A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game
Abstract
The Prisoner's Dilemma is the leading metaphor for the evolution of cooperative behaviour in populations of selfish agents, especially since the well-known computer tournaments of Axelrod and their application to biological communities. In Axelrod's simulations, the simple strategy tit-for-tat did outstandingly well and subsequently became the major paradigm for reciprocal altruism. Here we present extended evolutionary simulations of heterogeneous ensembles of probabilistic strategies including mutation and selection, and report the unexpected success of another protagonist: Pavlov. This strategy is as simple as tit-for-tat and embodies the fundamental behavioural mechanism win-stay, lose-shift, which seems to be a widespread rule. Pavlov's success is based on two important advantages over tit-for-tat: it can correct occasional mistakes and exploit unconditional cooperators. This second feature prevents Pavlov populations from being undermined by unconditional cooperators, which in turn invite defectors. Pavlov seems to be more robust than tit-for-tat, suggesting that cooperative behaviour in natural situations may often be based on win-stay, lose-shift.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The simulations display occasional bursts of defection, which are based on a previous build-up of undiscriminating altruists.
“The simulations display occasional bursts of defection, which are based on a previous build-up of undiscriminating altruists.”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
In a population of discriminators, unconditional cooperators can increase by random drift and eventually invite the invasion of defectors.
“In a population of discriminators, unconditional cooperators can increase by random drift and eventually invite the invasion of defectors.”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
The cooperative outcome in the indirect reciprocity model lacks stability.
“The second issue concerns the lack of stability of the cooperative outcome.”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
Individual-based simulations show that if the cost-to-benefit ratio is sufficiently low, and the amount of information about the co-player's past sufficiently high, cooperation based on discrimination can emerge.
“Individual-based simulations show that if the cost-to-benefit ratio is sufficiently low, and the amount of information about the co-player's past sufficiently high, cooperation based on discrimination can emerge.”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
In the resulting population, help is channelled towards those who help.
“In the resulting population, help is channelled towards those who help 35-37 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
A more sophisticated assessment rule should distinguish between justified and unjustified defection, taking into account the score of the receiver.
“A more sophisticated assessment rule should distinguish between justified and unjustified defection, and thus take into account the score of the receiver: someone withholding help from a 'bad' player should not pay with a reduced score 35,38,39,47 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
The concept of justified defection requires information about the past of the co-player, the co-player's co-players, and their co-players etc.
“The problem with the concept of justified defection, however, is that it requires information, not only about the past of the co-player, but also the past of the co-player's co-players, and their co-players etc 35,39 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
Private lists of the scores of co-players are very plausible if individual interactions are only observed by a fraction of the population.
“Such private lists of the scores of co-players are very plausible if individual interactions are only observed by a fraction of the population 35 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
Observer Tit For Tat relies on reputation in the first round and on personal experience in all further rounds against the same co-player.
“Observer Tit For Tat relies on reputation in the first round and on personal experience in all further rounds against the same co-player.”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
A good strategy for the latter (interested audiences) is Observer Tit For Tat.
“A good strategy for the latter is Observer Tit For Tat 35,68 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
Often there is evidence for a dual motivation: players give donations if the recipient's score is high or their own score is low.
“Often there is evidence for a dual motivation players give donations if the recipient's score is high or their own score is low 35 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
For indirect reciprocity, a similar rule holds: the probability q to know the social score of another person must exceed the cost-to-benefit ratio.
“For indirect reciprocity a similar rule holds 35 : the probability, q , to know the social score of another person must exceed the cost to benefit ratio”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
In a natural extension of the basic model of indirect reciprocity, an action between a donor and a recipient is observed by a subset of the population.
