Indirect reciprocity with abductive reasoning

Indirect reciprocity is a reputational mechanism through which cooperative behavior can be promoted amongst a group of individuals. However, in order for this mechanism to effectively do so, cheating must be appropriately punished and cooperating appropriately rewarded. Errors in assessments and actions can hinder this process. In such a setting, individuals might try to reason about evidence to assign reputations given the possibility of errors. Here, we consider a well-established theory of reasoning used to combine evidence, abductive reasoning, as a possible means by which such errors can be circumvented. Specifically, we use Dempster-Shafer theory to model individuals who account for possible errors by combining information about their beliefs about the status of the population and the errors rates, and then choose the simplest scenario that could explain their observations in the context of these beliefs. We investigate the effectiveness of abductive reasoning at promoting cooperation for five social norms: Scoring, Shunning, Simple Standing, Staying, and Stern Judging. We find that, generally, abductive reasoning can outperform non-reasoning models at ameliorating the effects of the aforementioned challenges and promote higher levels of cooperation under low-error conditions. However, for high-error conditions, we find that abductive reasoning can undermine cooperation. Furthermore, we also find that a degree of falsification bias can help sustain cooperators.