who refine strategies through trial-and-error feedback can generate cooperation, trust, fairness, optimal resource coordination, and stable ecological dynamics at levels that align more closely with experimental observations than prior models permitted.

Load-bearing premise

Persistent gaps between theoretical predictions and behavioral experiments arise in part from the imitation learning paradigm used in earlier models rather than from other modeling choices or unaccounted factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evolutionary models can now address a wider range of social dilemmas without ad-hoc adjustments to imitation rules.
  • Resource allocation problems in shared environments gain more realistic dynamics when agents learn from direct experience.
  • Ecological interactions can be simulated with the same learning mechanism used for human social behavior.
  • Discrepancies that remain after adopting RL point to specific additional factors worth isolating in future experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same RL mechanism could be tested on coordination games beyond those reviewed to see whether it generates similar improvements in fit to data.
  • Longer simulation runs with RL agents might reveal whether stable fairness norms persist under changing environmental conditions.
  • Hybrid models that combine limited imitation with RL feedback could be compared directly to pure RL versions to quantify the added value of each component.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a brief review arguing that persistent discrepancies between evolutionary game theory predictions and behavioral experiments may stem in part from the imitation learning paradigm used in prior models. It introduces core concepts from evolutionary game theory and contrasts imitation learning with reinforcement learning (RL), then synthesizes recent RL applications to cooperation, trust, fairness, resource coordination, and ecological dynamics, concluding that RL provides a promising unified framework for these phenomena.

Significance. A well-executed synthesis could usefully highlight how RL's trial-and-error and feedback mechanisms differ from fixed imitation rules and may better align with experimental observations on cooperation and fairness. The review correctly notes the potential for RL to serve as an alternative modeling approach in evolutionary games, which is a timely topic given growing interest in learning-based explanations of social behavior.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that discrepancies 'may arise in part from the imitation learning paradigm' is presented as motivation but is not supported by any extracted quantitative comparisons (e.g., prediction error, KL divergence to experimental distributions, or held-out fit) between RL and imitation versions of the same games across the cited studies.
  2. [Synthesis section] Synthesis of RL applications: The review summarizes individual RL studies on cooperation, fairness, and ecological dynamics but does not perform or report head-to-head metrics (parameter counts, out-of-sample performance, or direct contrast with imitation baselines) that would substantiate the claim of superior explanatory power over imitation learning for the same phenomena.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a brief table or structured summary listing the key RL models reviewed, the games they address, and any reported performance metrics relative to imitation baselines.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. As this is a brief review synthesizing existing literature rather than a primary research study, our responses below address the scope limitations while maintaining the manuscript's focus on conceptual unification via RL.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that discrepancies 'may arise in part from the imitation learning paradigm' is presented as motivation but is not supported by any extracted quantitative comparisons (e.g., prediction error, KL divergence to experimental distributions, or held-out fit) between RL and imitation versions of the same games across the cited studies.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not extract or report new quantitative metrics such as prediction errors or KL divergences comparing RL and imitation models. The abstract presents the possibility as a motivating hypothesis based on persistent discrepancies noted across the broader literature, rather than as a claim demonstrated via new analysis in this review. We will revise the abstract to clarify this framing and avoid implying direct quantitative support from the current synthesis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Synthesis section] Synthesis of RL applications: The review summarizes individual RL studies on cooperation, fairness, and ecological dynamics but does not perform or report head-to-head metrics (parameter counts, out-of-sample performance, or direct contrast with imitation baselines) that would substantiate the claim of superior explanatory power over imitation learning for the same phenomena.

    Authors: The synthesis section overviews applications and findings from the cited RL studies without performing new cross-study comparisons or reporting aggregated metrics such as parameter counts or out-of-sample performance. Individual source papers often contain their own baseline contrasts, but compiling head-to-head evaluations would require a distinct meta-analytic effort outside the scope of a brief review. We therefore do not intend to add such metrics; the manuscript's contribution lies in highlighting RL's potential as a unified framework based on the collective literature. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Review synthesizes external studies with no internal derivation chain or self-referential reductions

full rationale

This is a review paper that introduces concepts in evolutionary game theory and RL, then summarizes progress from cited external works on cooperation, trust, fairness, and ecological dynamics. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim that RL offers a unified framework rests entirely on the body of reviewed literature rather than any self-citation load-bearing step or ansatz smuggled in. The interpretive suggestion that discrepancies arise from the imitation paradigm is an attribution drawn from the cited studies, not a circular self-definition or renaming of known results within this manuscript.

