ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Evolution of noisy learning in games.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of noisy learning in games.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People make strategic decisions many times a day-during negotiations, when coordinating actions with others, or when choosing partners for cooperation. The resulting dynamics can be studied with learning theory and evolutionary game theory. These frameworks explore how people adapt their decisions over time, in light of how effective their strategies have been. The outcomes of such learning processes depend on how sensitive individuals are to the performance of their strategies. When they are more sensitive, they systematically favor strategies they deem more successful. When they are less sensitive, their learning process is noisier and more erratic. Traditionally, most models treat this sensitivity as a fixed parameter-like the "selection strength" parameter in evolutionary models. Instead, we study how strategies and sensitivities coevolve. We find that the coevolutionary endpoints depend on both the type of strategic interaction and the learning rule employed. In prisoner's dilemmas, we often observe sensitivities to increase indefinitely. But in snowdrift and stag-hunt games, sensitivities often converge to a finite value, or we observe evolutionary branching altogether. These results shed light on how evolution might shape learning mechanisms for social behavior. They suggest that noisy learning does not need to be a by-product of cognitive constraints. Instead, it can serve as a means to gain strategic advantages.
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.