The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2605.27400 · v1 · pith:ZPRI3CR7 · submitted 2026-04-23 · cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.CC· cs.ET· cs.GT· cs.MA

Mathematical Modelling of Ethical AI Use in Higher Education: A Coordination Game Framework for Future-Facing Learning

Ndidi Bianca Ogbo , Zhao Song , Shatha Ghareeb , The Anh Han This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-04 20:05 UTCglm-5.2pith:ZPRI3CR7record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.CCcs.ETcs.GTcs.MA
keywords assessmentlearningeducationhigherincentivespracticesstudentai-use
0
0 comments X

The pith

Small Assessment Tweaks Can Flip Classroom AI Norms

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

This paper argues that student decisions about how to use generative AI in coursework are not isolated compliance choices but a coordination problem: each student's best move depends on what peers appear to be doing. The authors formalize this using evolutionary game theory in a finite population, modeling four strategies — responsible use with meaningful reflection, responsible use with superficial reflection, opportunistic use, and outright misuse. Institutional influence enters not as a rule-enforcer but through assessment design, specifically the reward r given for meaningful reflective engagement and the effort cost κ required to produce it. The central finding is a threshold effect: below a critical reflection reward (r ≈ 1.5 in the baseline parameterization), opportunistic AI use dominates the cohort regardless of policy statements. Above that threshold, responsible use with meaningful reflection rapidly becomes the stable norm. The transition is sharp rather than gradual, meaning small, well-calibrated changes in how reflection is weighted can produce disproportionate shifts in collective behavior, while misaligned or burdensome reflective tasks leave opportunistic norms entrenched.

Core claim

The paper's central result is that the shift from opportunistic to responsible AI-use norms is threshold-driven rather than linear. Using a coordination game payoff structure where aligning with peer behavior is individually advantageous, the authors show through finite-population evolutionary dynamics (Fermi imitation with mutation) that the reflection reward r acts as a control parameter. Below the critical threshold, opportunistic use is the evolutionarily stable outcome; above it, responsible use with meaningful reflection rapidly dominates. The threshold location and transition sharpness depend jointly on peer sensitivity (β) and the ratio of reflection reward to reflection effort cost.

What carries the argument

The model is a two-player symmetric coordination game in a well-mixed finite population of N students, analyzed via evolutionary dynamics. Payoffs are determined by learning value (L), effort cost (C), short-term advantage of opportunism (S), legitimacy cost of misalignment with peers (δ), misconduct penalty (τ), reflection reward (r), reflection effort (κ), and a superficial-reflection fraction (σ). Strategy updating follows the Fermi imitation rule with intensity β and mutation probability μ. The long-run behavior is characterized by the stationary distribution of a Markov chain over homogeneous states, computed via fixation probabilities.

If this is right

  • If the threshold mechanism is real, institutions should prioritize finding and operating just above the critical reflection-reward level rather than investing in detection or surveillance, since below-threshold interventions leave opportunistic norms unchanged.
  • The sharpness of the transition suggests that pilot programs testing reflective assessment designs could identify the local threshold empirically by varying reflection weightings across course sections and measuring norm shifts.
  • The peer-sensitivity result implies that interventions increasing visibility of peer practices (e.g., shared reflection forums) could lower the threshold at which responsible norms take hold, making the transition easier to trigger.
  • The model predicts that superficially compliant reflection — checking a box without genuine engagement — should remain persistently rare relative to both meaningful reflection and outright opportunism, which is testable against real classroom data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real student payoff perceptions differ substantially from the assumed values (e.g., if the short-term advantage S of opportunistic use is much larger than modeled), the threshold could shift to an institutionally impractical level or the coordination structure could break down entirely, making the policy prescription less actionable.
  • The well-mixed population assumption ignores social network structure; in real cohorts, tightly connected subgroups could lock in opportunistic norms locally even when the global incentive structure favors responsibility, potentially raising the effective threshold.
  • The model treats assessment design as static within a semester, but if students and instructors co-evolve — instructors adjusting assessment in response to observed AI-use patterns — the dynamics could produce oscillation rather than convergence to a single stable norm.
  • The threshold result suggests a natural experiment: courses that have recently increased reflection weighting should show bimodal outcomes (either persistent opportunism or near-universal responsible use) rather than a smooth gradient, which could be tested against institutional assessment data.

