Talk:Quantal response equilibrium

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. equilibrium which displays as equilibrium. Thanks. --Coppertwig 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


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

Stuff needed
Cretog8 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?

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)

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)

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)


 * O well, I'll go for it. C RETOG 8(t/c) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)