Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Evolutionary stable state

I redirected evolutionarily stable state to evolutionarily stable strategy. Should this be redirected as well? —Ilmari Karonen

No, evolutionary stable states are broader than evolutionary stable strategies. For instance, there are evolutionary stable states made up of several different strategies, none of which are evolutionarily stable strategies. For instance, in the Nash bargaining game there is an evolutionary stable state where half the population proposes 2/3 and half the population proposes 1/3. Neither of these strategies is an evolutionary stable strategy, but nonetheless the state composed of half 2/3 half 1/3 is evolutionarily stable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
So we're using ...strategy for pure strategy equilibria and ...state for mixed equilibria? OK, makes sense to me. Will try to add something about the latter tomorrow. —Ilmari Karonen
Yeah, I think this is the standard usage, although I'm pretty new at this and so might be wrong (?!) Thanks in advance for the contributions! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think a reference to evolutionarily stable state in use, drawn from the literature would help us sort this out. A related concept (?) Evolutionarily Stable Sets of strategies, ESSets (Thomas 1985, J Math Biol 22:105-115; Schlag & Balkenborg 2001, Int. J. Game Theory 29: 571-595; Cressman 1992, Math Biosci. 108: 179-201). Note also: related to discussion above, no pure ESS can be a member of a mixed ESS, there's a simple proof for this I can't find a reference for right now.
This result (a subset of a mixed ESS cannot be an ESS) is known as the Bishop-Cannings theorem. [1]
I think we probably really ought to have one page (ESS (game theory)?) describing all these concepts, as they are so similar that having them on separate pages would likely involve excessive redundancy and cross-referencing. But let's get some reasonably good content up first before worrying about page splits/merges too much. −Ilmari Karonen 16:01:30, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
I don't understand. Is there a difference between a "evolutionary stable state" and a "mixed strategy"? Is there a signicant difference between "half the population proposes 2/3 and half the population proposes 1/3" vs. "I flip a coin, heads I propose 2/3 and tails I propose 1/3"? --DavidCary 02:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
A B
A 1, 1 0, 0
B 0, 0 1, 1
Polymorphic evolutionarily stable states are a feature of populations who each choose pure strategies while mixed strategies are strategies taken by single individuals. Your right to notice the similarity, for every evolutionarily stable state, there is a corresponding mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. However, there is not always an evolutionarily stable state for every mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. For instance, in the game to the right, there is a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium where each player plays each strategy with probability 1/2. However, this is not an evolutionarily stable state. Any perturbation away from a population composed of 1/2 A players and 1/2 B players, will benefit one or another type and lead the population toward all A or all B.
However, note that the 50/50 Nash equilibrium above is not stable, and therefore clearly not an evolutionarily stable strategy. To address the question above, I believe the distinction between mixed populations of pure strategies and pure populations of mixed strategies is irrelevant to the stability of the equilibrium, but may be significant for the evolution of a population not in equilibrium. —Ilmari Karonen 11:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rational actors

What shall we do with references to rational actors and perfect rationality? Does this warrent a special article, or can homo economicus do? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at homo economicus, and I don't think it will do for our purposes. We need a short and simple article that defines "rationality" in the pure mathematical sense, without the voluminous debate about its applicability to real people. Of course, it should link to homo economicus, for those who are interested in more than just the definition. —Ilmari Karonen 23:43:24, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Your main article on Game theory looks like a candidate to me (I'm not an expert!) Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't yet recomend Game theory although the bits it has are good, it is missing a lot of important information and represents, I think, a skewed picture of the discipline. Soon, hopefully, it will be up to snuff (See Talk:Game theory). I would recomend these pages (others feel free to discuss it):
Phew. Well, this is no doubt a really biased list, I hope that others will suggest adding and removing from this list. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think the ESS page is a B, good B. I think the Evolutionaily Stable State stuff really belongs on it's own age. I've been meaning to figure out how to unredirect, but too busy with science the last couple of weeks. I think Best response could do with some reacton coresspondence graphs, one for Game of chicken, one for Battle of the sexes (comparison and contrast of coordination and discoordination correspindences), another for a strictly dominanted game like the prisoner's dilemma. Pete.Hurd 03:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I added common knowledge to the list, thanks to an anonymous editor, its really good now. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this list- you really have a good core of articles in your field. I'm really glad, bearing in mind the recent Nobel Prize announcement (congratulations!). I will record the rough assessments in the WP 1.0 table soon, but please continue to add to this list in the meantime. I will continue to monitor this page, and check in with you again occasionally. Many thanks, Walkerma 07:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some to the list that I think meet the criteria. I also alphabetized the list. Pete.Hurd 14:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Game theory is now up to snuf, i've added it to the list. I agree with Pete that Best response should be on the list
In case you don't notice the note on our project page, we are working to correct a deficiency in references noted by the 1.0 editorial team. This deficiency is a result of an academic bias on my (and other's) part for not referencing things that are common in every textbook. We are working to overcome this :) Many pages that didn't have references before may have them now or will very soon. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We'll review these again soon. Walkerma 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have re-assessed the articles on your list at WP1.0. I am not an expert on this topic - in fact I barely understand parts of the articles - so can this group check my assessments and change any that seem wrong? Feel free to treat this table as belonging to this project, so you can add more articles and update with GAs or FAs as you see fit. I would suggest any A-Class articles might also be considered as good article candidates. Thanks again! Walkerma 05:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge Dominance (game theory) looks like A-class to me, are B+ on the WP1.0 list. Ultimatum game, Common knowledge, Nash equilibrium, Evolutionarily stable strategy, Extensive form game, and Best response all A-class, I'll nominate the aforementioned for GA unless someone has concerns about any of them. Note that Zero-sum, Complete information just need references, Rock, Paper, Scissors needs some more references, Stackelberg competition also just needs references and the restoration (?) of Image:Stackelbergmodel.jpg. Oh, here's the obligatory link to page of game theory articles needing references). Pete.Hurd 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate

Hi all - Martin suggested to me that Game theory might now be good enough to be a featured article. To let you know, before we put it up for candidacy, its recomended (required?) that it have a peer review. I think this would be a tremendous help since we will get smart non-specialists looking at the article and helping to pinpoint problems. One thing they want is that the article be relatively stable (people can keep making changes, just nothing huge). I thought I would check to see if people had things in the pipes for that article, or if I should just go ahead. Comments? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All clear from me: good for go. Pete.Hurd 21:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The request has been submitted and can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/Game theory/archive1. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Determinacy

(I originally posed this question in response to Kzollman's appeal on the CS project talk page; this seems a better place for it.) Does anyone want to mention Determinacy, either in the Game theory article or elsewhere in the project? It has of course very little to do with the sort of game theory that's of interest to economists, but some of the more "pure"-oriented participants might be interested in it. --Trovatore 02:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think it ought to be mentioned, where do you see it fitting best into the page? Pete.Hurd 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a subheader right after Game theory#Perfect information and imperfect information, maybe called "Infinite games" or some such? --Trovatore 03:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
How about adding a section about the uses of game theory in mathematics. I know thats a big awkward since its not really the same way that game theory is used in other disciplines, but that seems like the best place to me. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not just that game theory isn't used in the same way--the results of game theory (in the sense of the game theory project) really aren't used at all, beyond maybe Gale-Stewart (Blackwell games might use a tad more for all I know, but they're not the focus of the Determinacy article, in fact at the moment it's an empty section). The connection with game theory is more the objects of study (games); the main difference being that these games can last for infinitely many moves, with the outcome not known until after all infinitely many moves have been played. So I thought that might make for an interesting blurb in the "Types of games" section. --Trovatore 05:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That's cool with me too. I should have added, please put it where-ever you like. If it might go better somewhere else we can always move it. Thanks for the addition, I know very little about this area, but I know someone who is very interested in it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I took a crack at it. I tried to keep it short, given that it's a little bit of a sidelight; let me know if there's anything in particular you think should be better elaborated. And I won't be offended if you move it. --Trovatore 06:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks Trovatore! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solution concept

Okay, this page need help. Its missing many of the important solution concepts and in its current state is not very helpful. One thing I'm thinking about doing is creating a Venn Diagram of the solution concepts to illustrate their relationships to each other. I know I have one, but its currently in the wrong state, and its not complete anyway. So here it is: I would like to make a list of solution concepts that belong in this article and also their relationships to each other. Here's what I got:

There are more... so many more. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I really like the Venn diagram idea! Some of the above concepts might not fit on two dimensions, I added some to the wish list. This article feels like quite a large task, but a really valuable thing to have once it's done. Pete.Hurd 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks pete! I agree, I decided to finally do this because I wanted to know the relationship between two equilibria concepts and it took far longer than needed. Another example that the best way to figure out how to improve wikipedia is to try and use it :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I added some references mentioned above to the page. Funny, less than an hour ago in lab meeting we were wondering WTF a "symmetric Nash equilibrium" was and how it related to ES Sets... We figured either it was on WP, or we'd have to add it. Rock on. Pete.Hurd 20:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Nash equilibrium
This article is part of the equilibrium refinement series
Relationships
Subset of: Rationalizability, Correlated equilibrium
Superset of: Evolutionarily stable strategy, Subgame perfect equilibrium, Trembling hand perfect equilibrium, Perfect Bayesian equilibrium
Neither: Nothing
Significance
Discoverer: John Forbes Nash
Used for: All non-cooperative games
Example: Prisoner's dilemma

So in a desperate attempt to avoid writting a simulation program, I made this. Does it seem like the sort of thing that would be useful to add to equilibrium refinement pages? If so, should it include anything else? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. the attempt was a success.

[edit] Solution vs. equilibrium

The solution concept page says, "a solution concept is a condition which identifies the equilibria of a game." I think this should be more general to include non-equilibrium solution concepts such as Level-k reasoning ([http://www.smu.edu.sg/research/knowledgehub/Jan2005/vincent.htm introduction). When I just want to talk about equilibria, I say "equilibrium concept".

How about something like:

"In game theory, a solution concept is a formal rule for predicting how the game will be played. These predictions are called "solutions", and describe what strategies will be adopted by players, and therefore also predicts the result of the game.

"Many solution concepts, for many games, will result in more than one solution. This puts any one of the solutions in doubt, so a game theorist may apply a refinement to narrow down the solutions.

"The most commonly used solution concepts are equilibrium concepts, most famously Nash equilibrium."Cretog8 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No response, so I'm going for it. Feel free to clean up my wording. Cretog8 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Varma Division" - comments?

I just noticed a game theory article, Varma Division, being nominated for deletion as original research. I'd like some comments from the people here — has anyone ever heard of such a concept? Or, better yet, can anyone dig up a reference? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solution concept infobox

So, I went ahead and turned the thing above into a template. It can be accessed at {{infobox equilibrium}}. I need to write up some instructions for it, which I will do soon. I have added it to some of the equilibrium pages (Nash equilibrium, Evolutionarily stable strategy, Subgame perfect equilibrium), so you can see how it works. Please modify it to your hearts content! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I like it. I'm not sure what "independentof" means, though (of course I will soon, as you will be writing instructions soon, eh ; ). Also, it is nice when comparing concepts to see what sorts of conditions they satisfy, such as pareto optimality or independence of irrelevant alternatives, so another entry could be added called "satisfies", but it could end up being prohibitively lengthy. On the other hand, "subseto" and "supersetof" could get lengthy as well, and that would probably be ok. So, I tried my hand, what do you think of using it at Folk theorem (game theory)? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about using it there. Good idea. Adding a satisfies category is not a bad idea, either. I know indepedence is a crappy word, but I could think of another one for two equilibrium concepts that don't overlap at all. Any ideas? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] list of game theorists -> category