Load-bearing premise

The payoff matrix uses specific numerical values for learning benefit, effort cost, short-term advantage, and peer-misalignment penalties that are chosen for analytical tractability rather than derived from empirical data on how students actually perceive and trade off these factors. The coordination structure and the threshold location are direct consequences of these chosen values.

What would settle it

If empirical measurement of student payoff perceptions showed that the coordination structure (a > b and d > c) does not hold — for instance, if students do not find it more costly to use AI responsibly when peers are being opportunistic — the threshold-driven norm-transition mechanism would not apply.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27400 by Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Shatha Ghareeb, The Anh Han, Zhao Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stationary frequencies of AI-use strategies as a function of the reflection reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Frequency of responsible AI use (RR) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Design space of reflective AI assessment. Stationary frequency of responsible AI use with meaningful reflection (RR) as a function of reflection reward r and reflection effort cost κ. Warmer colours indicate regimes in which RR dominates in the long run, while cooler colours indicate dominance of opportunistic AI use. Parameters: a = 1, b = 0, c = 1, d = 2, δ = 1, σ = 0.4, τ = 1, population size N = 100, a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models student generative-AI use in higher-education assessment as a two-player coordination game under finite-population evolutionary dynamics (Fermi updating, small-mutation limit). A baseline model contrasts responsible (R) and opportunistic (O) AI use; an extended model introduces four strategies (RR, RS, O, M) incorporating meaningful versus superficial reflective engagement and misconduct penalties. The authors simulate stationary frequencies as functions of the reflection reward r, the reflection effort cost κ, and the peer-sensitivity parameter β, reporting threshold-driven transitions from opportunistic to responsible norms around r ≈ 1.5. The paper is clearly written, the game-theoretic machinery is standard and correctly applied, and the pedagogical framing is well-motivated.

Significance. The application of evolutionary coordination theory to AI-use norms in assessment is a reasonable and potentially useful contribution to the cs.CY / education literature. The model formalises an intuition that many practitioners hold—that assessment design, not policy enforcement, drives collective behaviour—and provides a mechanism (coordination-game tipping) for why transitions can be abrupt. The finite-population analysis with fixation probabilities (Eqs. 3–6) is appropriate, and the design-space heatmap (Figure 3) is a genuinely useful visualisation for practitioners. However, the policy-relevance of the quantitative claims depends on parameter robustness, which is the central issue identified below.

major comments (1)
  1. §3.3, Eq. (2); §4.1, Figure 1: The central claim that 'small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts' (Abstract; §4.1) depends on the transition threshold r ≈ 1.5 falling in a policy-relevant range. In the reduced RR-vs-O subgame of Eq. (2) with the chosen parameters (a=1, b=0, c=1, d=2, δ=1, κ=1), the payoff matrix becomes [[r, r−1],[0, 2]], and the internal equilibrium is x* = (3−r)/3. The threshold r ≈ 1.5 corresponds to x* = 0.5 (equal basin sizes), which is where finite-population Fermi dynamics produce the sharpest transition. However, this location is determined by the structural parameters. For general d, the threshold for equal basins shifts to r = (d+1)/2; thus d = 5 would push the threshold to r = 3, and larger d values push it further. The paper varies r, κ, and β (Figures 1–3) but never performs sensitivity analysis over the base
minor comments (5)
  1. §3.2.1, Eq. (1): The text states 'The payoff structure satisfies a > b and d > c' but the symbols a, b, c, d are not used in Eq. (1) itself; they appear only in Eq. (2). A brief note mapping L, C, S, δ to the a, b, c, d notation would help readers.
  2. Table 1 lists parameters L, C, S that appear in the baseline model (Eq. 1) but are never assigned numerical values for the simulations. It would help to state explicitly what values were used (or whether the baseline model is not simulated).
  3. Figure 1 caption: the parameter β = 0.1 is listed, but it would be useful to also state the mutation probability µ used in the simulations.
  4. §4.2: The phrase 'norm cascades commonly observed in educational settings' is offered without citation. A reference to empirical evidence for norm cascades in education would strengthen this claim.
  5. §5, final paragraph: The extensions discussed (multi-player, networked interactions; alternative incentive mechanisms; empirical validation) are appropriate, but the authors should also acknowledge the parameter-sensitivity limitation explicitly here.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that our central policy claim—threshold-driven transitions at r ≈ 1.5—depends on structural parameters not varied in the current simulations. We agree this is a genuine gap and will address it through added sensitivity analysis and revised claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.3, Eq. (2); §4.1, Figure 1: The central claim that 'small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts' depends on the transition threshold r ≈ 1.5 falling in a policy-relevant range. The referee shows that in the reduced RR-vs-O subgame, the threshold for equal basin sizes is r = (d+1)/2, so d = 5 would push the threshold to r = 3, and larger d values push it further. The paper varies r, κ, and β but never performs sensitivity analysis over the base payoff parameters (a, b, c, d, δ).

