Talk:Signaling game

message: As far as I know, according to Dawkins, A. Zahavi was the first to propose the handicap principle in regards to Birds of Paradise and Thompson's Gazelles.  Even if future biologists have expanded upon the theory, Zahavi deserves initial credit for the ideas.  (q.v. handicap principle)
If nobody objects, I will update the article accordingly.  — MSchmahl… 11:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure, go ahead.  Though, in way of some defence of the present state, the article is about signalling games in a fairly strict game theory sense, and I don't think Zahavi's work (as undeniably influential as it is) is as "on point"  as Grafen's work.  Grafen's work applies game formal game theory, and a signalling game to the problem, along the lines suggested by Zahavi. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Zahavi? 

message: Shouldn't we use either British English OR American English? Signalling vs. signaling etc.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.54.1 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the WP convention is to consistently apply whichever spelling was discernably used first in the history of the article.  Judging from the title, I'd guess that it is US spelling that should be used throughout this article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I'd love to see some explanation for the extensive form diagram, either in the caption or the main text, or both.   What are X, Y, N and q?  There are no S and R in the diagram, though we'd expect that from the main text.   How do we read these diagrams?  Sender says something, receiver reacts, from left to right... or something?   Also, how do the various symbols and formalism in the main text relate to the diagram (actions, messages, types)?   What are the horizontal lines, solid vs. dotted?  I have been googling around trying to figure out how these diagrams work, to no avail.  Someone help!   Jyoshimi (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jyoshimi, after wondering the same, I updated the description on Commons with an explanation of the image. I think that should suffice in this case as the details of the graph are not important to the article. 31.187.2.43 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A belated thanks for this! Jyoshimi (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram explanation 

message: I rewrote the introduction to add more qualitative features of signalling. I removed the notation, which isn't needed in an introduction. Also, signalling games are not restricted to two players, discrete types, no signal by the receiver, etc., so I rephrased the description as being an example of a simple signalling game. I fixed the spelling of Rubinstein and made other stylistic changes. 
--editeur24 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I rewrote the introduction--Dec. 7, 2020  

message: In section Signaling game#Reputation game the payoff matrix entry is P1+P1 for the preying sane sender and D1+D1, both when the receiver stays. But it seems P1 and D1 only refer to the signal costs for the sender -which are a priori not related to the payoff summand depending on the receiver's action. Then why is there a particular M1 summand in case of monopoly -thus fixed regardless of the sender's signal- and not some fixed payoff, say C1, in case the receiver of competition -that is the receiver staying ? In other words the payoff for the sender should be the sum "signal cost [a negative number]"+"state payoff only depending on the receiver choice [positive]", which would imply P1=D1 -which is not reasonable.
I would therefore see (P1+C1, D2) in the upper left entry and (D1+C1, D2) in the middle left entry -modulo choices of notation. Please anyone correct me -i will also try to check literature for usual such game models later. Thank you. Plm203 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why different second payoff summands for the sender if the receiver stays ?