IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v70y2020i2d10.1007_s00199-019-01215-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Iterated elimination procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Xuewen Qian

    (University of Nottingham Ningbo China)

  • Chen Qu

    (University of Nottingham Ningbo China)

Abstract

We study the existence and uniqueness (i.e., order independence) of any arbitrary form of iterated elimination procedures in an abstract environment. By allowing for a transfinite elimination, we show a general existence of the iterated elimination procedure. Inspired by the seminal work of Gilboa et al. (OR Lett 9:85–89, 1990), we identify a fairly weak sufficient condition of Monotonicity* for the order independence of iterated elimination procedure. Monotonicity* requires a Monotonicity property along any elimination path. Our approach is applicable to different forms of iterated elimination procedures used in (in)finite games, for example iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies, iterated elimination of weakly dominated strategies, rationalizability, and so on. We introduce a notion of CD* games, which incorporates Jackson’s (Rev Econ Stud 59:757–775, 1992) idea of “boundedness,” and show the iterated elimination procedure is order independent in the class of CD* games. In finite games, we also formulate and show an “outcome” order-independence result suitable for Marx and Swinkles’s (Games Econ Behav 18:219–245, 1997) notion of nice weak dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao Luo & Xuewen Qian & Chen Qu, 2020. "Iterated elimination procedures," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(2), pages 437-465, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:70:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s00199-019-01215-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-019-01215-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-019-01215-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-019-01215-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Tyson, 2010. "Dominance solvability of dynamic bargaining games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(3), pages 457-477, June.
    2. Oyama, Daisuke & Tercieux, Olivier, 2009. "Iterated potential and robustness of equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1726-1769, July.
    3. John Duggan & Michel Le Breton, 2014. "Choice-theoretic Solutions for Strategic Form Games," RCER Working Papers 580, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    4. H. Peyton Young & Shmuel Zamir (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    5. Haomiao Yu, 2014. "Rationalizability in large games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 457-479, February.
    6. Ehud Kalai & Eitan Zemel, 1988. "On The Order of Eliminating Dominated Strategies," Discussion Papers 789, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Martin Dufwenberg & Mark Stegeman, 2002. "Existence and Uniqueness of Maximal Reductions Under Iterated Strict Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 2007-2023, September.
    8. Marx, Leslie M. & Swinkels, Jeroen M., 2000. "Order Independence for Iterated Weak Dominance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 324-329, May.
    9. Tan, Tommy Chin-Chiu & da Costa Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro, 1988. "The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 370-391, August.
    10. In-Koo Cho, 1994. "Stationarity, Rationalizability and Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 61(2), pages 357-374.
    11. Dekel, Eddie & Fudenberg, Drew, 1990. "Rational behavior with payoff uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 243-267, December.
    12. Luo, Xiao, 2001. "General systems and [phiv]-stable sets -- a formal analysis of socioeconomic environments," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 95-109, November.
    13. Tilman Börgers, 1992. "Iterated Elimination of Dominated Strategies in a Bertrand-Edgeworth Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(1), pages 163-176.
    14. Christopher Tyson, 2010. "Dominance solvability of dynamic bargaining games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(3), pages 457-477, June.
    15. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    16. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    17. Attila Ambrus, 2006. "Coalitional Rationalizability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(3), pages 903-929.
    18. Matthew O. Jackson, 1992. "Implementation in Undominated Strategies: A Look at Bounded Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 757-775.
    19. Jara-Moroni, Pedro, 2012. "Rationalizability in games with a continuum of players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 668-684.
    20. Krzysztof R. Apt, 2011. "Direct proofs of order independence," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 106-115.
    21. Anne-Christine Barthel & Eric Hoffmann, 2019. "Rationalizability and learning in games with strategic heterogeneity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(3), pages 565-587, April.
    22. Chen, Yi-Chun & Long, Ngo Van & Luo, Xiao, 2007. "Iterated strict dominance in general games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 299-315, November.
    23. Adam Brandenburger & Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2014. "Admissibility in Games," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 7, pages 161-212, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    24. John Geanakoplos & (**), Moshe Y. Vardi & Joseph Y. Halpern & Ronald Fagin, 1999. "The hierarchical approach to modeling knowledge and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 331-365.
    25. Moulin, Herve, 1984. "Dominance solvability and cournot stability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 83-102, February.
    26. Weinstein, Jonathan & Yildiz, Muhamet, 2017. "Interim correlated rationalizability in infinite games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 82-87.
    27. Geir B. Asheim & Andrés Perea, 2019. "Algorithms for cautious reasoning in games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1241-1275, December.
    28. , & ,, 2013. "The order independence of iterated dominance in extensive games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(1), January.
    29. Joel Watson, 1998. "Alternating-Offer Bargaining with Two-Sided Incomplete Information," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(3), pages 573-594.
    30. Selten, Reinhard, 1998. "Features of experimentally observed bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 413-436, May.