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

This is a review paper and introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. It discusses concepts drawn from existing evolutionary game theory and reinforcement learning literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A brief review of evolutionary game dynamics in the reinforcement learning paradigm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMRVILSB

@misc{pith2026260204150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A brief review of evolutionary game dynamics in the reinforcement learning paradigm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMRVILSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.04150}
}
read the original abstract

Cooperation, fairness, trust, and resource coordination are cornerstones of modern civilization, yet their emergence remains inadequately explained by the persistent discrepancies between theoretical predictions and behavioral experiments. Part of this gap may arise from the imitation learning paradigm commonly used in prior theoretical models, which assumes individuals merely copy successful neighbors according to predetermined, fixed rules. This review examines recent advances in evolutionary game dynamics that employ reinforcement learning (RL) as an alternative paradigm. In RL, individuals learn through trial and error and introspectively refine their strategies based on environmental feedback. We begin by introducing key concepts in evolutionary game theory and the two learning paradigms, then synthesize progress in applying RL to elucidate cooperation, trust, fairness, optimal resource coordination, and ecological dynamics. Collectively, these studies indicate that RL offers a promising unified framework for understanding the diverse social and ecological phenomena observed in human and natural systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two paradigms for game evolution. In imitation learning, players compare the rewards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emergence of cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma game. (a) The phase diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematics of three model setups. (Left) Public goods game (PGG) with a Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emergence of trust. Fractions of four strategies in the trust game within the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emergence of fairness. As in many practices of behavioral experiments, proposers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Emergence of coordination in the minority game. The volatility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison study for species coexistence with the traditional RMF and Q-learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nowak, Science 314 (2006) 1560-1563

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Hardin, Trust and trustworthiness , Russell Sage Foundation (2002)

    R. Hardin, Trust and trustworthiness , Russell Sage Foundation (2002). 23

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century , Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard Univer- sity Press (2014)

    T. Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century , Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard Univer- sity Press (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    W. B. Arthur, Science 284 (1999) 107–109

    work page 1999

  5. [6]

    Maynard Smith and G

    J. Maynard Smith and G. R. Price, Nature 246 (1973) 15-18

    work page 1973

  6. [7]

    J. M. Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games , Cambridge University Press (1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [8]

    M. Perc, J. J. Jordan, D. G. Rand, Z. Wang, S. Boccaletti, and A. Szolnoki, Phys. Rep. 687 (2017) 1–51

    work page 2017

  8. [9]

    C. F. Camerer, Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction , Princeton Univer- sity Press (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 115 references
  1. [10]

    Traulsen, D

    A. Traulsen, D. Semmann, R. D. Sommerfeld, H.-J. Krambeck, and M. Milinski, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (2010) 2962-2966

    2010

  2. [11]

    M. A. Nowak and R. M. May, Nature 359 (1992) 826-829

    1992

  3. [12]

    Szabó and C

    G. Szabó and C. Tőke, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998) 69-73

    1998

  4. [13]

    Sánchez, J

    A. Sánchez, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2018 (2018) 024001

    2018

  5. [14]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , MIT Press (2018)

    2018

  6. [15]

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

    1978

  7. [16]

    Szabó and G

    G. Szabó and G. Fáth, Phys. Rep. 446 (2007) 97-216

    2007

  8. [17]

    Grujić, C

    J. Grujić, C. Gracia-Lázaro, M. Milinski, D. Semmann, A. Traulsen, J. A. Cuesta, Y. Moreno, and A. Sánchez, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) 4615

    2014

  9. [18]

    Bandura, Social Learning Theory , Englewood Cliffs (1977)

    A. Bandura, Social Learning Theory , Englewood Cliffs (1977)

    1977

  10. [19]

    D. Lee, H. Seo, and M. W. Jung, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35 (2012) 287

    2012

  11. [20]

    M. L. Puterman, Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming , John Wiley & Sons (2014)

    2014

  12. [21]

    R. R. Bush and F. Mosteller, Stochastic models for learning , John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1955)

    1955

  13. [22]

    C. J. C. H. Watkins, Learning from delayed rewards (Ph.D. thesis) , University of Cambridge (1989)

    1989

  14. [23]

    R. J. Williams, Mach. Learn. 8 (1992) 229

    1992

  15. [24]

    R. S. Sutton, D. McAllester, S. Singh, and Y. Mansour, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, MIT Press (1999) Vol. 12