A while ago I created a list of game theorists. I was wondering if we ought to have a category for game theorists as well? In spite of having read and reread Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, I'm not sure when to use which. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't think anyone has any good idea. The advantage of a list is that it can include people that might not otherwise warrent articles by themselves. The advantages of a category is that it cleans up the Category:Game theory a little. I'm amazed at how many game theorist articles there are! There's no reason we couldn't have both, I suppose. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Since there's so much comprehension across a wide thesis. I think having both might be a good idea.-MegamanZero 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
ok, how's this (Category:Game theorists), go ahead and add any more you can think of to the list and/or category. By the way, we have two articles, Ariel Rubinstein and Ariel Rubenstein, that should be merged. Anybody have a preferential spelling? Someone who is sure should go ahead and merge them. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks great! Thanks Smmurphy. When I get a chance I'll look into Ariel Rub[e,i]nstein. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maintainers

Hi there - Recently {{Maintained}} was created. Personally I think this is a great idea. I have raised the idea of adding something similar to {{GameTheoryProject}} instead of adding the template directly to talk pages (see Template talk:Maintained). The more I think about it the more conflicted I am about it. I thought I would get other's input on this. The advantages of adding a line to {{GameTheoryProject}} is that it allows the list of responsible users to be dynamic and saves talk page space (cf. Talk:Prisoner's dilemma). The disadvantages are that it puts our less active users on the hook to verify articles they may not want to and it adds additional effort for someone to contact a possible verifier. Please say both which of these two things you would prefer to do and if you would be willing to be on the hook for some subset of our articles. Thanks. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This would be nice on controversial pages, where someone would like to make a major edit but would like to make sure that it is ok, and isn't getting any feedback on talk. But for GT articles, it doesn't seem to make sense. Is it to watch for subtle vandalism and edit creep or to watch for non-sourced edits or something else? Plus, it sound nefarious. At the same time, it seems like it would be fun to be an officiall maintainer (different from "upholder" as in upholder of the wiki, I guess). Smmurphy(Talk) 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the purpose is to distinguish articles that have someone dedicated to them from those articles that are written as jokes. (I.e. to help respond to recent criticism). I understand the worry about cabalism. The fact is, we failed with Sigenthaler. We have to find ways to show that this failure was contained to one bad example. I think this is one way to do it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see the reasons for doing this, but feel some unease. First, my sense is that some of the really good one-off anon contributions might be deterred. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Second, I'd be kind of reluctant to add my name as a maintainer to a page if I wasn't 100% happy with absolutely all the contents. Most of the game theory (but not the biology) stuff on my watchlist comes close-ish. But this feels like adding my name is an official stamp of approval, and that could send me into editorial paralysis. That being said, I see the sense in it, but fear the potential for increased wiki-reponsibility/workload. Pete.Hurd 07:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I share this worry too. Initially I thought I'd add it to most of the pages on my watchlist, but then I realized how much information I don't want to be held responsible for. I think we should probably not add a similar note to the game theory project template for just this reason. I add {{GameTheoryProject}} to anything that shows up in our category and sounds close, but I don't want to be held responsible for it. I think I will probably add {{Maintained}} to a few articles and list myself as a maintainer. Anyone else should feel free to do this with others if they like. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More topics

Don't forget Strategy Stealing Argument, Connect6, Combinatorial Game Theory, game complexity, and topics related to those. 70.111.224.85 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainpage

Hi all - I hope that everyone's new year has gone well so far. I have officially requested that Game theory be posted on the main page. No need to vote for it, but could everyone look over the brief summary I wrote and make any corrections or additions they think are appropriate? Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

hey Kevin. I suggest deleting the last sentence, the one about game shows (doesn't pay it's rent to the degree that the rest do). The first sentence is the only other one I'd change. I'm not certain how best to do it, but I think it doesn't quite get across the idea that each player's payoffs depend both on the actions they choose and also the actions other players choose. It reads a bit like maximization is a simple optimization without the strategic problem... Not easy to fix. Pete.Hurd 07:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I was too slow I'm afraid! They have just now scheduled Game theory for the Mainpage tomorrow! (For those of us in North America that will happen midday-evening tomorrow.) They usually schedule things much further in advance, something must have happened to the previously scheduled article. Anyway, I think it would be in bad form to change the summary now that its so close (as Raul may not get a chance to approve the changes and he is the czar of the mainpage). Anyway, time to hunker down for the hordes of "Poop" edits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] absorbing pre-existing articles

So what do you think about slapping Category:Game theory onto the unified neutral theory of biodiversity article? --DavidCary 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the two are related. Pete.Hurd 06:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I. Could you elaborate on how you think they share similarities for a category insertion..? -ZeroTalk 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hey Kevin, the game theory template has a field Equilibrium concepts and another Types of equilibria which seem very close to the same thing; eg. "Pooling equilibrium" and "Separating equilibrium" are in one and "Bayes-Nash equilibrium" and "Evolutionarily stable strategy" are in the other. I suggest merging them into one thing, and maybe creating a new category for "Winner's curse", "Incentive compatible" and whatever else feels like an odd-ball in the new category. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to do something about that template for some time. I understand the division, I don't think pooling and seperating equilibria are refinements but types of nash eq., i.e. their not supposed to be predictors of play but merely descriptions of solutions. Personally I don't think either are so important as to be listed in the template at all (especially as red links). Anything you think needs to go in? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd delete the Types of equilibria row, maybe add Bishop-Cannings to theorems (it's not done, but at east it's not red), nothing I feel strongly about though. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

