Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Emergence of Cooperation and Commitment in Optional Prisoner's Dilemma

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the optional prisoner's dilemma, voluntary participation boosts commitment acceptance without boosting cooperation, and incentive design determines whether the population cooperates or simply exits.

desk verdict A novel combination of optional participation and commitment incentives, but the provided manuscript is too incomplete to verify the simulation results, and one key claim looks internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06702 v1 pith:E4JLZQ5T submitted 2025-08-08 cs.GT

Zhao Song , The Anh Han This is my paper
classification cs.GT MSC 91A2291A06
keywords optionalprisoner'sdilemmacommitmentcooperationinstitutionalincentivesvoluntaryparticipationexitbehaviorsocialwelfareevolutionarygametheory
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 studies a two-stage optional prisoner's dilemma in which players first decide whether to accept a mutual commitment and, once in the game, choose to cooperate, defect, or exit depending on whether a commitment was formed. Using evolutionary dynamics in a finite well-mixed population, it claims that the option to abstain makes players more willing to accept commitments but does not make them more willing to cooperate; instead, exit becomes widespread. The authors then compare two institutional incentive rules: a strict rule that rewards only committed players who cooperate, and a flexible rule that rewards committed players who do not defect, including those who exit. The main result is that the strict rule promotes cooperation better because it closes an 'opportunistic exit' loophole, while the flexible rule can produce higher social welfare when the exit option is profitable and the incentive budget is small. The lesson is that voluntary participation alone cannot turn promises into cooperation, and incentive design must choose between maximizing cooperation and maximizing social welfare.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-stage optional Prisoner's Dilemma with commitment: in the first stage players decide whether to accept a mutual commitment, and in the second stage they choose among cooperate, defect, and exit conditional on that decision. The paper then superimposes two institutional incentive rules: the strict rule rewards only committed players who cooperate in the game, while the flexible rule rewards any committed player who does not defect, meaning those who cooperate or exit. This machinery creates a payoff asymmetry between 'commitment followed by cooperation' and 'commitment followed by exit,' and the strict/flexible distinction is what controls whether opportunistic e

What would settle it

Run the same two-stage optional prisoner's dilemma in a laboratory with human participants, measuring cooperation and exit rates under strict and flexible incentives across a range of exit benefits and incentive budgets; if flexible incentives match or exceed strict incentives in cooperation, or if high commitment acceptance is accompanied by high cooperation under voluntary participation, the claimed decoupling and the strict-rule advantage would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the optional Prisoner's Dilemma, adding a pre-game commitment stage—where players can accept or reject a mutual commitment before choosing whether to cooperate, defect, or exit—decouples commitment acceptance from cooperative behavior. Optional participation makes players readier to accept commitments, but this willingness does not carry over to in-game cooperation; instead, many players accept the commitment and then leave the interaction. When institutional incentives are introduced, the design matters: the strict rule, which rewards only committed players who cooperate, is better at fostering cooperation because it eliminates the opportunity to take th

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on modeling evolution in a single finite population where any two players are equally likely to interact and update under a particular stochastic rule; with spatial structure or a different update rule, the ranking of strict versus flexible incentives could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Commitment acceptance rates are not a reliable proxy for cooperation in optional settings; policy and system designers should measure compliance separately from participation.
  • A strict incentive rule—rewarding only committed cooperators—should be preferred when the goal is to maximize cooperation, since it removes the payoff for committing and then exiting.
  • When the outside option (exit) is valuable and institutional budgets are small, a flexible rule can deliver higher social welfare even at the cost of lower cooperation; the choice of rule depends on which objective is optimized.
  • The same model predicts that environments where new outside options may appear after a commitment are exactly those where flexible incentive rules may be beneficial, because they allow players to take profitable alternatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the decoupling of commitment acceptance from cooperation generalizes, real-world agreements with voluntary participation—such as international climate pledges or multi-agent contracts—should be evaluated on post-commitment behavior rather than ratification rates; the model predicts high ratification with high exit or low delivery.
  • The strict-versus-flexible comparison is a stylized version of contract design choices: performance-contingent rewards versus non-defection rewards. This suggests performance-contingent contracts favor cooperation, while non-defection contracts favor aggregate welfare when outside options are attractive—a distinction that could be tested in experimental economics settings.
  • The authors leave population structure for future work; one testable extension is whether network reciprocity, which already helps cooperation, also closes the opportunistic-exit loophole or instead makes flexible rules more competitive.
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 proposes a two-stage optional Prisoner's Dilemma with pre-game commitment: in the first stage players decide whether to accept a mutual commitment, and in the second stage they choose cooperate, defect, or exit, with the action set depending on commitment formation. The authors claim that optional participation boosts commitment acceptance but fails to foster cooperation, instead producing widespread exit. They then introduce two institutional incentive schemes: STRICT-COM, which rewards only committed players who cooperate, and FLEXIBLE-COM, which rewards committed players who do not defect (including those who exit). The headline result is that STRICT-COM promotes cooperation better by closing an 'opportunistic exit' loophole, while FLEXIBLE-COM can achieve higher social welfare when the exit benefit is high and the incentive budget is low. The findings are qualitative and obtained from evolutionary simulations in a well-mixed finite population.

