Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 561

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prisoner’s dilemma game model Based on historical strategy information

Open access
Gou, Zhiqiang, Li, Ya·2023·Scientific Reports

Abstract

In many dilemmas, decisions are determined not by a single factor, but by multiple ones, including memory, reputation, reward and punishment. In recent years, how to design a mechanism to promote cooperation has become a research hot-spot. However, most of the previous studies mainly consider the historical benefits of the game, and pay less attention to the stability of the strategy (the frequency of strategy changes in the length of memory) and the proportion of memory in decision-making. The decision-making process of group evolution involves the influence of memory information on cooperative evolution in multi round games. It makes up for the lack of stability factors and weights in previous studies. Based on the above factors, a new strategy update rule is proposed to study the influence of the stability of historical strategy information on the evolution of cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma game, and the influence of memory weight on cooperation is considered. The stability of the current strategy is measured by the strategy in historical memory (the number of times the strategy in memory is continuous and consistent with the current strategy), which can determine the probability of an individual learning the neighbor strategy next time. Numerical simulation shows that an appropriate increase in the length of historical memory is more conducive to the emergence of cooperation, and the greater the weight of historical strategy information is, the more conducive to promoting cooperation, which shows that historical strategy information is still the main factor in decision-making. This study will help us understand the cooperative evolution of many real systems, such as nature, biology, society and so on, and effectively design reasonable mechanisms to promote cooperation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-26890-9

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 561

Metadata

Authors
Gou, Z., & Li, Y.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2023-01-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313478500
Cited by
561
References
45
FWCI
244.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prisoner’s dilemma game model Based on historical strategy information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-022-26890-9
The paper
Gou, Z., & Li, Y. (2023). Prisoner’s dilemma game model Based on historical strategy information. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26890-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.