I'm looking for an article on the English Wikipedia to interwiki from, from nl:Gevechtsstrategieën volgens Maynard Smith. I'm not sure which is the correct one. —Ruud 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruud. I'm not totally sure what the page says (I tried google's babelfish trashlation using German to English and it didn't think Dutch was as close to German as I had hoped) but I'm fairly certain that it's a presentation of Maynard Smith's Hawk-Dove model with Retaliator, Prober(?) and other strategists (as presented in Maynard Smith & Price, or Maynard Smith & Parker? I don't have the papers handy). I'm also not really certain what it means to "interwiki", but the material presented on that nl.wikipedia page seems to come closest to the en.wp page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chicken#Hawk-Dove_game except that the nl.wp page covers aspects of the Hawk-Dove game not in the en.wp page. I'm not sure whether to suggest adding the material to Game_of_chicken#Hawk-Dove_game or to unredirect Hawk-Dove_game from Game_of_chicken and start a new article... Pete.Hurd 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Interwikiing is adding a link in the artcile on the Dutch Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia (and vica-versa) which shows up in the 'in other languages' box on the left. Your right about what the article in Dutch says, so I've linked nl:Gevechtsstrategieën volgens Maynard Smith and Hawk-Dove game for now. I don't know if these 'combatstratgies according to Maynard Smith' are some notable theory or just a simple example from one of his books, so I won't bother undirecting Hawk-Dove game, unless someone can confirm that it is notable. Cheers —Ruud 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I speak German, not Dutch, but the two are similar. In German, "vogel" is a bird, so barring this being a differring word between the two, it would seem to refer to the hawk/dove game. Anyone speak dutch?--Scorpion451 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar auction

Hey guys- I cleaned up the dollar auction article yesterday, but i'm still not sure I'm explaining it clearly. If you can take a look and offer any advice, that would be great. I've also added it to the list of games in game theory. --DDG 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks great! I just fixed a minor wording thing, but otherwise it seems clear. Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Aye nicely done. There's quite a literature on this topic using they keyword "all-pay auction" that might be worth a mention as well. Cheers Pete.Hurd 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political/philosophical uses of game theory

I'm not ready to commit to expanding the sections of Game Theory about uses of game theory by philosophers or scholars of politics, but in case I pick it up someday (or someone else does -- you can dream), does anybody want to tack names, resources, or concepts onto this list? I'm casting a broad net -- rational-choice theory, experimental studies of strategy, and evolutionary psychology all count. Most of the citations below are pulled from the game theory article.

Kenneth Binmore (economist, Game Theory and the Social Contract -- partly an analysis of Rawls's Theory of Justice)

Peter Singer (ethicist, A Darwinian Left -- very brief, tries to apply game theory and evolutionary psychology to leftist politics)

Richard Posner (legal scholar who applies economic reasoning to law)

Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett (sociobiologists who have drawn bundles of conclusions about the origins of religion, sexual morality, etc., with evolutionary game theory lurking in the background)

Robert Axelrod (The Evolution of Cooperation)

Brian Skyrms (The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure, ISBN 0521533929, and Evolution of the Social Contract, ISBN 0521555833)

Elliot Sober, David Sloan Wilson (Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, ISBN 0674930479)

mutual assured destruction

voting systems

Game Theory and Ethics (has long bibliography)

Richard Bevan Braithwaite, Theory of games as a tool for the moral philosopher.

-- 69.236.168.144 23:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Prisoner's_dilemma#Perfectly_Rational

A reader has raised a particula point about the game that I'm not perfectly confident of resolving. Can one of the experts take a look at the matter? Loom91 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has gone away? Cretog8 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purification Theorem

I added a new article on Harsanyi's Purification Theorem. Any contributions and or corrections would be helpful. RegardsProfundity06 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Perhaps someone would like to go and support an award for this wikiproject on the award proposal page? The idea is about to be archived.--evrik 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2x2 game template

Left Right
Up 0, 0 0, 0
Down 0, 0 0, 0
WikiProject Game theory

Hello all! User:Trialsanderrors has been kind enough to make a very nice template for 2x2 matrices, {{2x2 game}}. I think its really nice, and it hides a lot of the ugly wikicode that I had been using in matrices before. If their are no objections, I think I'll start migrating all our pages to using that. (If its needed I may copy the code to a 3x3 game or some such...) I thought before this happens I ought to get some consensus for its use. I have included it here for reference (using it's defaults). If you want to see it in action check out Battle of the sexes (game theory) or Stag hunt. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, I've been admiring them, they are a great improvement and migration would be a good thing ... but I was wondering if there was some way to make the "vde" be less visible, or something so that readers don't mistake them for a part of the payoff matrix. I'd go so far as to endorse removing them if it's possible... Pete.Hurd 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right, They seem to be invitations to edit the payoff matrix rather than the template. I'd like to keep them in for the moment as long as we're still fine-tuning the formatting, but once we start rolling them out to other articles we should take it out. On copying the code to 3x3 games, I believe this can be done with parser functions and IF statements. (Not that I know how to program them...) ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
In for now is fine by me Pete.Hurd 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I posted some general formatting questions on the Template talk:2x2 game page. ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Long overdue, I'm phasing this one out and am replacing it with {{Payoff matrix}}. ~ trialsanderrors 10:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory Wiki

I don't know if anyone here is aware of this or not, (or even interested for that matter), but there presently exists a Game Theory Wiki which looks like something somebody started and then abandoned. I copied a couple of pages from Wikipedia over to there, but it's got quite a ways to go, to say the least. Anyways, I thought some people here might be interested in turning that Wiki into something. Have a good one! EPM 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... I had never heard of it. Personally, I don't see the point of a seperate wiki for game theory. Between Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity I think all the bases are covered. Although, if anyone has any ideas about the benefit of this wiki, I'd be interested to hear. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth / lies

Hi! (I'm not 100% sure this comes under game theory but nevertheless...) There is a classic logic problem which has many versions but basically revolves around the principle of 2 people who both know a fact that you don't (often which fork in the road to follow or, as in the film Labyrinth, which door to choose), however one of whom always lies and one of whom always tells the truth. There are a few solutions to this, but the most common involves asking one of them what the other would say.

Does anyone know where this problem originated, who (if anyone) proposed it, or what it's commonly called? (I've heard it referred to as a "Smullyan" problem, after Raymond Smullyan, however Smullyan was a twentieth century mathematician so I find it unlikely that this is how it is commonly referred.

Is this problem chronicled anywhere on Wikipedia? (I've searched with little luck!)