Significance. If the reported results are correct, the paper offers a useful contribution to evolutionary game theory and institutional design: it decouples commitment acceptance from cooperative compliance in voluntary interactions, and it articulates a concrete cooperation--welfare trade-off between two plausible incentive policies. The topic is timely, and the strict-vs-flexible distinction is a natural and policy-relevant comparison. The claim that voluntary participation alone is insufficient and that institutional design must choose between maximizing cooperation and maximizing social welfare is potentially important. However, as submitted the manuscript does not provide the model definition, payoff equations, or simulation protocol, so the soundness of every headline claim cannot be verified. No code, data, or formal proofs are supplied, and the Discussion contains a statement about dominant strategies that is at best imprecise. These issues are load-bearing and must be addressed before the contribution can be evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text: model definition (absent)] The manuscript as provided contains no model section, no payoff matrix, no update rule, and no simulation protocol. The abstract and highlights describe a two-stage optional PD with STRICT-COM and FLEXIBLE-COM, but the extensive-form game, the payoff parameters (commitment cost, exit benefit, incentive budget, benefit/cost ratio), and the evolutionary dynamics are never formally defined. This is not a presentation issue: every headline claim—optional participation boosts commitment acceptance but not cooperation, strict incentives outperform flexible ones for cooperation, flexible incentives outperform strict ones for welfare under high exit benefit and low budget—depends on precisely these details. At minimum, the paper must specify the strategy space, the payoff equations for each terminal node, the population size and selection intensity, the mutation scheme, the number of independent
  2. [Discussion, final paragraphs] The statement that 'under both the STRICT-COM and FLEXIBLE-COM incentives, it is possible to create conditions where cooperation is the dominant strategy, yet high commitment costs lead to a negative net payoff for the population' is internally inconsistent if 'dominant' refers to the full two-stage game. In a game that includes the option to exit, a dominant committed-cooperation strategy must yield a payoff at least as high as the exit option for every opponent strategy. If the exit option has a nonnegative payoff, then committed cooperation cannot give a negative net payoff solely because of commitment costs; if it did, exit would be strictly better and would contradict dominance. If the authors mean 'dominant only within the post-commitment subgame,' that is a different, much weaker claim and should be stated as such. The alleged cooperation--welfare trade-off rests on the existence
  3. [STRICT-COM and FLEXIBLE-COM definitions] Part of the strict-vs-flexible contrast appears to be built into the reward eligibility rules: STRICT-COM pays only committed cooperators, while FLEXIBLE-COM pays all committed players who do not defect, which by construction includes committed exiters. Consequently, the finding that STRICT-COM is better for cooperation while FLEXIBLE-COM can be better for welfare under high exit benefit may be in part a direct consequence of the reward criterion rather than an emergent property of the evolutionary dynamics. The authors should clarify what is held fixed between the two policies (e.g., total incentive budget, reward amount per eligible player, population size) and, if possible, test a control condition in which both schemes use the same per-player reward and only the eligibility set changes. This would make explicit whether the reported rankings are driven by the intended policy differenc
minor comments (4)
  1. [Highlights] The final highlight reads 'Guidestheinstitutionaldesigntomaximisebothcooperationandsocialwelfare.' This is missing spaces and should read 'Guides the institutional design to maximise both cooperation and social welfare.'
  2. [Abstract and Highlights] Terms such as 'commitment cost,' 'exit benefit,' and 'incentive budget' are used without formal definition. Once the model section is added, ensure that these quantities are defined precisely and used consistently throughout.
  3. [Discussion] The claim of 'widespread exit behaviour' should be quantified: what fraction of interactions end in exit, and how does this fraction depend on the parameters? Without numerical output, the qualitative phrase is difficult to interpret.
  4. [Discussion, refs [51] and [33]] The paper invokes ref. [51] to support the principle that evolutionary mechanisms promoting cooperation may not promote social welfare, and ref. [33] for institutional incentives. The discussion should state explicitly how the present model goes beyond these earlier results rather than only citing them in passing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor definitional circularity in the 'opportunistic exit loophole' claim; core evolutionary results are simulation-derived and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Abstract (FLEXIBLE-COM definition and results); Highlights bullet 3]
    "a flexible one (FLEXIBLE-COM) that rewards any committed players who do not defect in the game. The results reveal that, while the strict approach is demonstrably better for promoting cooperation as the flexible rule creates a loophole for an opportunistic exit after committing"

