Talk:Quantal response equilibrium

Quantal response equilibrium
Quantal response equilibrium
Solution concept in game theory
Relationship
Subset of	Bayes Nash equilibrium
Superset of	Nash equilibrium, Logit equilibrium
Significance
Proposed by	Richard McKelvey and Thomas Palfrey
Used for	Non-cooperative games
Example	Traveler's dilemma

Game theory Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disambiguation link repair: Expert knowledge needed!

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

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?

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

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:

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

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

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 Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]