Jump to content

Talk:Quantal response equilibrium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

This page contains a link to the disambiguation page "equilibrium". Please change the link to point directly to the most appropriate specific page, e.g. [[Correlated equilibrium|equilibrium]] which displays as equilibrium. Thanks. --Coppertwig 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone in the updated version Cretog8 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff needed

[edit]
  • Haile et al criticism that QRE can in principle explain any data.
  • Then, also needs response of reasonable restrictions and Regular QRE.
  • historical/conceptual ties to Luce, McFadden, purification
  • Logit QRE specifically
  • Interpreting QRE (Logit specifically)
  • Examples (Traveler's Dilemma?)
  • Usefulness for experimental data
  • IIA trouble
  • For extensive forms, AQRE
  • Maybe continuous analogues?

Cretog8 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

generalization of Nash equilibrium?

[edit]

Goeree, Holt, and Palfrey say in their New Palgrave article that QRE is a generalization of Nash equilibrium. I should take them at their word, but I'm not quite comfortable with that yet.Cretog8 (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Nash equilibrium is the limit of QRE as lambda approaches infinity, this is a question of whether the limit is part of the set. Almost analogously - but please correct me if you can! - to the questions of whether infinity is a number (which it is conventionally not), and whether 1/0 is a fraction (which it is conventionally not).Elias (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

[edit]

I'm not positive how this would best be categorized. If forced (which I'm not, which is why it's here), I'd do:

Quantal response equilibrium
Solution concept in game theory
Relationship
Subset ofBayes Nash equilibrium
Superset ofNash equilibrium, Logit equilibrium
Significance
Proposed byRichard McKelvey and Thomas Palfrey
Used forNon-cooperative games
ExampleTraveler's dilemma

Cretog8 (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O well, I'll go for it. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


lambda parameter

[edit]

Vandal took down explanation of lambda parameter - this user has had issues with wikipedia administration in the past and has been reported https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Attic_Salt#Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_closure_of_RfC_by_involved_editor_.2B_alteration_of_others.27_talk_page_comments

Critiques

[edit]

Someone posted a critique, when the paper clearly says it is not a critique of QRE. Please read papers and understand them clearly before you post summaries and references to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.207 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would be welcome if you made an honest attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia project and stopped citing your own papers in embarrassing self-promotion. Attic Salt (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are proposing a (notable) challenge to the concept of QRE. Wikipedia's style is to nest things like challenges under a "Critiques" section. Just because the authors say "this is not meant as a critique" doesn't mean that it doesn't fit in such a section. If you understand the context, when they say "this is not a critique" they mean that the paper isn't meant as a claim of blowing up QRE as a concept. But, frankly, they *are* critiquing QRE. Why you think this disagreement gives you free range to vomit your self-citations all over this page again is beyond me. WeakTrain (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend responding. They are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a fair manner. That, and they are evading their block. Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 04:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]