    FLEXIBLE-COM is defined as rewarding every committed player who does not defect; an exiter is by definition a non-defector. Therefore the 'opportunistic exit after committing' loophole is not an emergent simulation result but an immediate consequence of the reward rule. The paper presents it as a revealed finding ('the flexible rule creates a loophole'), when the loophole is inscribed in the payoff definition. The strict-vs-flexible contrast in cooperation is also partly definitional, since STRICT-COM pays only committed cooperators while FLEXIBLE-COM pays committed exiters as well; however, the evolutionary prevalence and social-welfare comparison remain simulation-dependent, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are produced by evolutionary simulations of a two-stage optional prisoner's dilemma with commitment and institutional incentives. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in solely via citation. The many self-citations (e.g., refs. 25, 29, 30, 33, 51) are contextual and do not carry the derivation of the headline results; those results depend on the simulation model, which is not fully reproduced in the visible text but no circular reduction can be exhibited from the available equations. The one genuine circularity concern is the 'opportunistic exit' loophole under FLEXIBLE-COM: because FLEXIBLE-COM is defined to reward any committed non-defector, and exiting is a non-defecting action, the existence of that loophole is true by construction. The paper states it as a result ('the flexible rule creates a loophole'), which is a definitional entailment rather than an empirical discovery. However, the main quantitative findings—that optional participation increases commitment acceptance but fails to sustain cooperation, and that flexible incentives can yield higher social welfare under high exit benefits—are not equivalent to the model inputs; they require evolutionary dynamics and payoff comparisons. The statement about 'cooperation is the dominant strategy, yet high commitment costs lead to a negative net payoff' appears internally inconsistent, but internal inconsistency is a correctness concern, not circularity, so it is not scored here. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks apart from this minor definitional step, so a low circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model is a simulation study within an established evolutionary game theory program. Its central claims rest on modeling choices rather than on data or derivation: (a) well-mixed finite population dynamics, (b) a two-stage commitment-then-play structure with condition-dependent actions, and (c) two institutionally administered reward schemes, plus scanned payoff parameters (commitment cost, exit benefit, incentive budget, cooperation benefit/cost). The commitment framework is inherited from the authors' prior publications (refs 25, 29, 32, 33), and optionality from the voluntary participation literature (refs 35, 40, 42, 48); neither is independently verified here. The two incentive schemes are constructs introduced by this paper with no external empirical evidence. No free parameter is fitted to data; all are scanned inputs, but the qualitative conclusions are conditional on the scanned ranges.