-- MLD · T · C · @:  15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is called knights and knaves (although I know the problem, I had to ask around to find the name). Our article does in fact attribute it to Smullyan, for what its worth. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinions

Hello all. There is a disagreement currently at Talk:Chicken (game) regarding whether or not the article Peace war game should be merged or kept separate (which stemmed from a discussion of whether or not Hawk-Dove is the same game as Chicken). Can a few other people chime in on this discussion? Thank you. (I will be out of town starting tomorrow, so I may not respond promptly.) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've written Discoordination game based on a copy of Chicken (game), I intend to redirect Chicken to Discoordination game once I am reasonably happy with the new article. The day may come when Chicken (game) and Hawk-Dove game are split out of Discoordination game to become independent articles, but I don't think that's in the immediage future. I welcome comments. Pete.Hurd 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to slap some clean-up and verification templates on Peace war game. If there's no examples of this game in the wild, then I imagine it heading for AfD. Thoughts, comments? Pete.Hurd 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think AfD is unnecessary. Just replace the article with a redirect to Discoordination game. Its proponent seems to have disappeared, and I think the creation of discoordination game addresses the issue of his that I understood. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, avoiding AfD makes sense. I expect the author will return. If he brings RS then it's a valid merge candidate, but some cleanup effort will be required. I'll slap some templates on it and leave it be for now. Pete.Hurd 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assesments

Hello all - I have added the ability to rate articles (both in terms of quality and importance to game theory) to our Template:GameTheoryProject. Take a look at the template page for instructions. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So here's how I've been thinking about the importance ranking.
How's this sound? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Aloha - Happy new year to everyone. Some time ago, User:Trialsanderrors suggested a collaboration of the week sort of thing. I think this would be a good idea, although given the time I have to dedicate, perhaps a collaboration of the month or collaboration of the fortnight might be better. If anyone thinks this might be a good idea, I'll set it up. Probably we'll just make a list of pages and rotate the list every month/fortnight. Sound cool? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with Chicken (game), Discoordination game, and Peace war game which should've been my Christmas project. Maybe we can even awake Pete.Hurd from his turkey coma... ~ trialsanderrors 07:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, ugggghhhh, whaaa, ... parental leave, tofu and beer coma... I'm half-awake now... Chicken/Hawk-Dove/Discoordination/Peace-war, good choice... Pete.Hurd 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So... Chicken/Hawk-Dove/Discoordination, one article, or three? Pete.Hurd 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say two or three. The argument that Chicken has a "popular history" that shouldn't go into the discoord article makes sense. I'm thinking the same about Hawk-Dove but you know probably more about the background on that one. Discoord should merely cover the game-theoretic aspects (and commonalities) of the games, since it's not really as strongly established in game theory or popular perception. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm down. I vote for the following: Chicken (game) makes reference to the popular history and some duplication of game theory material at discoordination game. DG contains stuff about Hawk-Dove, and peace war game become a redirect to DG. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
peace war game become a redirect to DG ← You mean PD, I assume? ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that would make more sense, since the game is actually a PD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My redirect was reverted by an anonymous editor and Mbhiii (talk · contribs) complained to me about it on my talk page. I guess this isn't closed yet. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Shesh... I think the conversation is occurring at Talk:Peace war game. Let's keep it there. I suspect the three of us (trials, pete, and myself) are in agreement, unless convinced otherwise. So for the time being, I think consensus is clearly to keep it as a redirect and the onus is on Mbhiii to convince us otherwise. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay we're up and running with a collaboration for the month, including spiffy new blue box. Who can resist contributing now? Add whatever you like to the list for future collaborations. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm, blue boxes... ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] risk dominance

I havn't been working here much recently, and I see that the average game theory article looks a lot better than it did even a few months ago. I just made a start on an article for risk dominance, but it isn't too pretty (nor is it too comprehensible, I think). Plus, it might not even be very correct. So I'm wondering (hoping?) that someone can come look at it and make any quick/easy fixes. Also, I couldn't find an extension of the concept to large games, and the article also needs a discussion of its application to evolutionary games (both things that I will try to do later, but I thought I'd mention here in case someone else was looking for something to do). Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the redlink too. I'd actually say we can merge Payoff dominant equilibrium into risk dominance. ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Payoff dominance is basically the same as Pareto dominant (and payoff dominance doesn't seem that common in the literature), so the merger would maybe be in that direction if at all.
The thing is, there isn't much work on putting together a coherent WP picture of equilibrium selection as of yet. Is anyone doing this? I've created an article at equilibrium selection, but I haven't seen the Harsyani and Selton paper, hopefully someone will have a chance to give the page (and risk dominance) a lookover. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Payoff dominance is a comparison of equilibria only, so it's the other side of the coin of risk dominance in stag hunt games. Those two things can be explained in conjunction, and risk dominance is probably the more distinctive term. I'll have a look at the article now. ~ trialsanderrors 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you meant. Umm, I guess I'm not sure. I'll be up at the library today, so I'll be able to look at the Harsany and Selton book (it isn't checked out, yes!), and depending on what I learn, I'll try to build a skeleton of articles on equilibrium selection topics... Smmurphy(Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Back to equilibrium selection, is there a concrete difference between equilibrium selection and equilibrium refinement? Cretog8 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CotM

