ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Payoff equivalence and complete strategy spaces of direct reciprocity.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to Sacco: Complete spaces as outcomes of evolutionary optimization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Completeness as a fitness landscape for cognitive architectures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Repeated games and stochastic games are important frameworks to study direct reciprocity. Individuals react strategically to their coplayers' previous behavior. While strategies in such games can be arbitrarily complex, explorations of evolutionary dynamics are often done in specific strategy spaces. Individuals may consider a fixed number of past rounds, or only some of the partner's previous actions. Such restrictions can make the interpretation of the results difficult. Strategies found to be superior within a restricted set may lose stability when more complex strategies are permitted. We discuss two notions of completeness that rule out this possibility. If a strategy space, S, is best-reply-complete, then any strategy in S is guaranteed to have a best reply in S. If a space, S, is payoff-complete, then any strategy playing against an opponent in S can be replaced by an equivalent strategy within S without affecting either player's payoff. Sufficient conditions for best-reply-completeness have been given in a seminal paper by Levínský et al. Here, we show that for strategies of bounded memory, the same conditions are sufficient for payoff-completeness. Furthermore, using those conditions, we illustrate how to construct many complete spaces for simple games. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of complete strategy spaces, which are particularly useful when interpreting evolutionary simulations and determining best responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.