free parameters (5)
  • commitment cost = scanned in simulations; high-cost regime highlighted
    Cost of entering a mutual commitment; the discussion states high commitment costs can yield negative net population payoff even when cooperation dominates (Discussion, para 3).
  • incentive budget = scanned; low-budget regime highlighted
    Size of the institutional reward pool funding STRICT-COM and FLEXIBLE-COM; the welfare comparison between the two rules is conditional on this parameter (Discussion, para 2).
  • exit benefit = scanned; high-gain regime highlighted
    Payoff from exiting the game; determines when FLEXIBLE-COM's opportunistic-exit loophole raises total welfare (Abstract; Discussion, para 2).
  • cooperation benefit/cost ratio = not reported in reviewed text; standard PD gain parameter
    Scaling of the PD payoffs; qualitative outcomes (cooperation dominance vs exit dominance) depend on it (standard commitment-PD framework, refs 29, 33).
  • population size and selection intensity = not reported in reviewed text; standard finite-population choices
    The evolutionary dynamics operate in a well-mixed finite population (Discussion, last paragraph); the standard toolkit is refs 44-46.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Well-mixed finite population with stochastic evolutionary update (imitation/Fermi or Moran-like dynamics)
    All results are computed in this setting, stated in the Discussion's last paragraph; structured populations are deferred to future work, so conclusions are conditional on this mixing assumption.
  • domain assumption Commitment is a mutual pre-game agreement with a fixed cost; acceptance binds both players
    The two-stage structure (Abstract) is inherited from the authors' prior commitment framework (refs 29, 32, 33); the decoupling of acceptance from compliance is produced inside this structure.
  • domain assumption In-game actions are conditional on commitment formation (cooperate, defect, or exit, with behavior depending on whether a commitment exists)
    The strategy space (Abstract, para 3) includes conditional strategies; the 'opportunistic exit' strategy (commit, then exit) is expressible only because of this conditioning.
  • domain assumption Incentives are institutionally administered rewards with a fixed budget, targeting committed players only (STRICT-COM: cooperate; FLEXIBLE-COM: any non-defecting action, including exit)
    The design space of the two institutional rules (Abstract, para 4; Discussion); the strict-vs-flexible comparison is conditional on this reward architecture.
invented entities (2)
  • STRICT-COM institutional reward scheme
    purpose: Rewards only committed players who cooperate in the game; shown to promote cooperation better than the flexible rule
    A model-introduced policy mechanism. Independent evidence would be an implemented institution or empirical test; the paper provides only simulation results, and its success is defined within the model's payoff structure.
  • FLEXIBLE-COM institutional reward scheme
    purpose: Rewards any committed player who does not defect, including exiters; shown to raise social welfare when exit benefit is high and budget is low
    A model-introduced policy mechanism with no external empirical evidence; the welfare ranking is produced by the model, not by independent data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of Cooperation and Commitment in Optional Prisoner's Dilemma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4JLZQ5T

@misc{pith2026250806702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of Cooperation and Commitment in Optional Prisoner's Dilemma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4JLZQ5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06702}
}
read the original abstract

Commitment is a well-established mechanism for fostering cooperation in human society and multi-agent systems. However, existing research has predominantly focused on the commitment that neglects the freedom of players to abstain from an interaction, limiting their applicability to many real-world scenarios where participation is often voluntary. In this paper, we present a two-stage game model to investigate the evolution of commitment-based behaviours and cooperation within the framework of the optional Prisoner's Dilemma game. In the pre-game stage, players decide whether to accept a mutual commitment. Once in the game, they choose among cooperation, defection, or exiting, depending on the formation of a pre-game commitment. We find that optional participation boosts commitment acceptance but fails to foster cooperation, leading instead to widespread exit behaviour. To address this, we then introduce and compare two institutional incentive approaches: i) a strict one (STRICT-COM) that rewards only committed players who cooperate in the game, and ii) a flexible one (FLEXIBLE-COM) that rewards any committed players who do not defect in the game. The results reveal that, while the strict approach is demonstrably better for promoting cooperation as the flexible rule creates a loophole for an opportunistic exit after committing, the flexible rule offers an efficient alternative for enhancing social welfare when such opportunistic behaviour results in a high gain. This study highlights the limitations of relying solely on voluntary participation and commitment to resolving social dilemmas, emphasising the importance of well-designed institutional incentives to promote cooperation and social welfare effectively.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Z. Song, C. Shen, T. A. Han, Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08876 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [6]

    Dastani, L

    M. Dastani, L. van der Torre, N. Yorke-Smith, Commitments and in- teraction norms in organisations, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 31 (2) (2017) 207–249

    work page 2017

  3. [7]

    El-Menshawy, J

    M. El-Menshawy, J. Bentahar, W. El Kholy, R. Dssouli, Verifying con- formance of multi-agent commitment-based protocols, Expert Systems with Applications 40 (1) (2013) 122–138

    work page 2013

  4. [8]