    1999

  16. [25]

    J. M. Smith, in Did Darwin get it right? Essays on games, sex and evolution , Springer (1982) 202–215

    1982

  17. [26]

    Xie and A

    K. Xie and A. Szolnoki, Appl. Math. Comput. 510 (2026) 129685

    2026

  18. [27]

    Z. Ding, G. Zheng, C. Cai, W. Cai, L. Chen, J. Zhang, and X. Wang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 175 (2023) 114032

    2023

  19. [28]

    Zheng, Z

    G. Zheng, Z. Ding, J. Zhang, S. Deng, W. Cai, and L. Chen, Chaos 35 (2025) 053129

    2025

  20. [29]

    H. Ding, G. Zhang, S. Wang, J. Li, and Z. Wang, Physica A 536 (2019) 122551

    2019

  21. [30]

    H. Lee, S. Chen, and F. Shi, New J. Phys. 27 (2025) 013025

    2025

  22. [31]

    D. Jia, H. Guo, Z. Song, L. Shi, X. Deng, M. Perc, and Z. Wang, New J. Phys. 23 (2021) 083020

    2021

  23. [32]

    C. Zhao, G. Zheng, C. Zhang, J. Zhang, and L. Chen, Chaos 34 (2024) 073123

    2024

  24. [33]

    L. Wang, X. Shi, and Y. Zhou, Chaos 35 (2025) 023103

    2025

  25. [34]

    Z. Fang, H. Xu, C. Xie, X. Yue, T. P. Benko, and C. Huang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 200 (2025) 117115

    2025

  26. [35]

    Zhang and Y

    Q. Zhang and Y. Yan, Phys. Lett. A 2025 (2025) 130754. 24

    2025

  27. [36]

    P. Bai, B. Qiang, K. Zou, and C. Huang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 180 (2024) 114592

    2024

  28. [37]

    T. You, H. Yang, J. Wang, P. Zhang, J. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Appl. Math. Comput. 458 (2023) 128234

    2023

  29. [38]

    Huang and Y

    Y. Huang and Y. Chen, Chaos 35 (2025) 043130

    2025

  30. [39]

    Zhang, Z.-X

    H.-F. Zhang, Z.-X. Wu, and B.-H. Wang, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2012 (2012) P06005

    2012

  31. [40]

    L. Wang, D. Jia, L. Zhang, P. Zhu, M. Perc, L. Shi, and Z. Wang, Nonlinear Dyn. 108 (2022) 1837

    2022

  32. [41]

    X. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Liu, and G. Chen, Physica A 618 (2023) 128699

    2023

  33. [42]

    Q. Su, H. Wang, Y. Xia, and L. Wang, Nat. Commun. (2025) (in press)

    2025

  34. [43]

    Sheng, J

    A. Sheng, J. Zhang, G. Zheng, J. Zhang, W. Cai, and L. Chen, Chaos 34 (2024) 103117

    2024

  35. [44]

    Zheng, J

    G. Zheng, J. Zhang, S. Deng, W. Cai, and L. Chen, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 188 (2024) 115568

    2024

  36. [45]

    Hardin, Science 162 (1968) 1243–1248

    G. Hardin, Science 162 (1968) 1243–1248

    1968

  37. [46]

    L. Wang, L. Fan, L. Zhang, R. Zou, and Z. Wang, New J. Phys. 25 (2023) 073008

    2023

  38. [47]

    Zhang, T

    H. Zhang, T. An, P. Yan, K. Hu, J. An, L. Shi, J. Zhao, and J. Wang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 178 (2024) 114358

    2024

  39. [48]

    Zou and C

    K. Zou and C. Huang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 186 (2024) 115203

    2024

  40. [49]

    B. Li, Z. Zhang, G. Zheng, C. Cai, J. Zhang, and L. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 111 (2025) 014304

    2025

  41. [50]

    H. Kang, C. Jiang, Y. Shen, X. Sun, and Q. Chen, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199 (2025) 116862

    2025

  42. [51]

    Y. Xu, J. Wang, J. Chen, D. Zhao, M. Özer, C. Xia, and M. Perc, Knowledge-Based Systems 301 (2024) 112326

    2024

  43. [52]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Xie, Y. Feng, and C. Huang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 193 (2025) 116071

    2025

  44. [53]

    Traulsen, D

    A. Traulsen, D. Semmann, R. D. Sommerfeld, H.-J. Krambeck, and M. Milinski, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (2010) 2962–2966

