| Coalition-proof Nash equilibrium | |
|---|---|
| Solution concept ingame theory | |
| Relationship | |
| Subset of | Nash Equilibrium |
| Superset of | Strong Nash equilibrium |
| Significance | |
The concept ofcoalition-proof Nash equilibrium applies to certain "noncooperative" environments in which players can freely discuss their strategies but cannot make binding commitments.[1]It emphasizes the immunization to deviations that are self-enforcing. While the best-response property inNash equilibrium is necessary for self-enforceability, it is not generally sufficient when players can jointly deviate in a way that is mutually beneficial.
TheStrong Nash equilibrium is criticized as too "strong" in that the environment allows for unlimited private communication.[1] In the coalition-proof Nash equilibrium the private communication is limited.[1]
Informally:At first all players are in a room deliberating their strategies. Then one by one, they leave the room fixing their strategy and only those left are allowed to change their strategies, both individually and together.
Formal definition:[1]
The coalition-proof Nash equilibrium refines theNash equilibrium by adopting a stronger notion of self-enforceability that allows multilateral deviations.
Parallel to the idea ofcorrelated equilibrium as an extension to Nash equilibrium when public signalling device is allowed, coalition-proof equilibrium is defined by Diego Moreno and John Wooders.[2]