    T. L. Cherry, D. M. McEvoy, Enforcing compliance with environmen- tal agreements in the absence of strong institutions: An experimental analysis, Environmental and Resource Economics 54 (1) (2013) 63–77

    work page 2013

  5. [9]

    M. P. Singh, Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 5 (1) (2014) 1–23

    work page 2014

  6. [10]

    Johnson, J

    D. Johnson, J. Bering, Hand of god, mind of man: Punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation, Evolutionary psychology 4 (1) (2006) 147470490600400119

    work page 2006

  7. [11]

    Dietz, E

    T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. C. Stern, The struggle to govern the commons, science 302 (5652) (2003) 1907–1912

    work page 2003

  8. [12]

    R. Boyd, P. J. Richerson, Culture and the evolution of human coop- eration, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1533) (2009) 3281–3288

    work page 2009

Show all 50 references
  1. [13]

    Doebeli, C

    M. Doebeli, C. Hauert, Models of cooperation based on the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game, Ecology letters 8 (7) (2005) 748–766

    2005

  2. [14]

    C. H. Coombs, A reparameterization of the prisoner’s dilemma game, Behavioral Science 18 (6) (1973) 424–428

    1973

  3. [15]

    M. Perc, J. Gómez-Gardenes, A. Szolnoki, L. M. Floría, Y. Moreno, Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review, Journal of the royal society interface 10 (80) (2013) 20120997

    2013

  4. [16]

    Andersson, E

    O. Andersson, E. Wengström, Credible communication and cooperation: experimental evidence from multi-stage games, Journal of Economic Be- havior & Organization 81 (1) (2012) 207–219. 17

    2012

  5. [17]

    Feldhaus, J

    C. Feldhaus, J. Stauf, More than words: The effects of cheap talk in a volunteer’s dilemma, Experimental Economics 19 (2) (2016) 342–359

    2016

  6. [18]

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

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

    2010

  7. [19]

    Dvorak, S

    F. Dvorak, S. Fehrler, Negotiating cooperation under uncertainty: Com- munication in noisy, indefinitely repeated interactions, American Eco- nomic Journal: Microeconomics 16 (3) (2024) 232–258

    2024

  8. [20]

    G. E. Kapetaniou, O. Deroy, A. Soutschek, Social metacognition drives willingness to commit., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 152 (10) (2023) 2735

    2023

  9. [21]

    Bahel, S

    E. Bahel, S. Ball, S. Sarangi, Communication and cooperation in pris- oner’s dilemma games, Games and Economic Behavior 133 (2022) 126– 137

    2022

  10. [22]

    Axelrod, W

    R. Axelrod, W. D. Hamilton, The evolution of cooperation, science 211 (4489) (1981) 1390–1396

    1981

  11. [23]

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

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

    2019

  12. [24]

    M. Lang, R. Chvaja, B. G. Purzycki, The role of costly commitment signals in assorting cooperators during intergroup conflict, Evolution and Human Behavior 45 (2) (2024) 131–143

    2024

  13. [25]

    T. A. Han, Intention recognition, commitment and their roles in the evolution of cooperation: From artificial intelligence techniques to evo- lutionary game theory models (2013)

    2013

  14. [26]

    Krellner, T

    M. Krellner, T. A. Han, Words are not wind-how public joint commit- ment and reputation solve the prisoner’s dilemma, Applied Mathematics and Computation 506 (2025) 129530

    2025

  15. [28]

    L. S. Flores, T. A. Han, Evolution of commitment in the spatial public goods game through institutional incentives, Applied Mathematics and Computation 473 (2024) 128646. 18

    2024

  16. [29]

    T. A. Han, Emergence of social punishment and cooperation through prior commitments, in: Proceedings of the thirtieth aaai conference on artificial intelligence, 2016, pp. 2494–2500

    2016

  17. [30]

    M. H. Duong, T. A. Han, Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 477 (2254) (2021) 20210568

    2021

  18. [31]

    Sasaki, I

    T. Sasaki, I. Okada, S. Uchida, X. Chen, Commitment to cooperation and peer punishment: Its evolution, Games 6 (4) (2015) 574–587

    2015

  19. [32]

    T. A. Han, T. Lenaerts, A synergy of costly punishment and commit- ment in cooperation dilemmas, Adaptive Behavior 24 (4) (2016) 237– 248

    2016

  20. [33]