    2010

  45. [54]

    X. Han, X. Zhao, and H. Xia, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 164 (2022) 112684

    2022

  46. [55]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Zheng, X. Zhang, and J. Ma, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 201 (2025) 117264

    2025

  47. [56]

    Y. Yang, D. Zhao, and J. Wang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199 (2025) 116592

    2025

  48. [57]

    L. Ma, J. Zhang, G. Zheng, R. Liang, and L. Chen, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 171 (2023) 113452

    2023

  49. [58]

    C. Zhao, X. Feng, G. Zheng, W. Cai, J. Zhang, and L. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 112 (2025) 054309

    2025

  50. [59]

    Zheng, J

    G. Zheng, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, W. Cai, and L. Chen, New J. Phys. 26 (2024) 053041

    2024

  51. [60]

    K. J. Arrow, The limits of organization , Norton & Company (1974)

    1974

  52. [61]

    P. J. Zak and S. Knack, Econ. J. 111 (2001) 295–321

    2001

  53. [62]

    Algan and P

    Y. Algan and P. Cahuc, Annu. Rev. Econ. 5 (2013) 521-549

    2013

  54. [63]

    J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, and K. McCabe, Games Econ. Behav. 10 (1995) 122-142

    1995

  55. [64]

    N. D. Johnson and A. A. Mislin, J. Econ. Psychol. 32 (2011) 865-889

    2011

  56. [65]

    Bravo and L

    G. Bravo and L. Tamburino, Rationality Soc. 20 (2008) 85-113

    2008

  57. [66]

    Wang, Appl

    C. Wang, Appl. Math. Comput. 471 (2024) 128595

    2024

  58. [67]

    R. Guo, L. Liu, Y. Liu, and L. Zhang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 176 (2023) 114078

    2023

  59. [68]

    Y. Zhu, W. Li, C. Xia, and M. Chica, Knowl.-Based Syst. 305 (2024) 112645

    2024

  60. [69]

    R. Guo, L. Liu, Y. Liu, and L. Zhang, Appl. Math. Comput. 473 (2024) 128649

    2024

  61. [70]

    Y. Liu, L. Wang, R. Guo, S. Hua, L. Liu, L. Zhang, and T. A. Han, J. R. Soc. Interface 22 (2025) 20240726

    2025

  62. [71]

    Kumar, V

    A. Kumar, V. Capraro, and M. Perc, J. R. Soc. Interface 17 (2020) 20200491

    2020

  63. [72]

    Y. Zhu, B. Xing, and C. Xia, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199 (2025) 116653. 25

    2025

  64. [73]

    Z. Hu, Y. Zhu, D. Zhao, and C. Xia, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 202 (2026) 117623

    2026

  65. [74]

    Engle-Warnick and R

    J. Engle-Warnick and R. L. Slonim, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 55 (2004) 553-573

    2004

  66. [75]

    Zheng, J

    G. Zheng, J. Zhang, X. Ou, S. Deng, and L. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 111 (2025) 064307

    2025

  67. [76]

    W. Güth, R. Schmittberger, and B. Schwarze, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3 (1982) 367-388

    1982

  68. [77]

    R. H. Thaler, J. Econ. Perspect. 2 (1988) 195-206

    1988

  69. [78]

    Güth and M

    W. Güth and M. G. Kocher, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 108 (2014) 396-409

    2014

  70. [79]

    Szabó and C

    G. Szabó and C. UQke, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998) 69-73

    1998

  71. [80]

    K. M. Page and K. Sigmund, Proc. Biol. Sci. 267 (2000) 2177-2182

    2000

  72. [81]

    M. N. Kuperman and S. Risau-Gusman, Eur. Phys. J. B 62 (2008) 233-238

    2008

  73. [82]

    Iranzo, J

    J. Iranzo, J. Martín Román, and Ángel Sánchez, J. Theor. Biol. 278 (2011) 1-10

    2011

  74. [83]

    J. Gale, K. G. Binmore, and L. Samuelson, Games Econ. Behav. 8 (1995) 56-90

    1995

  75. [84]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Yang, X. Chen, Y. Bai, and G. Xie, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 169 (2023) 113218

    2023

  76. [85]

    L. Deng, W. Li, R. Wang, and C. Wang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199 (2025) 116861

    2025

  77. [86]

    Yang, Phys

    Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. E 108 (2023) 024106

    2023

  78. [87]