“In a natural extension of the basic model of indirect reciprocity, an action between a donor, A, and a recipient, B, is observed by a subset of the population 35 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation
Nowak, M. A. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1133755 · Cited by 5,894 · see citing works
Self-citationEvolution of indirect reciprocity
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04131 · Cited by 2,762 · see citing works
Self-citationEmpirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868306294907 · Cited by 2,171 · see citing works
Using game theory and Competition-based Learning to stimulate student motivation and performance
Burguillo, J. C. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018 · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks
Fu, F., Hauert, C., Nowak, M. A., & Wang, L. (2008) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.78.026117 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
Self-citationTo give and to give not: the behavioral ecology of human food transfers
Gurven, M. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000123 · Cited by 582 · see citing works
Theory of mind—evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology
Brüne, M., & Brüne-Cohrs, U. (2006) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.08.001 · Cited by 540 · see citing works
A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2003) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00154-1 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Evolution of cooperation in stochastic games
Hilbe, C., Šimsa, Š., Chatterjee, K., & Nowak, M. A. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0277-x · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Self-citationAnti-social punishment can prevent the co-evolution of punishment and cooperation
Rand, D. G., Armao IV, J. J., Nakamaru, M., & Ohtsuki, H. (2010) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.06.010 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Fehl, K., van der Post, D. J., & Semmann, D. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01615.x · Cited by 220 · see citing works
The smart potential behind probability matching
Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.007 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Neuronal Prediction of Opponent’s Behavior during Cooperative Social Interchange in Primates
Haroush, K., & Williams, Z. M. (2015) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.045 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Behavioural evidence for a transparency–efficiency tradeoff in human–machine cooperation
Ishowo-Oloko, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Soroye, Z., Crandall, J., Rahwan, I., & Rahwan, T. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0113-5 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Repeated games and direct reciprocity under active linking
Pacheco, J. M., Traulsen, A., Ohtsuki, H., & Nowak, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.10.040 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Self-citationA multi-agent reinforcement learning model of common-pool resource appropriation
Perolat, J., Leibo, J. Z., Zambaldi, V., Beattie, C., Tuyls, K., & Graepel, T. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.06600 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Maintaining cooperation in complex social dilemmas using deep reinforcement learning
Lerer, A., & Peysakhovich, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.01068 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Ermakova, A. O., Knolle, F., Justicia, A., Bullmore, E. T., Jones, P. B., Robbins, T. W., Fletcher, P. C., & Murray, G. K. (2018) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-018-0056-2 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Small Groups and Long Memories Promote Cooperation
Stewart, A. J., & Plotkin, J. B. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep26889 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Folloni, D., Fouragnan, E., Wittmann, M. K., Roumazeilles, L., Tankelevitch, L., Verhagen, L., Attali, D., Aubry, J.-F., Sallet, J., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abg7700 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Yarkoni, T., Gray, J. R., Chrastil, E. R., Barch, D. M., Green, L., & Braver, T. S. (2005) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.013 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Costs for switching partners reduce network dynamics but not cooperative behaviour
Bednarik, P., Fehl, K., & Semmann, D. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1661 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Learning Reciprocity in Complex Sequential Social Dilemmas
Eccles, T., Hughes, E., Kramár, J., Wheelwright, S., & Leibo, J. Z. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.08082 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Donovan, A., Ryan, E., & Wood, R. I. (2020) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104803 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Chen, Q., Ilami, S., Lore, N., & Heydari, B. (2026) · Journal of Mechanical Design · doi:10.1115/1.4070755 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Integrated Design and Governance of Agentic AI Systems through Adaptive Information Modulation
Chen, Q., Ilami, S., Lore, N., & Heydari, B. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/31225 · Cited by 2,700 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 1993-07
- Volume
- 364
- Issue
- 6432
- Pages
- 56-58
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W1979025384
- Cited by
- 1,797
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 92
- FWCI
- 145.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- prisoner's dilemma, win-stay lose-shift, tit-for-tat, evolution of cooperation, reciprocal altruism, probabilistic strategies, evolutionary dynamics, mutation and selection, unconditional cooperation, defectors, Axelrod tournaments
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Cooperative Behavior, Biological Evolution, Game Theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review