    Authors: The referee is entirely correct on the mathematics. In the reduced RR-vs-O subgame with our chosen parameters, the internal equilibrium is x* = (3−r)/3, and the threshold r ≈ 1.5 corresponds to equal basin sizes. For general d, the equal-basin threshold shifts to r = (d+1)/2, meaning the specific numerical threshold is an artifact of the chosen d = 2. We did not perform sensitivity analysis over the structural payoff parameters, and this is a genuine limitation that weakens the policy-relevance of the quantitative threshold claim. We will address this in revision through the following changes: (1) Add a sensitivity analysis varying d (and the other base parameters) to show how the transition threshold shifts, including a figure analogous to Figure 1 for d ∈ {1, 2, 3, 5, 7}. (2) Add an analytical derivation of the threshold r* = (d+1)/2 in the reduced subgame, making explicit how structural parameters determine the transition point. (3) Revise the abstract and §4.1 to qualify the quantitative claim: the paper's contribution is the mechanism (threshold-driven coordination transitions exist and depend on structural payoff parameters), not the specific value r ≈ 1.5. The phrase 'small, well-calibrated changes' will be revised to emphasize that what counts as 'well-calibrated' depends on the payoff structure, which is itself determined by assessment design. (4) Add a discussion paragraph noting that d (the short-term performance advantage of opportunistic AI use) is itself a design-relevant parameter: assessment designs that reduce the relative payoff advantage of opportunistic use lower d and thus lower the threshold at which reflective incentives become effective. This actually strengthens the paper's pedagogical argument—assessment design matters not only through r and κ, revision: no

  2. Referee: The paper never performs sensitivity analysis over the base payoff parameters (a, b, c, d, δ), so the robustness of the central threshold claim is unestablished.

    Authors: This is correct and we will address it as described above. We acknowledge that without sensitivity analysis over structural parameters, the robustness of the r ≈ 1.5 threshold is not established. The revision will include systematic variation of d, δ, and the other base parameters, and will reframe the central claim accordingly. We note that the qualitative mechanism—threshold-driven transitions driven by coordination dynamics—is robust to parameter variation (the coordination game structure is preserved as long as a > b and d > c), but the specific threshold location is parameter-dependent, and the paper must say so explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the threshold result follows from standard coordination-game dynamics with explicitly stated parameters, not from self-citation or definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that threshold-driven transitions occur around r ≈ 1.5 — is a straightforward consequence of applying the Fermi imitation rule (Eq. 4) to a payoff matrix (Eq. 2) with explicitly stated numerical parameters (a=1, b=0, c=1, d=2, δ=1, τ=1, κ=1, σ=0.4). The threshold is not fitted to data and then presented as a prediction; it is computed from the stated model. The evolutionary game theory framework (finite-population Fermi dynamics, fixation probabilities, stationary distributions) is standard and cited to external sources (Nowak et al. 2004 [21], Traulsen et al. 2006 [22], Sigmund 2010 [17]). While the authors do cite their own prior work on coordination games and commitments ([24], [25], [33], [34], [35]), these citations appear in the related work and contributions sections as context, not as load-bearing premises without which the derivation collapses. The payoff structure a > b, d > c is explicitly stated as an assumption defining a coordination game (§3.2.1), not derived from a self-cited theorem. The parameter values are acknowledged as illustrative rather than empirically grounded. The concern that the threshold location is an artifact of arbitrary parameter choices is a validity/robustness concern (no sensitivity analysis over structural parameters a, b, c, d), not a circularity concern — the paper does not fit parameters to a target result and then claim to predict that result. The derivation chain is self-contained: standard game-theoretic machinery applied to an explicitly stated payoff structure yields the reported dynamics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities, particles, or forces are postulated. The model uses standard game-theoretic constructs.

