Non-equilibrium game theory.
-
-
Replying to @FrameOfStack
Without equilibria, how do you decide what kind of agents to talk about? Random agents?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ObjectOfObjects
I think you want some kind of rational agent constraint, still; recursive "common knowledge of rationality", even. Just refuse to accept arbitrary equilibria.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrameOfStack @ObjectOfObjects
I think this is all covered with models of satisficing agents. The solutions aren't unique, they are often order dependent, and simulations to look at outcomes based on partial computation by agents are computationally annoying.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I’m just gonna put this herehttps://www.quantamagazine.org/in-game-theory-no-clear-path-to-equilibrium-20170718/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Correlated equilibria are the partial solution which made me realize I wanted a better solution. But that article is pretty bad in terms of providing pointers to the literature it is summarizing!!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.