The collective-risk dilemma has become a paradigm for studying cooperation in a wide variety of social experiments, initiatives that generate increasingly rich datasets describing individual actions over successive decision-making processes. Beyond the purely descriptive analysis of such empirical datasets, a methodological framework is required to interpret and reproduce the observed dynamics, a scheme that may be skewed by exogenous biases. Here, we introduce a data-driven, non-parametric method for simulating individual decisions together with a validation protocol for assessing the fidelity level of the outcomes they generate. Our methodological contribution is based on an empirical heuristic ensemble: agents are represented by a finite set of behavioural heuristics, probabilities conditioned on different observable features of the game state, endowed with a hard-voting arbitration that determines their per-round final decisions. This reproducible generative framework allows for behavioural inference in different collective-risk dilemma setups: Behavioural heuristics are seeded directly from empirical data assessing conditional probabilities, without a priori assumptions; a plurality vote with uniform random tie-breaking resolves between competing heuristics each round, adding no free parameters; validation follows a pattern-oriented approach, comparing synthetic and empirical macro-indicators against single-heuristic and uniform-random baselines; synthetic data generated allow exploration of scenarios or experimental setups that have not been empirically realised; as a worked example, we instantiate our methodological approach on the xAire citizen science collective-risk dilemma experiment run in Barcelona.

翻译：暂无翻译