Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41464070›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Decision-Making in Repeated Games: Insights from Active Inference.

Hui Yuan, Ligang Wang, Wenbin Gao, Ting Tao, Chunlei Fan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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

5 authors.

Hui YuanState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.ORCID 0009-0000-5112-0094
Ligang WangState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
Wenbin GaoState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
Ting TaoState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
Chunlei FanState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.

Funding

National Science and Technology Major Project 2022ZD0116403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review systematically explores the potential of the active inference framework in illuminating the cognitive mechanisms of decision-making in repeated games. Repeated games, characterized by multi-round interactions and social uncertainty, closely resemble real-world social scenarios in which the decision-making process involves interconnected cognitive components such as inference, policy selection, and learning. Unlike traditional reinforcement learning models, active inference, grounded in the principle of free energy minimization, unifies perception, learning, planning, and action within a single generative model. Belief updating occurs by minimizing variational free energy, while the exploration-exploitation dilemma is balanced by minimizing expected free energy. Based on partially observable Markov decision processes, the framework naturally incorporates social uncertainty, and its hierarchical structure allows for simulating mentalizing processes, providing a unified account of social decision-making. Future research can further validate its effectiveness through model simulations and behavioral fitting.

Indexed as

active inferencecomputational modelingdecision-makingrepeated games

Identifiers

PMID41464070
PMCPMC12729794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.