Hello all - I have updated the collaboration of the month for February. I think the January collaboration went well. I know the article still needs some work, but I think the article(s) are much improved. However, we now have no new articles for the months to come. Please add any article that you think needs some TLC to the list. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with risk/payoff dominance. Thanks K for your efforts on the Chicken article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure, thanks to you as well! Would you rather do these two this month instead of Nash equilibrium? I can easily switch it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What's your take on the current quality of the NE article? I only scanned it, but looks like a B level article to me, so risk/payoff, which needs to be created from the ground up, might have higher urgency. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work on the last CoTM Kevin. I'm too fried to help with anything requiring thinking this month. So I have no opinion on the next CoTM choice. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Risk dominance it is. I think NE should garner our attention soon, because its such a prominent part of GT. (And I agree its a B article at best, despite its GA ranking.) We'll save NE for when your not so fried Pete :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's head over to Talk:Risk dominance for topical discussion then, and Pete will hopefully let us know when he reaches an unfried equilibrium state. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, ask and you shall recieve, eh. See you guys over there (and thanks). Smmurphy(Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I also wrote a quick stub on Stochastically stable equilibrium. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we done with risk dominance? If so we should wrap it up by deciding whether we need two articles, and what the name of the article/s should be ("dominance" or "dominant equilibrium"). ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I had wanted to add stuff, but this month has been really crazy. I could put it back as the CotM for March, put it back on the list for a future month, or leave it off. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's ok to wrap it up. Maybe if I re-read Ellison/Young/etc. in the near future I can add some more formal stuff. Improving Nash equilibrium seems the more pressing need now. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Evolutionary game theory

I created this category and replaced some uses of Category:Evolutionary dynamics with it. Feel free to revert if there is a meaningful difference between the two. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Game-theory-stub

Anyone got a good image for this? I'm still using the one from econ-stub. Nothing in game tree or extensive form game looks usable. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I switched it to the game tree used on Ultimatum game. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's better. We need someone who can convert png's into svg's though. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, people on commons keep giving my shit about that. I generate my game trees using a LaTeX package, and I have no idea how to do dvi -> svg or ps/eps -> svg conversion. (Inkscape wont' do it, or at least, I can't figure out how to do it with Inkscape.) If anybody knows how, let me know and I can easily regenerate all of these game trees as svgs. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea, and game trees would be the only use I might have for that knowledge. I have an old version of Adobe Illustrator (uninstalled), although from my experience with Photoshop and creating png files, I'm inclined to think it probably won't create useful results. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You can do eps to svg with "pstoedit -f plot-svg infile.eps outfile.svg", in the pstoedit package on Ubuntu or Fedora. Pete.Hurd 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks, Pete. I'll make these SVGs soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vNM utility

hey, there seems to be two pages-one topic: Neumann-Morgenstern utility and Expected utility hypothesis, with a mention at Utility#Expected utility. What do you think? I've put in a mergeto/from in the direction of Expected utility hypothesis... Smmurphy(Talk) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] division game

I noticed that there wasn't an article for division game. I created a stub, but I'm guessing that it already exists elsewhere, right? Its too late for me to try to guess what other names the game might have. Also, is it major enough to get a spot in the GT template? I see it as the "brother" of the ultimatum game, and equally fundamental. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know this game by the name Nash bargaining game and there is some stuff about it already. But you're right it's not in the template. Given its prominent use by my advisor (and to a lesser extent me), I think it ought to be in. I'll leave it to someone else to decide however. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I just made some edits to that last week. Division game is an rd, now. I think I'll sneak it into the template, too, and leave someone else to decided if it shouldn't. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I put it in the template.Pete.Hurd 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it called the division game often enough to have the alt name mentioned? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't heard that name before, but if you've heard it, it might as well be mentioned. It can't hurt. (P.S. WPGT is running like a well oiled machine tonight.) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Game theory sort

This was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics:

I've created categories that match the main ones in JEL classification codes, namely Category:Cooperative game, Category:Non-cooperative games,Category:Evolutionary game theory and Category:Bargaining theory. It would be great if someone could take an hour or two to categorize the large number of articles currently under Category:Game theory into these subcategories. PS, I don't know how to get a line break after the userbox. Help appreciated!JQ 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a couple letters (T-Z)... Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this JQ 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Whups, I just reverted Smmurphy's recat of Unbeatable strategy from "Evolutionary game theory" back to "Game theory". I don't think it belongs in EGT, since it makes no references to dynamics at all. If it has to be in one of those JEL subcategories (and does it?), then it belongs in Noncooperative. Pete.Hurd 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I saw ESS and recategorized unbeatable strategy without thinking much about it. Thanks for the oversight. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a few letters, then I realized that I wasn't always sure, so I stopped. It seems that a lot of these are general enough that they are used papers categorized as each of these. I guess there are a few that are obviously one or another (Shapeley value or something), but... On the other hand, I was at first happy with the idea of subcategories. What does everyone think? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, I'm in favour. Category:Game theory already has 150 articles, which is comparable to typical members of Category:Categories requiring diffusion, and there is obviously room for plenty of growth here. While the JEL subcategories aren't perfect in every case, they are as good a classification scheme as you are likely to get.JQ 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not *opposed* to recategorizing, especially those that are obvious, but JEL's economics-flavoured categories may not work well on those aspects of game theory that are primarily from other disciplines. Virtually all biological game theory is noncooperative, yet the term "noncooperative game theory" would set most biologists scratching their heads, when they wouldn't bat an eye at "game theory". Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
We can use multiple categorization schemes I think. For example, if we had a biological game theory category, articles in this category could also be classified as non-cooperative, evolutionary and so on. As an economist, my immediate, and not perfectly well-informed thought is that most biological game theory would naturally fit under "evolutionary" (since backward induction, common knowledge of rationality and so on don't seem to apply), but the discussion above suggests this thought may be wrong.
Exactly, there is very little evolutionary game theory in biology. JEL has EGT lumped correctly as "Stochastic and Dynamic games; Evolutionary games" and virtually all game theory in biology ignores explicit dynamics. Evolutionary stable strategies sort of imply a dynamic, but it's only implied. I'd say a safe heuristic would be to put all the biological models into noncooperative. If we re-cat all the out-and-out econ and leave the biological as "cat:game theory" are there really far too many left? I have a very poor feeling for the magnitude of the problem to be solved. If it's still bad, then I suppose put the biological into noncooperative, the cost to readers will work out to be very small, and they might even learn something trying to figure out WTF noncooperative game theory is. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(starting indents again). I've created Category:Biological game theory. If appropriate, relevant articles could be placed in this category and also categorized as non-cooperative, evolutionary and so on. Taking this more generally, we could use field of application as a categorization scheme, including economics, political science and so on - this would be essentially orthogonal to the JEL classification scheme.JQ 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If I can add my 2 cents. I would like to avoid exclusive categorization in a discipline specific category. I don't object to having Biological GT, Econ GT, etc. But I would not like any article to have it's only category be Bio GT, unless there is a very good reason for it. Given how very interdisciplinary GT is, even if something is primarily used in biology, putting it in such a category seems to imply it's only used there which is in almost all cases not true. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I don't see any problem in having multiple categorization schemes, different for each discipline. Ideally the biological game theory could be the top category for a classification reflecting the needs of biologists, while the same article would appear classifed as non-cooperative, co-operative etc in the scheme derived from economics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] CotM April

