In game theory and economic modelling, a solution concept is a process via which equilibria of a game are identified. In this sense they are used as predictions of play, suggesting what the outcome of a particular game will be (i.e. what strategies will or might be adopted by players).

Each successive solution concept presented below improves on its predecessor by eliminating implausible equilibria in richer games.

## Rationalizability & Iterated Dominance

Main article: Rationalizability

In this solution concept, players are assumed to be rational and so strictly dominated strategies are eliminated from the set of strategies that might feasibly be played. A strictly dominated strategy is one for which there is a strategy that a player is always better off playing and so a rational player would never play such a strategy. (Strictly dominated strategies are also important in minimax game-tree search). For example, in the (single period) prisoners' dilemma (shown below), cooperate is strictly dominated by defect for both players because either player is always better off playing defect, regardless of what his opponent does.

{

Prisoner 1 Cooperate Prisoner 1 Defect -0.5, -0.5 -10, 0 0, -10 -2, -2

|}

## Nash equilibrium

Main article: Nash equilibrium

A Nash equilibrium is a strategy profile (a strategy profile specifies a strategy for every player, e.g. in the above prisoners' dilemma game (cooperate, defect) specifies that prisoner 1 plays cooperate and player 2 plays defect) in which every strategy is a best response to every other strategy played. A strategy by a player is a best response to another player's strategy if there is no other strategy that could be played that would yield a higher pay-off in any situation in which the other player's strategy is played.

## Backward induction

Main article: Backward induction

There are games that have multiple Nash equilibria, some of which are unrealistic. In the case of dynamic games, unrealistic Nash equilibria might be eliminated by applying backward induction, which assumes that future play will be rational. It therefore elimates noncredible (or incredible) threats because such threats would be irrational to carry out if a player was ever called upon to do so.

For example, consider a dynamic game in which the players are an incumbent firm in an industry and a potential entrant to that industry. As it stands, the incumbent has a monopoly over the industry and does not want to lose some of its market share to the entrant. If the entrant chooses not to enter, the payoff to the incumbent is high (it maintains its monopoly) and the entrant neither loses nor gains (its payoff is zero). If the entrant enters, the incumbent can fight or accommodate the entrant. It will fight by lowering its price, running the entrant out of business (and incurring exit costs – a negative payoff) and damaging its own profits. If it accommodates the entrant it will lose some of its sales, but a high price will be maintained and it will receive greater profits than by lowering its price (but lower than monopoly profits).

If the entrant enters, the best response of the incumbent is to accommodate. If the incumbent accommodates, the best response of the entrant is to enter (and gain profit). Hence the strategy profile in which the incumbent accommodates if the entrant enters and the entrant enters if the incumbent accommodates is a Nash equilibrium. However, if the incumbent is going to play fight, the best response of the entrant is to not enter. If the entrant does not enter, it does not matter what the incumbent chooses to do (since there is no other firm to do it to - note that if the entrant does not enter, fight and accommodate yield the same payoffs to both players; the incumbent will not lower its prices if the entrant does not enter). Hence fight can be considered as a best response of the incumbent if the entrant does not enter. Hence the strategy profile in which the incumbent fights if the entrant does not enter and the entrant does not enter if the incumbent fights is a Nash equilibrium. Since the game is dynamic, any claim by the incumbent that it will fight is an incredible threat because by the time the decision node is reached where it can decide to fight (i.e. the entrant has entered), it would be irrational to do so. Therefore this Nash equilibrium can be eliminated by backward induction.

• Monetary policy theory
• Stackelberg competition

## Subgame perfect Nash equilibrium

Main article: Subgame perfect equilibrium

A generalisation of backward induction is subgame perfection. Backward induction assumes that all future play will be rational. In subgame perfect equilibria, play in every subgame is rational (specifically a Nash equilibrium). Backward induction can only be used in terminating (finite) games of definite length and cannot be applied to games with imperfect information. In these cases, subgame perfection can be used. The eliminated Nash equilibrium described above is subgame imperfect because it is not a Nash equilibrium of the subgame that starts at the node reached once the entrant has entered.

## Perfect Bayesian equilibrium

Main article: Bayesian game

Sometimes subgame perfection does not impose a large enough restriction on unreasonable outcomes. For example, since subgames cannot cut through information sets, a game of imperfect information may have only one subgame – itself – and hence subgame perfection cannot be used to eliminate any Nash equilibria. A perfect Bayesian equilibrium (PBE) is a specification of players’ strategies and beliefs about which node in the information set has been reached by the play of the game. A belief about a decision node is the probability that a particular player thinks that that node is or will be in play (on the equilibrium path). In particular, the intuition of PBE is that it specifies player strategies that are rational given the player beliefs it specifies and the beliefs it specifies are consistent with the strategies it specifies.

In a Bayesian game a strategy determines what a player plays at every information set controlled by that player. The requirement that beliefs are consistent with strategies is something not specified by subgame perfection. Hence, PBE is a consistency condition on players’ beliefs. Just as in a Nash equilibrium no player’s strategy is strictly dominated, in a PBE, for any information set no player’s strategy is strictly dominated beginning at that information set. That is, for every belief that the player could hold at that information set there is no strategy that yields a greater expected payoff for that player. Unlike the above solution concepts, no player’s strategy is strictly dominated beginning at any information set even if it is off the equilibrium path. Thus in PBE, players cannot threaten to play strategies that are strictly dominated beginning at any information set off the equilibrium path.

The Bayesian in the name of this solution concept alludes to the fact that players update their beliefs according to Bayes' theorem. They calculate probabilities given what has already taken place in the game.

## Forward induction

Forward induction is so called because just as backward induction assumes future play will be rational, forward induction assumes past play was rational. Where a player does not know what type another player is (i.e. there is imperfect and asymmetric information), that player may form a belief of what type that player is by observing that player's past actions. Hence the belief formed by that player of what the probability of the opponent being a certain type is based on the past play of that opponent being rational.

## References

• Cho, I-K. & Kreps, D. M. (1987) Signaling games and stable equilibria. Quarterly Journal of Economics 52:179-221.
• Harsanyi, J. (1973) Oddness of the number of equilibrium points: a new proof. International Journal of Game Theory 2:235-250.
• Hines, W. G. S. (1987) Evolutionary stable strategies: a review of basic theory. Theoretical Population Biology 31:195-272.
• Noldeke, G. & Samuelson, L. (1993) An evolutionary analysis of backward and forward induction. Games & Economic Behaviour 5:425-454.
• Maynard Smith, J. (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games. ISBN 0-521-28884-3
• Selten, R. (1983) Evolutionary stability in extensive two-person games. Math. Soc. Sci. 5:269-363.
• Selten, R. (1988) Evolutionary stability in extensive two-person games --- correction and further development. Math. Soc. Sci. 16:223-266
• Thomas, B. (1985a) On evolutionary stable sets. J. Math. Biol. 22:105-115.
• Thomas, B. (1985b) Evolutionary stable sets in mixed-strategist models. Theor. Pop. Biol. 28:332-341

fr:Concept de solution