pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31330 · v1 · pith:VXVMOE6Wnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 💻 cs.GT · cs.AI· cs.MA· math.OC· nlin.AO

Social welfare optimisation under institutional reward and punishment

Van An Nguyen , Vuong Khang Huynh , Huu Loi Bui , Hai Anh Ha , Quang Dung Le , Tan Dat Nguyen , Ngoc Ngu Nguyen , Zhao Song
show 3 more authors
Manh Hong Duong Le Hong Trang The Anh Han
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT cs.AIcs.MAmath.OCnlin.AO
keywords institutional incentivessocial welfareevolutionary game theoryreward and punishmentdonation gamepublic goods gamecooperation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Welfare-maximising incentives in social dilemmas are either zero or concentrated at a closed-form target level.

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

The paper shifts the goal of institutional incentive design from minimising cost or maximising cooperation frequency to maximising total social welfare, which is population payoff minus institutional spending. In finite populations playing the Donation Game or Public Goods Game under evolutionary dynamics, it derives explicit welfare expressions and shows that welfare as a function of incentive strength can be monotonic or exhibit phase transitions with multiple local optima. It proves that the global welfare maximum is always either no incentive or a single simple target value that can be found by an efficient algorithm, and it gives closed-form conditions on when rewards beat punishments for any fixed budget.

Core claim

Any welfare-maximising incentive is either zero or concentrated around a simple closed-form target; an efficient algorithm computes these optima. For any given budget, closed-form conditions identify when rewards produce higher social welfare than punishments. Welfare expressions depend explicitly on incentive efficiency and selection intensity, revealing parameter regimes with a single optimum and regimes with non-monotonic welfare and multiple local optima.

What carries the argument

Explicit expected-social-welfare expressions derived for reward and punishment mechanisms under Moran or imitation dynamics, used to locate maxima and compare mechanisms.

If this is right

  • Designers can replace bi-objective cost-cooperation optimisation with a single welfare objective and still obtain tractable solutions.
  • For fixed budgets, reward schemes are provably superior to punishment under explicit parameter thresholds.
  • Incentive policies that ignore welfare can produce strictly lower total payoffs even when they achieve high cooperation rates.
  • Phase transitions in welfare versus incentive strength imply that gradual increases in incentive level can suddenly create or destroy local optima.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same welfare expressions could be used to compare institutional incentives against peer-punishment or reputation mechanisms not studied here.
  • Extending the closed-form targets to structured populations or continuous strategy spaces would test how robust the zero-or-target structure remains.
  • The algorithm's efficiency suggests it could be embedded in online learning agents that adjust institutional incentives in real time.

Load-bearing premise

The populations are finite and well-mixed and evolve under standard imitation or Moran processes in the Donation and Public Goods Games with uniform incentive application.