I'm going to leave NE for the Collaboration for April. I really haven't had a chance to edit it, and it doesn't look like others have really either. I don't know if I'll have more time in April than I did in March but perhaps others will. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah <points accusatory finger at self>. I'll still try to squeeze an article on Strategic move in, and if only to jump start the May CotM. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiBook

Anybody else noticed b:Introduction to Game Theory? Not that I have any extra time lying around to work on this project, but since WikiBooks is also a GFDL project, we might be able to steal (I mean use) some material if we find it useful. Perhaps others might be interested too... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like the flow of material will be in the other direction for a while... Pete.Hurd 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome (game theory)

I stumbled upon the article outcome (game theory), which is a rather pathetic stub. Don't we already have an article on this somewhere that this could redirect to? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my first reaction was redirect to payoff, so I clicked on the link in the outcome article... disappointing. Maybe the solution is to expand the stub into an article to cover them both? Pete.Hurd 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Which title do you think? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If I had to pick one, I'd go with "outcome" over "payoff". It's hard to believe we havn't got something written that I'm overlooking. Maybe Kevin knows of whatever it is we've overlooked. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
We maybe don't have an article on this. I think I've just referenced utility occasionally, maybe. When I get back in town on sunday I'll cheque, er check, around.  :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI in cooperative game theory outcome is a payoff-configuration/partition pair.Koczy 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow's impossibility theorem edits

Some of you might have noticed recent edits made to Arrow's impossibility theorem by User:Dr. I .D. A. MacIntyre. The edits were out of place and poorly formatted, and have been moved to the talk page to be integrated later, I guess. Anyway, Dr. MacIntyre has stated on their user page that he wishes to create a page that resolves what he calls "Arrow's paradox" (well, he says a few things, you can read it yourself). I don't know if any of you are very familiar with his work - I'm not - (assuming this is the Dr. MacIntyre), but his contributions to game theory is largely along these lines. Umm, I guess I'm bringing this to your attention because the user could probably use our help in this project (naming said article, formatting, casting references, support if things become frustrating, etc). Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, nicely put in your post to his talk page about the potential for WP:OR concerns. Yeah, an article resolving Arrow's paradox would be great, especially if it avoids WP:SYN. A more difficult problem may be documenting notable WP:SCIENCE impact and avoiding WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The Synthese paper has not been cited, and of the four Theory and Decision papers only one has been cited by anyone other than MacIntyre (the 1998 paper, which was cited twice by L Lauwers). That's according to the ISI Web of Knowledge, a more appropriate citation index may exist for this topic, it's a bit out of my area. Pete.Hurd 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at the specific situation yet. WRT citation, I don't know if there is a good citation index for philosophy. It's not a statistic often used. Synthese is a good journal, however. Theory and decision is good, but probably not as well respected as Synthese. I'm hurrying about to leave town tomorrow. I get back on Sunday, I'll try to remember to take a little more detailed look. If I forget drop me a note on my talk page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May?

Okay, the two months Nash equilibrium have been largely a bust (*bows head in shame*). Why don't we rotate to another article and put NE back on the list and work on it later? I put common knowledge (logic) on the list, because I'm taking a class on it right now. But I'll work on that myself either way, would folks prefer strategic move or perhaps outcome (game theory)? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on moving NE back, I still can't decide whether to try and fix the current article or start over from scratch. I've written three words on Strategic move so far (in userspace since it's certainly not ready to post in article space), but if no one else feels like contributing I can finish it as a stub and leave it at that. Outcome might be a better article to cooperate on, although I'd rather extend Payoff and link outcome there. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Although may is almost over, lets do payoff for may. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea where to start. Umm, so I got bold. Who knows if it is any good. Also, in order to remove a red link, I'm writing a stub for implementation theory. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think May is going so well either. Tough month, I guess. I don't know what's next for the Outcome (game theory) article, no one has changed it much since I edited it two weeks ago. I'm thinking that either it should be located at Payoff (game theory), or payoff should point to it. Any opinions on which title is better? My preference is actually payoff when it comes to game theory. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been busy. I had given this a little thought, and I think the best thing might be to have an article Game (game theory) which included a discussion of strategy (game theory), outcome (game theory), normal form game, and extensive form game. I had meant to suggest it, but forgot. What do people think of this idea? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, should also include Move (game theory) I think. Pete.Hurd 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies!

I'm sure regulars here have already noticed that I have been questioning the good article status of several Game Theory articles. I came to this because the most obvious weak GAs within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics are Best response and Nash equilibrium, and I think there is some agreement here that the latter is not currently GA standard. I have noticed (and others have too) a tendency in Game Theory articles to assume that the reader has read other articles, such as Prisoners dilemma and Stag hunt, and so understands the jargon of game theory. This really needs to be fixed, in my opinion, since most game theory articles could be much more accessible than they currently are.