free parameters (11)
  • a (RR-RR payoff baseline) = 1
    Set arbitrarily in simulations; no empirical basis provided.
  • b (RR-O coordination payoff) = 0
    Set arbitrarily; determines coordination incentive strength.
  • c (O-RR misalignment payoff) = 1
    Set arbitrarily; affects threshold location.
  • d (O-O payoff baseline) = 2
    Set arbitrarily; determines opportunistic baseline attractiveness.
  • δ (legitimacy/norm cost) = 1
    Set arbitrarily; no empirical calibration of perceived unfairness cost.
  • τ (misconduct penalty) = 1
    Set arbitrarily; no connection to actual institutional penalty structures.
  • κ (reflection effort cost) = 1
    Varied in Figure 3 but baseline value chosen arbitrarily.
  • σ (superficial reflection factor) = 0.4
    Set arbitrarily; determines how much superficial reflection mimics meaningful reflection.
  • β (intensity of social learning) = 0.1 (baseline), 0.01, 0.5
    Varied in Figure 2; no empirical basis for which value reflects real student populations.
  • N (population size) = 100
    Chosen for simulation; no connection to actual cohort sizes.
  • µ (mutation/exploration probability) = Not specified numerically
    Described as 'sufficiently small' for the small-mutation approximation; exact value not stated.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Student AI-use decisions in assessment follow coordination game dynamics where payoff depends on peer strategy.
    Invoked in §3.1-3.2; the coordination structure (a > b, d > c) is assumed, not derived from empirical data on student behavior.
  • domain assumption The well-mixed population assumption is appropriate for student cohorts.
    Stated in §3.1; no network structure or subgroup dynamics considered, though the Discussion acknowledges this limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper Payoff parameters can be meaningfully set without empirical calibration.
    All parameter values in §4 are chosen by the authors without reference to measured student utility functions or behavioral studies.
  • domain assumption The Fermi imitation rule accurately captures student social learning.
    Invoked in §3.4 (Eq. 4); standard in evolutionary game theory but unvalidated for this specific educational context.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 12835 in / 4109 out tokens · 88214 ms · 2026-07-04T20:05:35.252851+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artificial intelligence in education: A review

    Lijia Chen, Pingping Chen, and Zhijian Lin. Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8:75264–75278, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020

    Fan Ouyang, Luyi Zheng, and Pengcheng Jiao. Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6):7893–7925, July 2022

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the Future of Education

    Neil Selwyn. Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the Future of Education . Polity Press, United Kingdom, 1st edition, November 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Generative artificial in- telligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines

    Nora McDonald, Aditya Johri, Areej Ali, and Aayushi Hingle Collier. Generative artificial in- telligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans , 3:100121, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Postplagiarism: transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology, -10-12 2023

    Sarah Elaine Eaton. Postplagiarism: transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology, -10-12 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Al-Zahrani and Talal M

    Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani and Talal M. Alasmari. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: The dynamics of ethical, social, and educational implications. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11:912, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Powers, Neil Urquhart, Chloe M

    Simon T. Powers, Neil Urquhart, Chloe M. Barnes, Theodor Cimpeanu, Anik´ o Ek´ art, The Anh Han, Jeremy Pitt, and Michael Guckert. What’s It Like to Trust an LLM: The Devolution of Trust Psychology? IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , 44(3):30–37, September 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making

    Valerio Capraro, Austin Lentsch, Daron Acemoglu, Selin Akgun, Aisel Akhmedova, Ennio Bilancini, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bonnefon, Pablo Bra˜ nas-Garza, Luigi Butera, Karen M Douglas, et al. The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS nexus, 3(6):pgae191, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Developing evalu- ative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence

    Margaret Bearman, Joanna Tai, Phillip Dawson, David Boud, and Rola Ajjawi. Developing evalu- ative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6):893–905, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Strategic integration of artificial intelligence solutions to transform teaching practices in higher education

    Albana Berisha Qehaja. Strategic integration of artificial intelligence solutions to transform teaching practices in higher education. Foresight, 27(5):970–991, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 20(1):38–25, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    The artificial intelligence assessment scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment, -04-30 2024

    Mike Perkins, Leon Furze, Jasper Roe, and Jason Macvaugh. The artificial intelligence assessment scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment, -04-30 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Unveiling students’ experiences and perceptions of artificial intelligence usage in higher education

    Xue Zhou, Joanne Zhang, and Ching Chan. Unveiling students’ experiences and perceptions of artificial intelligence usage in higher education. Journal of university teaching & learning practice , 21(6):126–145, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Re- thinking the importance of social norms in generative AI adoption: investigating the acceptance and use of generative AI among higher education students

    ¨Omer Faruk Ursava¸ s, Yasin Yal¸ cın, Hakan˙Islamo˘ glu, Eda Bakır-Yal¸ cın, and Mutlu Cukurova. Re- thinking the importance of social norms in generative AI adoption: investigating the acceptance and use of generative AI among higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1):38–22, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Artificial intelligence in higher education: A cross- cultural examination of students’ behavioral intentions and attitudes

    Dongmin Ma, Huma Akram, and I-H Chen. Artificial intelligence in higher education: A cross- cultural examination of students’ behavioral intentions and attitudes. International review of re- search in open and distance learning , 25(3):134–157, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Robert K. Merton. Social theory and social structure . The Free Press, New York, 1968

    work page 1968

  17. [17]

    The Calculus of Selfishness

    Karl Sigmund. The Calculus of Selfishness . Princeton University Press, 2010. 10

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Kizilcec, Elaine Huber, Elena C

    Ren´ e F. Kizilcec, Elaine Huber, Elena C. Papanastasiou, Andrew Cram, Christos A. Makridis, Adele Smolansky, Sandris Zeivots, and Corina Raduescu. Perceived impact of generative ai on assessments: Comparing educator and student perspectives in australia, cyprus, and the united states. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 7:100269, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Khlaif, Wejdan Awadallah Alkouk, Nisreen Salama, and Belal Abu Eideh

    Zuheir N. Khlaif, Wejdan Awadallah Alkouk, Nisreen Salama, and Belal Abu Eideh. Redesigning assessments for ai-enhanced learning: A framework for educators in the generative ai era. Education Sciences, 15(2), 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Changing eap assessment practices in the age of generative artificial intelligence: The case of scottish higher education institutions

    Lewis Urquhart and Xuan Minh Ngo. Changing eap assessment practices in the age of generative artificial intelligence: The case of scottish higher education institutions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 79:101609, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

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

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    Nowak, and Jorge M

    Arne Traulsen, Martin A. Nowak, and Jorge M. Pacheco. Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation. Phys. Rev. E , 74:011909, Jul 2006

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Strategic decisions of new technology adoption under asymmetric information: a game-theoretic model

    Kevin Zhu and John P Weyant. Strategic decisions of new technology adoption under asymmetric information: a game-theoretic model. Decision sciences, 34(4):643–675, 2003

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Coordination Dynamics in Technology Adoption: Lessons From an Evolutionary Game Theoretical Analysis , pages 295–326

    Ndidi Bianca Ogbo and The Anh Han. Coordination Dynamics in Technology Adoption: Lessons From an Evolutionary Game Theoretical Analysis , pages 295–326. Multisector Insights in Health- care, Social Sciences, Society, and Technology. IGI Global, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Emergence of coordination with asymmetric benefits via prior commitment

    Ogbo Ndidi Bianca and The Anh Han. Emergence of coordination with asymmetric benefits via prior commitment. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings, pages 163–170. MIT Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: a quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling

    Sheshadri Chatterjee and Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee. Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: a quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies, 25:3443–3463, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Factors influencing university students’ behavioural intention to use generative artificial intelligence for educational purposes based on a revised UTAUT2 model