    K. M. Page and M. A. Nowak, Bull. Math. Biol. 64 (2002) 1101-1116

    2002

  79. [88]

    Debove, N

    S. Debove, N. Baumard, and J.-B. André, Evol. Hum. Behav. 37 (2016) 245-254

    2016

  80. [89]

    B. Wu, S. Shen, J. Wang, and H. Wan, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 200 (2025) 116984

    2025

  81. [90]

    Samuelson and W

    P. Samuelson and W. Nordhaus, Economics (18th edition) , McGraw-Hill Education (2005)

    2005

  82. [91]

    Challet and Y.-C

    D. Challet and Y.-C. Zhang, Physica A 246 (1997) 407-418

    1997

  83. [92]

    Challet, M

    D. Challet, M. Marsili, and Y. C. Zhang, Minority Games: Interacting agents in financial mar- kets, Oxford Finance Series (2005)

    2005

  84. [93]

    W. B. Arthur, Am. Econ. Rev. 84 (1994) 406

    1994

  85. [94]

    Chakraborti, D

    A. Chakraborti, D. Challet, A. Chatterjee, M. Marsili, Y.-C. Zhang, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rep. 552 (2015) 1–25

    2015

  86. [95]

    T. Zhou, B. Wang, P. Zhou, C. Yang, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 046139

    2005

  87. [96]

    Zhang, Z

    J. Zhang, Z. Huang, J. Dong, L. Huang, and Y.-C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E 87 (2013) 052808

    2013

  88. [97]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. Dong, H. Zhang, Y. Lu, J. Wang, and Z. Huang, Front. Phys. 19 (2024) 40201

    2024

  89. [98]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. Dong, L. Liu, Z. Huang, L. Huang, and Y.-C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E 99 (2019) 032302

    2019

  90. [99]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Guo, Z. Wu, and J. Wang, Nonlinear Dyn. 95 (2019) 1627-1637

    2019

  91. [100]

    Zhang, G

    Z. Zhang, G. Zheng, L. Chen, C. Cai, S. Deng, B. Li, and J. Zhang, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 202 (2026) 117441

    2026

  92. [101]

    Zheng, W

    G. Zheng, W. Cai, G. Qi, J. Zhang, and L. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 112 (2025) 064305

    2025

  93. [102]

    C. Shao, W. Rao, W. Xu, and L. Wei, Entropy 27 (2025) 676

    2025

  94. [103]

    W. Rao, M. Han, and W. Xu, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 198 (2025) 116550

    2025

  95. [104]

    Andrecut and M

    M. Andrecut and M. K. Ali, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 067103

    2001

  96. [105]

    Jiang, C

    K. Jiang, C. Zhao, S. Deng, W. Cai, J. Zhang, and L. Chen, arXiv (2025) 2508.17599

    2025 arXiv

  97. [106]

    M. M. Olsen and R. Fraczkowski, J. Comput. Sci. 9 (2015) 118-124

    2015

  98. [107]

    X. Wang, J. Cheng, and L. Wang, Entropy 21 (2019) 773

    2019

  99. [108]

    X. Wang, J. Cheng, and L. Wang, Ecol. Complex. 42 (2020) 100815

    2020

  100. [109]

    J. Park, J. Lee, T. Kim, I. Ahn, and J. Park, Entropy 23 (2021) 461

    2021

  101. [110]

    J. Li, L. Li, and S. Zhao, New J. Phys. 25 (2023) 092001

    2023

  102. [111]

    Durve, F

    M. Durve, F. Peruani, and A. Celani, Phys. Rev. E 102 (2020) 012601

    2020

  103. [112]

    Reichenbach, M

    T. Reichenbach, M. Mobilia, and E. Frey, Nature 448 (2007) 1046-9. 26

    2007

  104. [113]

    Tsutsui, R

    K. Tsutsui, R. Tanaka, K. Takeda, and K. Fujii, eLife 13 (2024) e85694

    2024

  105. [114]

    Strannegård, M

    C. Strannegård, M. Palak, N. Engsner, A. Stocco, A. Antonelli, and D. Silvestro, bioRxiv (2025) 2025.06.07.658424

    2025

  106. [115]

    Nasiri and B

    M. Nasiri and B. Liebchen, New J. Phys. 24 (2022) 073042

    2022

  107. [116]

    Muinos-Landin, A

    S. Muinos-Landin, A. Fischer, V. Holubec, and F. Cichos, Sci. Robotics 6 (2021) eabd9285. 27

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed May 21, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.