    31. Moulin, Herve, 1979. "Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1137-1151, November.
    32. Ritzberger, Klaus, 2002. "Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199247868.
    33. Cubitt, Robin P. & Sugden, Robert, 2011. "The reasoning-based expected utility procedure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 328-338, March.
    34. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    35. Ambrus, Attila, 2009. "Theories of Coalitional Rationality," Scholarly Articles 3204917, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    36. Lipman, Barton L, 1991. "How to Decide How to Decide How to. . . : Modeling Limited Rationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 1105-1125, July.
    37. Perea, Andrés, 2018. "Why forward induction leads to the backward induction outcome: A new proof for Battigalli's theorem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 120-138.
    38. Heifetz, Aviad & Samet, Dov, 1998. "Knowledge Spaces with Arbitrarily High Rank," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 260-273, February.
    39. Ambrus, Attila, 2009. "Theories of coalitional rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 676-695, March.
    40. Ambrus, Attila, 2006. "Coalitional Rationalizability," Scholarly Articles 3200266, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    41. Lipman Barton L., 1994. "A Note on the Implications of Common Knowledge of Rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 114-129, January.
    42. Luo, Xiao & Yang, Chih-Chun, 2009. "Bayesian coalitional rationalizability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 248-263, January.
    43. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    44. Sen, Amartya, 1993. "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 495-521, May.
    45. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "Rationalizability, Learning, and Equilibrium in Games with Strategic Complementarities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1255-1277, November.
    46. Halpern, Joseph Y. & Pass, Rafael, 2012. "Iterated regret minimization: A new solution concept," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 184-207.
    47. Apt Krzysztof R., 2004. "Uniform Proofs of Order Independence for Various Strategy Elimination Procedures," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-48, September.
    48. Tercieux, Olivier, 2006. "p-Best response set," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 45-70, November.
    49. Gul, Faruk, 1996. "Rationality and Coherent Theories of Strategic Behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-31, July.
    50. Peter Mandelson, 2006. "A progressive response to globalisation," Public Policy Review, Institute for Public Policy Research, vol. 13(2), pages 92-95, June.
    51. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    52. Adam Brandenburger, 2007. "The power of paradox: some recent developments in interactive epistemology," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(4), pages 465-492, April.
    53. Heifetz, Aviad, 1996. "Common belief in monotonic epistemic logic," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 109-123, October.
    54. John Geanakoplos, 1992. "Common Knowledge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 53-82, Fall.
    55. Aviad Heifetz & Andrés Perea, 2015. "On the outcome equivalence of backward induction and extensive form rationalizability," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(1), pages 37-59, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manili, Julien, 2024. "Order independence for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 152-160.
    2. Hsieh, Yue-Da & Qian, Xuewen & Qu, Chen, 2023. "Iterated bounded dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Yi-Chun & Long, Ngo Van & Luo, Xiao, 2007. "Iterated strict dominance in general games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 299-315, November.
    2. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    3. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    4. Manili, Julien, 2024. "Order independence for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 152-160.
    5. Hsieh, Yue-Da & Qian, Xuewen & Qu, Chen, 2023. "Iterated bounded dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    6. Xiao Luo & Ben Wang, 2022. "An epistemic characterization of MACA," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(4), pages 995-1024, June.
    7. Michael Trost, 2012. "An Epistemic Rationale for Order-Independence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Fukuda, Satoshi, 2024. "The existence of universal qualitative belief spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    9. Gilles Grandjean & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2017. "Strongly rational sets for normal-form games," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(1), pages 35-46, April.
    10. Jara-Moroni, Pedro, 2012. "Rationalizability in games with a continuum of players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 668-684.
    11. Bo Chen & Rajat Deb, 2018. "The role of aggregate information in a binary threshold game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 381-414, October.
    12. Ziegler, Gabriel & Zuazo-Garin, Peio, 2020. "Strategic cautiousness as an expression of robustness to ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 197-215.
    13. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 2003. "Rationalizability in infinite, dynamic games with incomplete information," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-38, March.
    14. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Robin P. Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Common reasoning in games," Discussion Papers 2008-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Trost, Michael, 2019. "On the equivalence between iterated application of choice rules and common belief of applying these rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-37.
    17. Luo, Xiao & Yang, Chih-Chun, 2009. "Bayesian coalitional rationalizability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 248-263, January.
    18. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Jagau, Stephan & Perea, Andrés, 2022. "Common belief in rationality in psychological games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Iterated elimination procedures; Order independence; Monotonicity*; CD* games; “Outcome” order independence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:70:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s00199-019-01215-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.