IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00481372.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The complexity of eliminating dominated strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Itzhak Gilboa

    (Northwestern University [Evanston])

  • Ehud Kalai

    (Northwestern University [Evanston])

  • Eitan Zemel

    (Northwestern University [Evanston])

Abstract

This paper deals with the computational complexity of some yes /no problems associated with sequential elimination of strategies using three domination relations: strong domination (strict inequalities), weak domination (weak inequalities), and domination (the asymmetric part of weak domination). Classification of various problems as polynomial or NP-complete seems to suggest that strong domination is a simple notion, whereas weak domination and domination are complicated ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Itzhak Gilboa & Ehud Kalai & Eitan Zemel, 1993. "The complexity of eliminating dominated strategies," Post-Print hal-00481372, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00481372
    DOI: 10.1287/moor.18.3.553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-porath, Elchanan, 1990. "The complexity of computing a best response automaton in repeated games with mixed strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Zemel, Eitan, 1989. "Nash and correlated equilibria: Some complexity considerations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 80-93, March.
    3. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1988. "The complexity of computing best-response automata in repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 342-352, August.
    6. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    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. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Crawford, Vincent P & Broseta, Bruno, 2001. "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1193-1235, September.
    2. Pablo Guillen & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2021. "Strategy-proofness in experimental matching markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 650-668, June.
    3. Conitzer, Vincent & Sandholm, Tuomas, 2008. "New complexity results about Nash equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 621-641, July.
    4. Ehud Kalai, 1995. "Games," Discussion Papers 1141, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Tim Roughgarden, 2010. "Computing equilibria: a computational complexity perspective," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(1), pages 193-236, January.
    6. 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.

    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. Sung, Shao-Chin & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2010. "Computational complexity in additive hedonic games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 635-639, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Joseph Y. Halpern & Rafael Pass, 2018. "Game theory with translucent players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 949-976, September.
    4. Manili, Julien, 2024. "Order independence for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 152-160.
    5. Ehud Kalai, 1995. "Games," Discussion Papers 1141, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    6. Michael Trost, 2012. "An Epistemic Rationale for Order-Independence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. 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.
    8. Stahl, Dale O., 1995. "Lexicographic rationalizability and iterated admissibility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 155-159, February.
    9. Sgroi, Daniel & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2009. "Learning to play 3×3 games: Neural networks as bounded-rational players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 27-38, January.
    10. Balkenborg, Dieter, 2018. "Rationalizability and logical inference," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 248-257.
    11. Renou, Ludovic & Schlag, Karl H., 2010. "Minimax regret and strategic uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 264-286, January.
    12. Vincent J. Vannetelbosch & P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2000. "The equivalence of the Dekel-Fudenberg iterative procedure and weakly perfect rationalizability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(3), pages 677-687.
    13. Ambrus, Attila, 2006. "Coalitional Rationalizability," Scholarly Articles 3200266, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    14. Jackson, Matthew O. & Sonnenschein, Hugo F., 2003. "The Linking of Collective Decisions and Efficiency," Working Papers 1159, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    15. Dominiak, Adam & Lee, Dongwoo, 2023. "Testing rational hypotheses in signaling games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Roger Guesnerie & Pedro Jara-Moroni, 2007. "Expectational coordination in a class of economic models: Strategic substitutabilities versus strategic complementarities," PSE Working Papers halshs-00587837, HAL.
    17. Andrés Carvajal, 2003. "Testable Restrictions of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Continuous Domains," Borradores de Economia 229, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    18. Pei, Ting & Takahashi, Satoru, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in random games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 110-125.
    19. Sent, Esther-Mirjam, 2004. "The legacy of Herbert Simon in game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 303-317, March.
    20. Olivier Compte & Andrew Postlewaite, 2007. "Effecting Cooperation," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-019, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 29 May 2009.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00481372. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.