Talk:Solution concept

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Battle_of_the_sexes_(game_theory)#Burning_money|burning money game]] The anchor (Burning money) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Definition[edit]

"A strictly dominated strategy is one for which there is a strategy that a player is always better off playing and so a rational player would never play such a strategy." (Under rationalizability & Iterated Dominance) Is there something wrong with this definition?

Yes, I think so. It's not very clear. I'm going to change it. -- nybbles 07:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backward induction and Subgame perfect?[edit]

Can someone tell me why there are two different sections for Subgame Perfect Equilibria and Backward Induction? I may be remembering wrongly, but I thought that Backward Induction was a process that identified all and only SPE in a game. Is this right? If so, why does it constitute a seperate Solution Concept? Thanks! --Kzollman 23:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Subgame perfection is a generalisation of backward induction, but backward induction can only be applied in finite games of perfect information. Infinite games and games of imperfect information can have subgame perfect equilibria however. I think there is enough information in the backward induction article to merit two separate articles. Someone looking up backward induction doesn't want to trawl through the subgame perfection article trying to extract information relevant only to backward induction and both articles are too large to merge. As it is, I say keep them separate. Treborbassett 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I wasn't suggesting merging the two articles. I was just suggesting merging the two sections in this article. This article will need to get much longer in order to be complete. This is why I'm concerned. There are many equilibrium concepts that are currently not in wikipedia, including Trembling hand perfect equilibrium, Correlated equilibrium, Risk dominant equilibrium, Self-confirming equilibrium... you get my point. In addition, the section on rationalizability will need to be expanded. I'm fine to keep the sections seperate, however. --Kzollman 03:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes point taken. But I think they should remain separate, since merging those sections would either involve losing important information or not gaining in terms of space. I agree this article is far from complete. Treborbassett 06:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WPGT[edit]

Hello, if you're interested in this page, there is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory. Please chime in if you know something! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refinements[edit]

Equilibrium refinement redirects here, but it is not discussed on this page. We could add a subsection on 'refinements' under 'Nash equilibrium'. We should be careful to distinguish between 'solution concepts' and 'refinements'. In particular, the quantal response equilibrium page points out that QRE is not a refinement. I assume what's meant is that it is not a subset of Nash equilibrium with more robust properties; instead, it is a different equilibrium concept that makes predictions which may be quite different from Nash. Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake-- I didn't read the page carefully enough. I'm putting refinement in bold since this is the page where it is defined. Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Solution” vs. “strategy profile”[edit]

What’s the relationship between these? (Are the terms synonymous??)

The article will be much more helpful if this can be clarified (within the article or by reference to another). SquisherDa (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Definition[edit]

The article states a formal definition of a solution concept, then gives several examples of solution concepts. However, none of the examples feature a formal definition. This seems strange.

It would be more consistent for the article to feature a formal definition (or, at least, a reference to one) for each example.

That said, these definitions can be quite involved, so it might even be better to omit the formality entirely. Chisquared (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]