IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/econom/2021-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dominance Solvability in Random Games

Author

Listed:
  • Noga Alon

    (Princeton University)

  • Kirill Rudov

    (Princeton University)

  • Leeat Yariv

    (Princeton University)

Abstract

We study the effectiveness of iterated elimination of strictly dominated actions in random two-player games. We show that dominance solvability of games is vanishingly small as the number of at least one player’s actions grows. Furthermore, conditional on dominance solvability, the number of iterations required to converge to Nash equilibrium grows rapidly as action sets grow. Nonetheless, at least when one of the players has a small action set, iterated elimination simplifies the game substantially by ruling out a sizable fraction of actions. This is no longer the case as both players’ action sets expand. With more than two players, iterated elimination becomes even less potent in altering the game players need to consider. Technically, we illustrate the usefulness of recent combinatorial methods for the analysis of general games.

Suggested Citation

  • Noga Alon & Kirill Rudov & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Dominance Solvability in Random Games," Working Papers 2021-84, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    • Handle: RePEc:pri:econom:2021-84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lyariv.mycpanel.princeton.edu//papers/DominanceSolvability.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Robust Virtual Implementation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 8, pages 263-317, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Carlsson, Hans & van Damme, Eric, 1993. "Global Games and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 989-1018, September.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & Annie Liang, 2019. "Predicting and Understanding Initial Play," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(12), pages 4112-4141, December.
    4. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    5. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    6. Kartik, Navin & Tercieux, Olivier & Holden, Richard, 2014. "Simple mechanisms and preferences for honesty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 284-290.
    7. Carlsson, H. & van Damme, E.E.C., 1990. "Global games and equilibrium selection," Other publications TiSEM 698f4897-46c6-4097-8265-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Matsushima, Hitoshi, 2007. "Mechanism design with side payments: Individual rationality and iterative dominance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 1-30, March.
    9. Jonathan Weinstein, 2016. "The Effect of Changes in Risk Attitude on Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1881-1902, September.
    10. Azrieli, Yaron & Levin, Dan, 2011. "Dominance-solvable common-value large auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 301-309.
    11. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    12. Moulin, Herve, 1979. "Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1137-1151, November.
    13. Ido Erev & Alvin Roth & Robert Slonim & Greg Barron, 2007. "Learning and equilibrium as useful approximations: Accuracy of prediction on randomly selected constant sum games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 29-51, October.
    14. Pei, Ting & Takahashi, Satoru, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in random games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 110-125.
    15. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00943301 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Powers, Imelda Yeung, 1990. "Limiting Distributions of the Number of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria in N-Person Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 19(3), pages 277-286.
    17. Carlsson, H. & van Damme, E.E.C., 1993. "Global games and equilibrium selection," Other publications TiSEM 49a54f00-dcec-4fc1-9488-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Jiangtao Li & Piotr Dworczak, 2020. "Are simple mechanisms optimal when agents are unsophisticated?," GRAPE Working Papers 42, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. Shachat, Jason M., 2002. "Mixed Strategy Play and the Minimax Hypothesis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 189-226, May.
    21. Vives, Xavier, 1990. "Nash equilibrium with strategic complementarities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321.
    22. Katok, Elena & Sefton, Martin & Yavas, Abdullah, 2002. "Implementation by Iterative Dominance and Backward Induction: An Experimental Comparison," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 89-103, May.
    23. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    24. Andrew McLennan, 2005. "The Expected Number of Nash Equilibria of a Normal Form Game," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 141-174, January.
    25. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    26. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    27. Qi, Feng & Mortici, Cristinel, 2015. "Some best approximation formulas and inequalities for the Wallis ratio," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 363-368.
    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. Tom Johnston & Michael Savery & Alex Scott & Bassel Tarbush, 2023. "Game Connectivity and Adaptive Dynamics," Papers 2309.10609, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    2. Ting Pei & Satoru Takahashi, 2023. "Nash equilibria in random games with right fat-tailed distributions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1153-1177, December.
    3. Mimun, Hlafo Alfie & Quattropani, Matteo & Scarsini, Marco, 2024. "Best-response dynamics in two-person random games with correlated payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 239-262.
    4. Andrea Collevecchio & Tuan-Minh Nguyen & Ziwen Zhong, 2024. "Finding pure Nash equilibria in large random games," Papers 2406.09732, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    5. Andrea Collevecchio & Hlafo Alfie Mimun & Matteo Quattropani & Marco Scarsini, 2024. "Basins of Attraction in Two-Player Random Ordinal Potential Games," Papers 2407.05460, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    6. Torsten Heinrich & Yoojin Jang & Luca Mungo & Marco Pangallo & Alex Scott & Bassel Tarbush & Samuel Wiese, 2023. "Best-response dynamics, playing sequences, and convergence to equilibrium in random games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 703-735, September.

    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. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    2. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2014. "On the beliefs off the path: Equilibrium refinement due to quantal response and level-k," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 102-125.
    3. Roger Guesnerie & Pedro Jara-Moroni, 2011. "Expectational coordination in simple economic contexts," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 47(2), pages 205-246, June.
    4. Kota Murayama, 2020. "Robust predictions under finite depth of reasoning," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 59-84, January.
    5. Kets, Willemien & Kager, Wouter & Sandroni, Alvaro, 2022. "The value of a coordination game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    6. Kota Murayama, 2015. "Robust Predictions under Finite Depth of Reasoning," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-28, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    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. ,, 2013. "Rationalizable conjectural equilibrium: A framework for robust predictions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), May.
    9. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & Roc Armenter, 2007. "Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 221-234, September.
    10. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    11. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    12. Kojima, Fuhito & Takahashi, Satoru, 2008. "p-Dominance and perfect foresight dynamics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 689-701, September.
    13. , 2021. "The Value of a Coordination Game," SocArXiv ymzrd_v1, Center for Open Science.
    14. Lensberg, Terje & Schenk-Hoppé, Klaus Reiner, 2021. "Cold play: Learning across bimatrix games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 419-441.
    15. Külpmann, Philipp & Khantadze, Davit, 2016. "Identifying the reasons for coordination failure in a laboratory experiment," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 567, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    16. Jeffrey C. Ely, 2001. "Rationalizabilty and Approximate Common-Knowledge," Discussion Papers 1324, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    17. Antonio Penta & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2022. "Rationalizability, Observability, and Common Knowledge," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(2), pages 948-975.
    18. Matsushima, Hitoshi, 2022. "Epistemological implementation of social choice functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 389-402.
    19. Herings, P.J.J. & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, V.J., 2004. "Fuzzy play, matching devices and coordination failures," Other publications TiSEM fe0d2a3a-5c9b-497e-a521-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Random Games; Dominance Solvability; Iterated Elimination;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pri:econom:2021-84. 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: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deprius.html .

    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.