Co-evolution of social reward and punishment under institutional interventions

We investigate how peer and institutional incentives jointly shape the evolution of cooperation, social welfare, and enforcement efficiency in social dilemmas. In a Prisoners Dilemma with four strategies, unconditional cooperators (C), defectors (D), social punishers (SP), and social rewarders (SR), we allow decentralised peer incentives and centralised institutional incentives to act simultaneously, with the institution able to reward or punish any subset of strategies. In infinite well-mixed populations, we analyse the resulting four-strategy replicator dynamics, and in structured populations we use agent-based simulations on square lattices to study spatial effects and network reciprocity. Intervention schemes are evaluated by equilibrium states and evolutionary flow for infinite well-mixed populations, by cooperation levels and social welfare for structured populations, defined as aggregate population payoff net of institutional cost. We find that peer punishment most strongly promotes cooperation, whereas peer reward is more beneficial for social welfare. Institutionally rewarding peer incentive strategies substantially improves both cooperation and welfare, while subsidising unconditional cooperators has little impact. Under institutional punishment, directly penalising defectors is the only consistently effective policy; punishing peer incentive strategies dismantles decentralised incentives, reduces cooperation, and harms social welfare, showing that maximising cooperation does not necessarily optimise overall societal benefit. Our findings provide design principles for institutions seeking to balance cooperation promotion with welfare maximisation.

Social welfare optimisation under institutional reward and punishment

Institutional incentives are widely used to promote cooperation among autonomous, self-regarding agents, from human societies to multi-agent and AI systems. Existing work typically treats incentive design as a bi-objective problem: minimise institutional cost while achieving a high long-run frequency of cooperation. Whether such schemes also maximise social welfare - total population payoff net of institutional expenditure - has remained largely unexplored. We develop a welfare-centric framework for institutional incentives in finite, well-mixed populations playing a social dilemma (Donation Game and Public Goods Game), considering both rewards for cooperators and punishments for defectors. For each mechanism, we derive explicit expressions for expected social welfare and characterise how it depends on incentive efficiency and selection intensity. Analytically, we identify parameter regimes where social welfare has a single optimal incentive level and regimes with qualitative phase transitions, in which welfare becomes non-monotonic with multiple local optima. We prove that any welfare-maximising incentive is either zero or concentrated around a simple closed-form target, and we provide an efficient algorithm to compute these optima. Comparing reward and punishment, we further derive close-formed conditions under which reward outperform punishment in terms of social welfare for any given budget. Overall, our results reveal a systematic gap between incentives optimised for cost or cooperation frequency and those that maximise welfare.

Social welfare optimisation in well-mixed and structured populations

Research on promoting cooperation among autonomous, self-regarding agents has often focused on the bi-objective optimisation problem: minimising the total incentive cost while maximising the frequency of cooperation. However, the optimal value of social welfare under such constraints remains largely unexplored. In this work, we hypothesise that achieving maximal social welfare is not guaranteed at the minimal incentive cost required to drive agents to a desired cooperative state. To address this gap, we adopt to a single-objective approach focused on maximising social welfare, building upon foundational evolutionary game theory models that examined cost efficiency in finite populations, in both well-mixed and structured population settings. Our analytical model and agent-based simulations show how different interference strategies, including rewarding local versus global behavioural patterns, affect social welfare and dynamics of cooperation. Our results reveal a significant gap in the per-individual incentive cost between optimising for pure cost efficiency or cooperation frequency and optimising for maximal social welfare. Overall, our findings indicate that incentive design, policy, and benchmarking in multi-agent systems and human societies should prioritise welfare-centric objectives over proxy targets of cost or cooperation frequency.