Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39560854›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2025

Revisiting institutional punishment in the N-person prisoner's dilemma.

Bianca Y S Ishikawa, José F Fontanari

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bianca Y S IshikawaInstituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos São Paulo, 13560-970, Brazil.
José F FontanariInstituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos São Paulo, 13560-970, Brazil. fontanari@ifsc.usp.br.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 305620/2021-5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The conflict between individual and collective interests makes fostering cooperation in human societies a challenging task, requiring drastic measures such as the establishment of sanctioning institutions. These institutions are costly because they have to be maintained regardless of the presence or absence of offenders. Here, we revisit some improvements to the standard N-person prisoner's dilemma formulation with institutional punishment in a well-mixed population, namely the elimination of overpunishment, the requirement of a minimum number of contributors to establish the sanctioning institution, and the sharing of its maintenance costs once this minimum number is reached. In addition, we focus on large groups or communities for which sanctioning institutions are ubiquitous. Using the replicator equation framework for an infinite population, we find that by sufficiently fining players who fail to contribute either to the public good or to the sanctioning institution, a population of contributors immune to invasion by these free riders can be established, provided that the contributors are sufficiently numerous. In a finite population, we use finite-size scaling to show that, for some parameter settings, demographic noise helps to fixate the strategy that contributes to the public good but not to the sanctioning institution even for infinitely large populations when, somewhat counterintuitively, its proportion in the initial population vanishes with a small power of the population size.

Indexed as

Game TheoryPrisoner DilemmaPunishmentCooperative BehaviorHumansModels, TheoreticalPopulation DensityDemographic noiseEvolutionary gamesEvolution of cooperationFinite-size scalingPublic goods gamesReplicator equation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.