I realise I may not be making myself very popular by saying this, but this project has been rather quiet recently, so I hope I might provide some incentive to reinvigorate it. Geometry guy 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particlarly re-invigorated. I'd like to have time to improve these articles (they definitely could be better) but I don't. Pete.Hurd 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What Pete said. But maybe some of the numerous editors who sign up to the WPGT and then disappear are willing to pick up the baton. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. I agree that Nash equilibrium is far from good. I've been meaning to improve it, but it's a very large task. I think Best response is good, however. I have never thought the "uninitiated reader" standard is an appropriate standard for all articles, but that rather each article should be judged by its expected audience. Best response isn't an entry point to game theory for anyone. Instead articles like Prisoner's dilemma, Nash equilibrium, and Game theory are. Articles like Best response are second tier articles, readers come to them with some knowledge wanting to learn more about game theory. If we were to write every article with an uninitiated reader in mind, articles like Fictitious play or MAPNASH would be absurdly long and would be less useful for the average reader of those articles. I think best response meets this standard. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've had a chance to look over your criticisms, I must object to your method. First, objecting to all of the articles so quickly almost guarantees that we won't be able to address all of your concerns. Why didn't you bring these up over the period of a week or two? It would have been easier on everyone. Second, your comments at Talk:Chicken (game) are extremely vague, probably because you listed so many in quick succession that you didn't feel like typing out your reasoning. Your constant deference to GA Review suggests to me that you are more interested in getting the articles delisted than having them improved. If you have complaints about the articles, why not be more specific? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicken (game) is the one which I am least sure about, which is why I have listed it at good article review for wider opinion. (I did this one first by the way.) For the others, I only mention GA/R to draw attention to the opportunity to contest my assessment. I thought about listing them all there, but decided to take responsibility (and the flak) myself. For three of them, it is not clear that they should have been listed (the reviews are superficial or non-existent). As for Nash equilibrium, why did no one here delist it in February? If it is agreed that an article is not GA, it should not be listed as GA. GA isn't a competition, it is a benchmark. I'm not complaining, I am assessing. You have all the time in the world to improve articles, but they should not be listed as GA before they meet the criteria. Geometry guy 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delist Nash Equilibrium because I don't feel I understand the GA criteria. If someone else thought it met the criteria, I would leave it alone. GA criteria have changed a lot since it was invented, and I've never really been involved in the process. I don't think the article is a very good article (based on Kevin's criteria), so I wouldn't have requested it be a GA myself. Any way, I'm hardly obligated to do anything here... Ultimatum game became a GA a long time ago, the standards may have changed since then, and I'm willing to believe that while it once met the standards it does not now. (When it was reviewed, I don't think it was required that the reviewer give any comments.) Since I don't know the standards, I can't really argue with your assessments, but your complaints sound very much like complaints I hear at WP:FAR, so I wonder if you maybe have an overly strict interpretation of the criteria. But what do I know?
I've just taken a look at some of the Category:GA-Class_physics_articles and Category:FA-Class_physics_articles articles in the wikiproject physics, to have some sense of how the inaccessiblity, and stand-alone ability of the game theory Gas compares to those in another field. The lead section of Hilbert space, Plasma (physics), Schrödinger equation, Entropy, Cosmic inflation and Casimir effect (to take a few representative examples) seem just as, if not more, jargon-filled, and assuming of knowedge of other articles as any of the game theory articles. Geometrically frustrated magnet looks far worse than any of the game theory GAs (not that that article is representative of the physics GAs). Electron beam physical vapor deposition's lead looks to my eyes to be of the same overall quality as Best response. I don't see that the physics FAs (eg: Equipartition theorem, Atomic line filter, Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector) are any more approachable by laypeople than the game theory GAs. That said, in general, the maths GAs are far better articles than the GAs in game theory, biology, or physics... Pete.Hurd 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August

I have put up Evolutionarily stable strategy for collaboration of the month (August). It was once a WP:GA (see above) and should not be hard to get it up to par. I probably won't be able to contribute too much until mid August, but perhaps others would like to. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, good choice. I ought to be able to put some effort into this, but not until the second week. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have time to look at the lead? I'm going to scratch away at later sections now. Pete.Hurd 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a look tonight or tomorrow... sorry, I've been sick (and busy). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gt template on redirect pages

I've been removing the gametheory project template from the talk pages of redirects. It's just crossed my mind that maybe I should just leave them there. Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Pete.Hurd 03:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game theory FAR

Game theory has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Prisoner's dilemma

Is a featured article review, please comment and help bring up to current featured article standards! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Level-k reasoning

See here for super-quicky intro. This is a non-equilibrium solution concept, possibly most useful for games which are played only once.Cretog8 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Choice

There's obviously lots of overlap between individual choice and game theory. I've even heard some people describe individual choice problems as "degenerate games". But it seems like there should be a reasonable distinction made. For instance, expected utility hypothesis and ambiguity aversion are both properties of individual choice, although they are relevant to many games.Cretog8 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was looking for individual choice, but decision theory has an article. Tie to there somehow?Cretog8 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equilibrium under Ambiguity

EUA is an equilibrium concept (possibly multiple similar concepts) in which game players have ambiguous beliefs. They may be ambiguity averse or maybe ambiguity loving. Folks who have worked on this include (this is not exhaustive) Dow, Werlang, Eichberger, Kelsey, Schipper, Lo, Klibanoff.Cretog8 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-Post Nash

I'm just meeting the idea of "Ex-Post Nash Equilibrium". I haven't nailed it down yet. It looks like a kind of Bayesian equilibrium. Possibly a BNE in which revelation of types wouldn't cause any player to change their move? I've seen it referenced for mechanism design.Cretog8 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nucleolus satisfactory?

"Nucleolus (Game theory)" is in the list of economics requested articles. There is a section on it at Cooperative game. I suspect that's adequate at least as a basis? Cretog8 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy article

So, there's a sad little article Strategy (game theory). It's obviously very important, but all the substance is in articles like pure strategy, mixed strategy, dominance (game theory). Any ideas how to make the article less sad? Cretog8 (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1st impression: merge pure strategy & mixed strategy into Strategy (game theory), not sure about dominance (game theory). Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pete. I think merging mixed and pure into strategy would be worth while. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've got a possible merge at my scratchpad. I've tweaked it some (the section on strategy sets is all me, and there's some opinion in "choosing a strategy set"). I think it's good enough for a merge, and then any arguments could be hammered out on the new page. Thoughts? Cretog8 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good enough to go live to me. Great job! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, agree. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)