    T. A. Han, Institutional incentives for the evolution of committed coop- eration: ensuring participation is as important as enhancing compliance, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 19 (188) (2022) 20220036

    2022

  21. [34]

    M. L. Locey, H. Rachlin, Commitment and self-control in a prisoner’s dilemma game, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 98 (1) (2012) 89–103

    2012

  22. [35]

    C. Shen, M. Jusup, L. Shi, Z. Wang, M. Perc, P. Holme, Exit rights open complex pathways to cooperation, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 18 (174) (2021) 20200777

    2021

  23. [36]

    J. Y. Lin, Collectivization and china’s agricultural crisis in 1959-1961, Journal of Political Economy 98 (6) (1990) 1228–1252

    1959

  24. [37]

    Nosenzo, F

    D. Nosenzo, F. Tufano, The effect of voluntary participation on coopera- tion, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 142 (2017) 307–319

    2017

  25. [38]

    Sharma, H

    G. Sharma, H. Guo, C. Shen, J. Tanimoto, Small bots, big impact: solving the conundrum of cooperation in optional prisoner’s dilemma game through simple strategies, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 20 (204) (2023) 20230301

    2023

  26. [39]

    Yamamoto, I

    H. Yamamoto, I. Okada, T. Taguchi, M. Muto, Effect of voluntary participation on an alternating and a simultaneous prisoner’s dilemma, Physical Review E 100 (3) (2019) 032304. 19

    2019

  27. [40]

    Szabó, C

    G. Szabó, C. Hauert, Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma games with vol- untary participation, Physical Review E 66 (6) (2002) 062903

    2002

  28. [41]

    M. A. Janssen, Evolution of cooperation in a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma based on recognition of trustworthy and untrustworthy agents, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 65 (3-4) (2008) 458–471

    2008

  29. [42]

    Hauert, S

    C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, K. Sigmund, Volunteering as red queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games, Science 296 (5570) (2002) 1129–1132

    2002

  30. [43]

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

    2004

  31. [44]

    L. E. Blume, The statistical mechanics of strategic interaction, Games and economic behavior 5 (3) (1993) 387–424

    1993

  32. [45]

    Sigmund, The calculus of selfishness, Princeton University Press, 2010

    K. Sigmund, The calculus of selfishness, Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  33. [46]

    Traulsen, M

    A. Traulsen, M. A. Nowak, J. M. Pacheco, Stochastic dynamics of inva- sion and fixation, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 74 (1) (2006) 011909

    2006

  34. [47]

    L. A. Imhof, D. Fudenberg, M. A. Nowak, Evolutionary cycles of coop- eration and defection, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (31) (2005) 10797–10800

    2005

  35. [48]

    Hauert, A

    C. Hauert, A. Traulsen, H. Brandt, M. A. Nowak, K. Sigmund, Via free- dom to coercion: the emergence of costly punishment, science 316 (5833) (2007) 1905–1907

    2007

  36. [49]

    D. G. Rand, C. E. Tarnita, H. Ohtsuki, M. A. Nowak, Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultimatum game, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (7) (2013) 2581–2586

    2013

  37. [50]

    Sigmund, H

    K. Sigmund, H. De Silva, A. Traulsen, C. Hauert, Social learning pro- motes institutions for governing the commons, Nature 466 (7308) (2010) 861–863. 20

    2010

  38. [51]

    T. A. Han, M. H. Duong, M. Perc, Evolutionary mechanisms that pro- mote cooperation may not promote social welfare, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 21 (220) (2024) 20240547

    2024

  39. [52]

    Teague, L

    V. Teague, L. Sonenberg, Investigating commitment flexibility in multi- agent contracts, in: Game Theory and Decision Theory in Agent-Based Systems, Springer, 2002, pp. 267–291

    2002

  40. [53]

    X.-P. Chen, S. S. Komorita, The effects of communication and commit- ment in a public goods social dilemma, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 (3) (1994) 367–386

    1994

  41. [54]

    Andreoni, W

    J. Andreoni, W. Harbaugh, L. Vesterlund, The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation, American Economic Review 93 (3) (2003) 893–902

    2003

  42. [55]

    X. Chen, T. Sasaki, Å. Brännström, U. Dieckmann, First carrot, then stick: how the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes coopera- tion, Journal of the royal society interface 12 (102) (2015) 20140935. 21

    2015

Pith tools

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