What would settle it

Run evolutionary simulations of the Donation Game with the algorithm's computed target incentive level versus nearby levels and check whether the simulated long-run average welfare is highest at the predicted target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31330 by Hai Anh Ha, Huu Loi Bui, Le Hong Trang, Manh Hong Duong, Ngoc Ngu Nguyen, Quang Dung Le, Tan Dat Nguyen, The Anh Han, Van An Nguyen, Vuong Khang Huynh, Zhao Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the Donation Game, depending on the selection intensity, the relationship between social welfare and the institutional incentive transitions is either monotonic be￾haviour or exhibits a clear extremum. Social welfare SW(θ) as a function of the per-capita in￾stitutional cost θ, for reward in the Donation Game (DG). The shape of the social welfare function undergoes qualitative transitions with incentive … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In the Public Goods Game, depending on the selection intensity, the relation￾ship between social welfare and the institutional incentive transitions is either monotonic behaviour or exhibits a clear extremum. Shown are the numerical results for the Public Goods Game (PGG). The figures demonstrate the changes in the overall tendency of the SW curve with varying efficiency parameter (from downward-sloping fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In the Donation Game, social welfare undergoes a sharp phase transition at a critical incentive threshold under extreme selection intensities. Shown are the numerical results for the Donation Game (DG). The figures illustrate how the SW curve approaches a near-linear form under regimes β → 0 + and β → +∞, compared with its behaviour at an intermediate selection intensity. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the Public Goods Game, social welfare undergoes a sharp phase transition at a critical incentive threshold under extreme selection intensities. Shown are the numerical results for the Public Goods Game (PGG). The figures illustrate how the SW curve approaches a near-linear form under regimes β → 0 + and β → +∞, compared with its behaviour at an intermediate selection intensity. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optimal institutional incentive undergoes a sharp phase transition at a crit￾ical selection threshold, rapidly converging to its theoretical limit under strong selection. Convergence of the optimal incentive θ ∗ to theoretical limits as selection intensity β increases on a log￾arithmic scale. (Left) Theorem 2: Optimal reward incentive converging to θ∞. Simulated using the Donation Game (DG) with popula… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The efficiency threshold dictates the absolute dominance of institutional reward over punishment. Comparison of reward and punishment in the Donation Game (N = 100, b = 5.0, c = 0.2, a = 0.3). The left panel (ˆa = 0.45) shows strict dominance of the shifted reward when the theoretical efficiency condition is met (see Theorem 5), while the right panel (ˆa = 0.6) shows punishment outperforming reward when th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Efficient rewards can conflict with cost: multi-objective comparison of op￾timal incentive levels for the DG (reward case, β = 10.0). The panels show that the social-welfare–maximising incentive often differs substantially from the cost-minimising incentive as￾suming minimum cooperation targets. The figures illustrate how the incentive values that maximise SW(θ), minimise Er(θ), and satisfy cooperation-fre… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Efficient rewards can conflict with cost: multi-objective comparison of opti￾mal incentive levels for the PGG (reward case, β = 10.0). The panels show that the social￾welfare–maximising incentive can differ substantially from the cost-minimising incentive. The figures illustrate how the incentive values that maximise SW(θ), minimise Er(θ), and satisfy cooperation￾frequency thresholds vary across three rewa… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Institutional incentives are widely used to promote cooperation among autonomous, self-regarding agents, from human societies to multi-agent and AI systems. Existing work typically treats incentive design as a bi-objective problem: minimise institutional cost while achieving a high long-run frequency of cooperation. Whether such schemes also maximise social welfare - total population payoff net of institutional expenditure - has remained largely unexplored. We develop a welfare-centric framework for institutional incentives in finite, well-mixed populations playing a social dilemma (Donation Game and Public Goods Game), considering both rewards for cooperators and punishments for defectors. For each mechanism, we derive explicit expressions for expected social welfare and characterise how it depends on incentive efficiency and selection intensity. Analytically, we identify parameter regimes where social welfare has a single optimal incentive level and regimes with qualitative phase transitions, in which welfare becomes non-monotonic with multiple local optima. We prove that any welfare-maximising incentive is either zero or concentrated around a simple closed-form target, and we provide an efficient algorithm to compute these optima. Comparing reward and punishment, we further derive close-formed conditions under which reward outperform punishment in terms of social welfare for any given budget. Overall, our results reveal a systematic gap between incentives optimised for cost or cooperation frequency and those that maximise welfare.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a welfare-centric framework for institutional incentives (rewards for cooperators and punishments for defectors) in finite, well-mixed populations playing the Donation Game and Public Goods Game under standard evolutionary dynamics (Moran or imitation). It derives explicit expressions for expected social welfare as a function of incentive level, efficiency, and selection intensity; identifies regimes with single optima versus phase transitions with multiple local optima; proves that welfare-maximising incentives are either zero or concentrated at a simple closed-form target; supplies an efficient algorithm to compute the optima; and derives closed-form conditions under which reward outperforms punishment for any given budget. The analysis contrasts this welfare objective with prior cost-minimisation or cooperation-frequency objectives.

