Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 × 2 Games: Comment
重新分析Selten和Chmura（2008）的实验室数据，纠正错误后发现纳什均衡拟合最差，而其他四个平稳概念表现相当；引入损失厌恶后，非纳什概念表现优于冲动平衡均衡。
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.