    Xin Tang, Zhiqiang Yuan, and Shaojun Qu. Factors influencing university students’ behavioural intention to use generative artificial intelligence for educational purposes based on a revised UTAUT2 model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 41(1), 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    The role of behavioral intention in ai adoption and student success in higher education institutions: A utaut2 perspective

    Muhammad Munawar Hussain, Shazia Hanif, Khadija Ghauri, and Qurat ul Ain. The role of behavioral intention in ai adoption and student success in higher education institutions: A utaut2 perspective. Indus Journal of Social Sciences , 3(2):341–357, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Rethinking assessment in higher education : learning for the longer term

    David Boud and Nancy Falchikov. Rethinking assessment in higher education : learning for the longer term. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    The Evolution of Cooperation

    Robert Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation . Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02122-2, 1984

    work page 1984

  31. [31]

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

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    Powers, and Filippo Zimmaro

    Zainab Alalawi, Paolo Bova, Theodor Cimpeanu, Alessandro Di Stefano, Manh Hong Duong, Elias Fern´ andez Domingos, The Anh Han, Marcus Krellner, Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Simon T. Powers, and Filippo Zimmaro. Trust ai regulation? discerning users are vital to build trust and effective ai regulation. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 508:129627, 2026

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    Shake on it: The role of commitments and the evolution of coordination in networks of technology firms

    Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Theodor Cimpeanu, Alessandro Di Stefano, and The Anh Han. Shake on it: The role of commitments and the evolution of coordination in networks of technology firms. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 34, volume 2022, page 41. MIT Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Evolution of coordination through institutional incentives: An evolutionary game theory approach

    Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Zhao Song, and The Anh Han. Evolution of coordination through institutional incentives: An evolutionary game theory approach. In Proceedings of the 2025 7th International Conference on Distributed Artificial Intelligence , DAI ’25, page 38–47, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Evolution of coordination in pairwise and multi-player interactions via prior commitments

    Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Aiman Elragig, and The Anh Han. Evolution of coordination in pairwise and multi-player interactions via prior commitments. Adaptive Behavior, 30(3):257–277, 2022. 11

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    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

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Game-theoretic analysis of the collaborative relationship between teachers and students in the application of chatgpt in higher education

    Qianshun Yuan. Game-theoretic analysis of the collaborative relationship between teachers and students in the application of chatgpt in higher education. In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Education Innovation and Technology (ICEIT) , pages 344–349. IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Evolutionary game analysis of ar- tificial intelligence such as the generative pre-trained transformer in future education.Sustainability, 15(12):9355, 2023

    Yanwei You, Yuquan Chen, Yujun You, Qi Zhang, and Qiang Cao. Evolutionary game analysis of ar- tificial intelligence such as the generative pre-trained transformer in future education.Sustainability, 15(12):9355, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection

    Arne Traulsen and Martin A Nowak. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(29):10952–10955, 2006

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue

    Rola Ajjawi and David Boud. Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 43(7):1106–1119, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy

    Elizabeth Molloy, David Boud, and Michael Henderson. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45(4):527–540, 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    L. A. Imhof, D. Fudenberg, and Martin A. Nowak. Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 102:10797–10800, 2005

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Designing assessment in a digital world: an organising framework

    Margaret Bearman, Juuso Henrik Nieminen, and Rola Ajjawi. Designing assessment in a digital world: an organising framework. Assessment and evaluation in higher education , 48(3):291–304, 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Lodge, Sarah Howard, Margaret Bearman, Phillip Dawson, and Associates

    Jason M. Lodge, Sarah Howard, Margaret Bearman, Phillip Dawson, and Associates. Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence, September 2023

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Generative ai and academic integrity in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda

    Kyle Bittle and Omar El-Gayar. Generative ai and academic integrity in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Information, 16(4), 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Cooperation versus social welfare

    The Anh Han, Zhao Song, Theodor Cimpeanu, Manh Hong Duong, Marcus Krellner, Valerio Capraro, and Matjaz Perc. Cooperation versus social welfare. Physics of Life Reviews , 56:33–60, 2026. 12

    work page 2026