Significance. If the explicit derivations and proofs hold, the work supplies analytical tools that directly link incentive parameters to social welfare (net of institutional cost) rather than proxy objectives, including parameter regimes, closed-form targets, an algorithm, and reward-vs-punishment comparisons. These results are relevant to mechanism design in evolutionary game theory and multi-agent systems; the explicit expressions, proofs, and algorithm constitute clear strengths.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'close-formed conditions' should read 'closed-form conditions'.
  2. [§2 or §3] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the precise evolutionary update rule (Moran birth-death vs. imitation) and the exact payoff matrix entries used for the Donation Game and PGG in the derivations of expected welfare.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the manuscript, the recognition of its analytical contributions, and the recommendation for minor revision. We are pleased that the welfare-centric framework, explicit derivations, proofs, and algorithm are viewed as strengths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper sets up standard evolutionary game models (Donation Game, PGG) under Moran/imitation dynamics in finite well-mixed populations, derives explicit closed-form expressions for expected social welfare as a function of incentive parameters, and then analytically characterises optima and reward-vs-punishment comparisons. These steps are direct mathematical consequences of the payoff matrices and transition probabilities; no fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no self-definitional loops appear, and no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are invoked in the abstract or described derivation chain. The central claims remain independent of the inputs once the welfare function is written down.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard evolutionary game theory assumptions for finite populations and introduces parameters for incentive efficiency and selection intensity as inputs to the welfare expressions.

free parameters (2)
  • incentive efficiency
    Parameter measuring effectiveness of rewards or punishments per unit institutional cost; central to welfare expressions.
  • selection intensity
    Parameter controlling strength of selection in the evolutionary dynamics; affects how welfare depends on incentive levels.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Finite well-mixed populations playing social dilemmas follow standard birth-death or imitation evolutionary dynamics.
    Invoked to derive expected cooperation frequencies and payoffs under incentive mechanisms in Donation and Public Goods Games.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5803 in / 1315 out tokens · 43099 ms · 2026-06-28T20:18:01.800139+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

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Princeton University Press, 2010

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

    2010

  2. [2]

    Emergent behaviours in multi-agent systems with evolutionary game theory.AI Communications, 35(4):327–337, 2022

    The Anh Han. Emergent behaviours in multi-agent systems with evolutionary game theory.AI Communications, 35(4):327–337, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Engineering pro-sociality with autonomous agents

    Ana Paiva, Fernando Santos, and Francisco Santos. Engineering pro-sociality with autonomous agents. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    What evolutionary game theory tells us about multiagent learning

    Karl Tuyls and Simon Parsons. What evolutionary game theory tells us about multiagent learning. Artificial Intelligence, 171(7):406–416, 2007

    2007

  5. [5]

    Statistical physics of human cooperation.Physics Reports, 687:1–51, 2017

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    Game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment.Journal of theoretical biology, 299:9–20, 2012

    Marco Archetti and Istvan Scheuring. Game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment.Journal of theoretical biology, 299:9–20, 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    The evolution of cooperation.science, 211(4489):1390– 1396, 1981

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

    1981

  8. [8]

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

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

    2005

  9. [9]

    Cambridge uni- versity press, 1998

    Josef Hofbauer and Karl Sigmund.Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge uni- versity press, 1998

    1998

  10. [10]

    Social norms and human cooperation.Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(4):185–190, 2004

    Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher. Social norms and human cooperation.Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(4):185–190, 2004

    2004

  11. [11]

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

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

    2006

  12. [12]

    Cooperation versus social welfare.Physics of Life Reviews, 56:33–60, 2026

    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

    2026

  13. [13]

    Evolutionary games on graphs.Physics reports, 446(4-6):97–216, 2007

    Gy¨ orgy Szab´ o and Gabor Fath. Evolutionary games on graphs.Physics reports, 446(4-6):97–216, 2007

    2007

  14. [14]

    Reputation and reciprocity.Physics of life reviews, 46:8–45, 2023

    Chengyi Xia, Juan Wang, Matjaˇ z Perc, and Zhen Wang. Reputation and reciprocity.Physics of life reviews, 46:8–45, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Dynamic sanctioning mechanism for coop- erative multi-agent systems.Expert Systems with Applications, 296:128873, 2026

    Linjie Liu, Lichen Wang, Weiyan Niu, and Shijia Hua. Dynamic sanctioning mechanism for coop- erative multi-agent systems.Expert Systems with Applications, 296:128873, 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games.Nature communications, 2(1):434, 2011

    David G Rand and Martin A Nowak. The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games.Nature communications, 2(1):434, 2011

    2011

  17. [17]

    Phase diagrams for the spatial public goods game with pool punishment.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 83(3):036101, 2011

    Attila Szolnoki, Gy¨ orgy Szab´ o, and Matjaˇ z Perc. Phase diagrams for the spatial public goods game with pool punishment.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 83(3):036101, 2011

