1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: %\nofiles

3: 

4: \usepackage{rotating}

5: \usepackage{sgame}

6: \usepackage{color}

7: 

8: 

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{5.5in}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{8in}

11: 

12: \pagestyle{empty}

13: %\pagestyle{plain}

14: 

15: %\setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}

16: %\setlength{\textheight}{235mm}

17: 

18: \include{header}

19: \include{ecmds}

20: 

21: \newcommand{\nra}{\mbox{$\:\rightarrow^n\:$}}

22: \newcommand{\ira}{\mbox{$\:\rightarrow^i\:$}}

23: \newcommand{\era}{\mbox{$\:\rightarrow^{\epsilon}\:$}}

24: 

25: 

26: \newcommand{\pp}[2]{[ #1 \ ; \ #2 ]}

27: 

28: \usepackage{handbookbib}

29: \usepackage{amsfonts}

30: \usepackage{latexsym}

31: \usepackage{alltt}

32: 

33: 

34: 

35: \title{Uniform Proofs of Order Independence for Various Strategy Elimination Procedures}

36: 

37: \author{Krzysztof R. Apt \\

38: \emph{School of Computing, National University of Singapore} \\

39: \emph{3 Science Drive 2, Republic of Singapore 117543}

40: \footnote{On leave from CWI, Amsterdam, the Netherlands and

41: University of Amsterdam.}

42: }

43: \begin{document}

44: \maketitle

45: 

46: \date{}

47: 

48: 

49: \begin{abstract}

50: 

51:   We provide elementary and uniform proofs of order independence for various

52:   strategy elimination procedures for finite strategic games, both for

53:   dominance by pure and by mixed strategies.  The proofs follow the

54:   same pattern and focus on the structural properties of the dominance

55:   relations.  They rely on Newman's Lemma (see \cite{New42}) and

56:   related results on the abstract reduction systems.

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: \newpage

60: 

61: %\tableofcontents

62: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{3}

63: \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.1}Preliminaries}{3}

64: \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.2}Background}{4}

65: \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.3}Motivation}{6}

66: \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.4}Organization of the paper}{8}

67: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Abstract Reduction Systems}{9}

68: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Dominance Relations}{11}

69: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Pure Strategies: Inherent Dominance}{16}

70: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Mixed Dominance Relations}{20}

71: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Mixed Strategies: Inherent Dominance}{24}

72: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}More on Abstract Reduction Systems}{26}

73: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Pure Strategies: Payoff Equivalence}{29}

74: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Mixed Strategies: Randomized Redundance}{30}

75: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Combining Two Dominance Relations}{32}

76: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}Combining Nice Weak Dominance with Payoff Equivalence}{34}

77: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {12}Combining Two Mixed Dominance Relations}{39}

78: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {13}Combining Nice Weak Dominance with Randomized Redundance}{41}

79: \contentsline {section}{\numberline {14}Conclusions}{45}

80: \contentsline {section}{References}{47}

81: 

82: \newpage

83: 

84: 

85: \section{Introduction}

86: \label{sec:introduction}

87: 

88: %\cb

89: \subsection{Preliminaries}

90: \label{subsec:prelim}

91: 

92: To properly discuss the background for this research we need to recall

93: a number of concepts commonly used in the study of strategic games.

94: We follow here a standard terminology of the game theory, see, e.g.,

95: \cite{Mye91} or \cite{OR94}.  We stress the fact that we deal here

96: only with \emph{finite} games.  Given $n$ players we represent a

97: strategic game by a sequence

98: \[

99: (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n),

100: \] 

101: where for each $i \in [1..n]$

102: 

103: \begin{itemize}

104: \item $S_i$ is the \emph{finite}, non-empty, set of \oldbfe{strategies} 

105: (sometimes called \oldbfe{pure strategies})

106: available to player $i$,

107: 

108: \item $p_i$ is the payoff function for the  player $i$, so

109: 

110: \[

111: p_i : S_1 \times \LL \times S_n \myra \cal{R},

112: \]

113: where $\cal{R}$ is the set of real numbers.

114: \end{itemize}

115: We assume that $S_i \cap S_j= \ES$ for $i \neq j$.

116: 

117: Given a sequence of non-empty sets of strategies $S_1, \LL, S_n$ and

118: $s \in S_1 \times \LL \times S_n$ we denote the $i$th element of $s$ by $s_i$ and

119: use the following standard notation:

120: 

121: \begin{itemize}

122: \item $s_{-i} := (s_1, \LL, s_{i-1}, s_{i+1}, \LL, s_n)$,

123: 

124: \item $(s'_i, s_{-i}) := (s_1, \LL, s_{i-1}, s'_i, s_{i+1}, \LL, s_n)$, where

125: we assume that $s'_i \in S_i$.

126: In particular $(s_i, s_{-i}) = s$,

127: 

128: \item $S_{-i} := S_1 \times \LL \times S_{i-1} \times S_{i+1} \times \LL \times S_n$,

129: 

130: \item $(S'_i, S_{-i}) := S_1 \times \LL \times S_{i-1} \times S'_i \times S_{i+1} \times \LL \times S_n$.

131: 

132: 

133: \end{itemize}

134: We denote the strategies of player $i$ by $s_i$, possibly with some superscripts.

