Development of a Nano-Impulse Balance for Micropropulsion Systems

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian D'Souza ◽  
Andrew Ketsdever
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Balance

scholarly journals Impulse balance equilibrium and feedback in first price auctions

2005 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Ockenfels ◽  
Reinhard Selten
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Balance

scholarly journals Impulse balance and framing effects in threshold public good games

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 903-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Cartwright ◽  
Anna Stepanova ◽  
Lian Xue
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Impulse Balance ◽  
Public Good Games

scholarly journals Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 × 2 Games: Comment

2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 1029-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Brunner ◽  
Colin F Camerer ◽  
Jacob K Goeree
Keyword(s):  
Nash Equilibrium ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
The Other ◽  
Quantal Response ◽  
Quantal Response Equilibrium ◽  
Equilibrium Payoff ◽  
Laboratory Results ◽  
Impulse Balance

Reinhard Selten and Thorsten Chmura (2008) recently reported laboratory results for completely mixed 2 X 2 games used to compare Nash equilibrium with four other stationary concepts: quantal response equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium, and impulse balance equilibrium. We reanalyze their data, correct some errors, and find that Nash clearly fits worst while the four other concepts perform about equally well. We also report new analysis of other previous experiments that illustrate the importance of the loss aversion hardwired into impulse balance equilibrium: when the other non-Nash concepts are augmented with loss aversion, they outperform impulse balance equilibrium.

scholarly journals Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2x2-Games

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 938-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Selten ◽  
Thorsten Chmura
Keyword(s):  
Nash Equilibrium ◽  
Subject Group ◽  
Quantal Response ◽  
Random Matching ◽  
Quantal Response Equilibrium ◽  
Equilibrium Payoff ◽  
Impulse Balance

Five stationary concepts for completely mixed 2x2-games are experimentally compared: Nash equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium (Martin J. Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein 1998), and impulse balance equilibrium. Experiments on 12 games, 6 constant sum games, and 6 nonconstant sum games were run with 12 independent subject groups for each constant sum game and 6 independent subject groups for each nonconstant sum game. Each independent subject group consisted of four players 1 and four players 2, interacting anonymously over 200 periods with random matching. The comparison of the five theories shows that the order of performance from best to worst is as follows: impulse balance equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, Nash equilibrium. (JEL C70, C91)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document