    2011

  18. [18]

    The genetical evolution of social behaviour

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

    1964

  19. [19]

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

    2006

  20. [20]

    M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund. Evolution of indirect reciprocity.Nature, 437(1291-1298), 2005

    2005

  21. [21]

    Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments.American Economic Review, 90(4):980–994, 2000

    Ernst Fehr and Simon G¨ achter. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments.American Economic Review, 90(4):980–994, 2000

    2000

  22. [22]

    The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4):1165–1169, 2012

    Tatsuya Sasaki, ˚Ake Br¨ annstr¨ om, Ulf Dieckmann, and Karl Sigmund. The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4):1165–1169, 2012. 20

    2012

  23. [23]

    First carrot, then stick: how the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes cooperation.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12(102):20140935, 2015

    Xiaojie Chen, Tatsuya Sasaki, ˚Ake Br¨ annstr¨ om, and Ulf Dieckmann. First carrot, then stick: how the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes cooperation.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12(102):20140935, 2015

    2015

  24. [24]

    Zaiben Sun, Xiaojie Chen, and Attila Szolnoki. State-dependent optimal incentive allocation pro- tocols for cooperation in public goods games on regular networks.IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 10(6):3975–3988, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Cost optimisation of hybrid institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 87(5):77, 2023

    Manh Hong Duong, CM Durbac, and TA Han. Cost optimisation of hybrid institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 87(5):77, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Reward and punishment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(19):10757–10762, 2001

    Karl Sigmund, Christoph Hauert, and Martin A Nowak. Reward and punishment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(19):10757–10762, 2001

    2001

  27. [27]

    Cost-efficient interventions for promoting fairness in the ultimatum game.Knowledge-Based Systems, 233:107545, 2021

    Theodor Cimpeanu, Cedric Perret, and The Anh Han. Cost-efficient interventions for promoting fairness in the ultimatum game.Knowledge-Based Systems, 233:107545, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies

    The Anh Han, Simon Lynch, Long Tran-Thanh, and Francisco C Santos. Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies. InProceedings of the 27th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pages 289–295, 2018

    2018

  29. [29]

    Exploring optimal institutional incentives for public cooperation.Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul, 79:104914, 2019

    Shengxian Wang, Xiaojie Chen, and Attila Szolnoki. Exploring optimal institutional incentives for public cooperation.Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul, 79:104914, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons.Nature, 466(7308):861–863, 2010

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

    2010

  31. [31]

    Punishing and abstaining for public goods

    Hannelore Brandt, Christoph Hauert, and Karl Sigmund. Punishing and abstaining for public goods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(2):495, 2006

    2006

  32. [32]

    Incentive strategies for the evolution of cooperation: analysis and optimization.Europhysics Letters, 136(6):68002, 2021

    Shengxian Wang, Linjie Liu, and Xiaojie Chen. Incentive strategies for the evolution of cooperation: analysis and optimization.Europhysics Letters, 136(6):68002, 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation

    The Anh Han and Long Tran-Thanh. Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation. InScientific Reports, 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Manh Hong Duong and The Anh Han. Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 477(2254):20210568, 10 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    Cost of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in games and collective risk games.Dynamic Games and Applications, pages 1–34, 2026

    Manh Hong Duong, CM Durbac, and TA Han. Cost of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in games and collective risk games.Dynamic Games and Applications, pages 1–34, 2026

    2026

  36. [36]

    The hidden costs of human cooperation

    J¨ org Gross, Caroline Graf, and Charlotte SL Rossetti. The hidden costs of human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare.J R Soc Interface, 21(220):20240547, 2024

    The Anh Han, Manh Hong Duong, and Matjaz Perc. Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare.J R Soc Interface, 21(220):20240547, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Inequity averse optimization in operational research.Eur J Oper Res, 245(2):343–359, 2015

    ¨Ozlem Karsu and Alec Morton. Inequity averse optimization in operational research.Eur J Oper Res, 245(2):343–359, 2015

    2015

  39. [39]

    The efficiency of equity.Cumb L Rev, 37:461, 2006

    John A Nyman. The efficiency of equity.Cumb L Rev, 37:461, 2006

    2006

  40. [40]

