Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games
- Authors
- Reinhard Selten
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1007/bf01766400 →Countries where authors are citing Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games
This map shows the geographic impact of Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games
This network shows the impact of Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games.
About Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games
This paper, published in 1975, received 1.9k indexed citations . Written by Reinhard Selten covering the research area of Aerospace Engineering, Economics and Econometrics and Management Science and Operations Research. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Management Science and Operations Research (1.2k citations), Economics and Econometrics (1.2k citations) and Safety Research (441 citations). Published in International Journal of Game Theory.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf01766400.