    The nash social welfare function.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 423–435, 1979

    Mamoru Kaneko and Kenjiro Nakamura. The nash social welfare function.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 423–435, 1979

    1979

  41. [41]

    Emergence of cooperation and commitment in optional prisoner’s dilemma.Applied Mathematical Modelling, 155:116603, 2026

    Zhao Song and The Anh Han. Emergence of cooperation and commitment in optional prisoner’s dilemma.Applied Mathematical Modelling, 155:116603, 2026

    2026

  42. [42]

    Via freedom to coercion: the emergence of costly punishment.science, 316(5833):1905–1907, 2007

    Christoph Hauert, Arne Traulsen, Hannelore Brandt, Martin A Nowak, and Karl Sigmund. Via freedom to coercion: the emergence of costly punishment.science, 316(5833):1905–1907, 2007

    1905

  43. [43]

    Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation.Scientific reports, 8(1):15997, 2018

    The Anh Han and Long Tran-Thanh. Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation.Scientific reports, 8(1):15997, 2018. 21

    2018

  44. [44]

    Emergence of responsible sanctions without second order free riders, antisocial punishment or spite.Scientific reports, 2(1):458, 2012

    Christian Hilbe and Arne Traulsen. Emergence of responsible sanctions without second order free riders, antisocial punishment or spite.Scientific reports, 2(1):458, 2012

    2012

  45. [45]

    Exogenous Rewards for Promoting Cooperation in Scale-Free Networks

    Theodor Cimpeanu, The Anh Han, and Francisco C Santos. Exogenous Rewards for Promoting Cooperation in Scale-Free Networks. InALIFE 2019, pages 316–323. MIT Press, 2019

    2019

  46. [46]

    Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas.Scientific reports, 9(1):16193, 2019

    Ant´ onio R G´ ois, Fernando P Santos, Jorge M Pacheco, and Francisco C Santos. Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas.Scientific reports, 9(1):16193, 2019

    2019

  47. [47]

    Evolution of coordinated punishment to enforce cooperation from an unbiased strategy space.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16(156), 2019

    Juli´ an Garc´ ıa and Arne Traulsen. Evolution of coordinated punishment to enforce cooperation from an unbiased strategy space.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16(156), 2019

    2019

  48. [48]

    Probabilistic reward or punishment promotes cooperation in evolutionary games.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 103:289–293, 2017

    Yu’e Wu, Bin Zhang, and Shuhua Zhang. Probabilistic reward or punishment promotes cooperation in evolutionary games.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 103:289–293, 2017

    2017

  49. [49]

    Evolution of trust in the n-player trust game with transformation incentive mechanism.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 22(224), 2025

    Yuyuan Liu, Lichen Wang, Ruqiang Guo, Shijia Hua, Linjie Liu, Liang Zhang, et al. Evolution of trust in the n-player trust game with transformation incentive mechanism.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 22(224), 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    A double-edged sword: Benefits and pitfalls of heterogeneous punishment in evolutionary inspection games.Scientific reports, 5(1):11027, 2015

    Matjaˇ z Perc and Attila Szolnoki. A double-edged sword: Benefits and pitfalls of heterogeneous punishment in evolutionary inspection games.Scientific reports, 5(1):11027, 2015

    2015

  51. [51]

    The hidden price of cooperation: Incentives and social welfare on networks

    Theodor Cimpeanu, Zhao Song, and The Anh Han. The hidden price of cooperation: Incentives and social welfare on networks. InArtificial Life Conference Proceedings 37, volume 2025, page 85. MIT Press, 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    Trust ai regulation? discerning users are vital to build trust and effective ai regulation

    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 Pow- ers, et al. Trust ai regulation? discerning users are vital to build trust and effective ai regulation. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 508:129627, 2026

    2026

  53. [53]

    − c+ b N−1 + N b N−1 # = N2 2 (b−c)>0 sinceb > c. For the PGG game: K=δ+N∆ = N2 2

    William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flannery.Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 22 A Proof of the main results: reward A.1 Zero Sum Transfer (a= 1) Proof of the case of zero-sum transfer (a= 1).Under the conditiona= 1, the term (a−1)θinside the bracket in the right-han...

    2007