135: 

136: Next, given a game $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and non-empty sets of

137: strategies $S'_1, S''_1, \LL, S'_n, S''_n$ such that $S'_i \sse S_i$

138: and $S''_i \sse S_i$ for $i \in [1..n]$ we say that $G' := (S'_1, \LL,

139: S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G'' := (S''_1, \LL, S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$

140: are \oldbfe{restrictions}\footnote{Sometimes the name \oldbfe{reduction} is used. In \cite{GKZ90}

141: a restriction is called a \oldbfe{subgame}.}

142: of $G$ and denote by $G' \cap G''$ the restriction

143: $(S'_1 \cap S''_1, \LL, S'_n \cap S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  In each

144: case we identify each payoff function $p_i$ with its restriction to

145: the Cartesian product of the new strategy sets.

146: 

147: Fix a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  

148: We now introduce a number of well-known binary dominance

149: relations on strategies.

150: We say that

151: a strategy $s_i$ is \oldbfe{weakly} (\oldbfe{strictly}) \oldbfe{dominated}

152: by a strategy $s'_i$, or equivalently, 

153: a strategy $s'_i$ \oldbfe{weakly} (\oldbfe{strictly}) \oldbfe{dominates} a strategy $s_i$, if

154: 

155: \[

156: p_i(s_i, s_{-i}) \leq p_i(s'_i, s_{-i})

157: \]

158: for all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$, with some inequality (all inequalities)

159: being strict.

160: We denote the weak dominance relation by $W$ and the strict dominance relation by $S$.

161: 

162: Further, we say that the strategies $s_i$ and $s'_i$ of player $i$

163: are \oldbfe{compatible} if for all $j \in [1..n]$ and 

164: $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$

165: \[

166: \mbox{$p_{i}(s_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(s'_i, s_{-i})$ implies $p_{j}(s_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(s'_i, s_{-i})$.}

167: \]

168: We then say that $s_i$ is \oldbfe{nicely weakly dominated by}

169: $s'_i$ if $s_i$ is weakly

170: dominated by $s'_i$ and $s_i$ and $s'_i$ are compatible.

171: This notion of dominance, that we denote by \emph{NW}, was introduced in \cite{MS97}.

172: 

173: Finally, recall that two strategies $s_i$ and $s'_i$ of player $i$ are called

174: \oldbfe{payoff equivalent} if

175: \[

176: p_j(s_i, s_{-i}) = p_j(s'_i, s_{-i})

177: \]

178: for all $j \in [1..n]$ and all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$.

179: We denote this binary relation on the strategies by {\it PE}. 

180: 

181: These notions have natural counterparts for mixed strategies

182: that will be introduced later in the paper.

183: 

184: Each binary dominance relation $R$, so in particular \emph{W, S, NW} or \emph{PE},

185: induces the following binary relation on strategic games

186: $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$:

187: 

188: \begin{quote}

189: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ iff $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

190: each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $s'_i \in S'_i$.

191: \end{quote}

192: If all iterations of $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ starting in an initial game $G$ yield the same

193: final outcome, we say that $R$ is \oldbfe{order independent}.

194: 

195: %\ce

196: \subsection{Background}

197: 

198: In the literature on dominance relations in finite strategic games 

199: several order independence results were established, to wit:

200: 

201: \begin{itemize}

202: 

203: \item \cite{GKZ90} and \cite{Ste90} proved it

204: for strict dominance by pure strategies,

205: 

206: \item \cite{Bor90,Bor93}

207: established it for his notion of (unary) dominance,

208: 

209: \item \cite{OR94} proved it

210: for strict dominance by mixed strategies,

211: 

212: \item \cite{MS97,MS00}) proved it for nice weak dominance

213: up to the addition or removal of the payoff equivalent strategies

214: and a renaming of strategies.

215: 

216: This implies the same form of order independence for weak dominance 

217: by pure strategies for the games $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ satisfying

218: the following \oldbfe{transference of decisionmaker indifference

219:   (TDI)} condition:

220: 

221: \[

222:   \begin{array}{l}

223: \mbox{for all $i, j \in [1..n]$, $r_i, t_i \in S_i$ and $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$} \\

224: \mbox{$p_{i}(r_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(t_i, s_{-i})$ implies $p_{j}(r_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(t_i, s_{-i})$.}

225:   \end{array}

226: \]

227: %\cb

228: Informally, this condition states that whenever for player $i$ two of

229: its strategies $r_i$ and $t_i$ are indifferent w.r.t.~some joint strategy

230: $s_{-i}$ of the other players, then $r_i$ and $t_i$ are also indifferent

231: w.r.t.~$s_{-i}$ for all players.

232: %\ce

233: 

234: They also established analogous results for nice weak dominance and weak dominance

235: by mixed strategies.

236: \end{itemize}

237: 

238: These results were established by different methods and techniques.

239: In particular, the proof of order independence given in \cite{Bor90}

240: proceeds through a connection between the rationalizability notion of

241: \cite{Pea84} and the survival of a strategy under the iterated

242: dominance. In turn, the original proof of order independence for

243: strict dominance by mixed strategies given in \cite[ pages 61-62]{OR94}

244: involves in an analogous way a modification of the rationalizability

245: notion and relies on the existence of Nash equilibrium for strictly

246: competitive games.

247: 

248: It is useful to point out that the assumption that the games are finite

249: is crucial. In fact, in an interesting paper \cite{DS02} showed that in case of

250: infinite games order independence for strict dominance does not

251: hold. They also provided natural conditions under which the unique

252: outcome is guaranteed.

253: 

254: %\cb

255: \subsection{Motivation}

256: 

257: In this paper we provide uniform and elementary proofs of the

258: abovementioned and related order independence results.

259: The table in Figure \ref{fig:classification} should clarify the scope of the paper.

260: So we deal both with unary and binary dominance relations and with pure and mixed

261: strategies. While binary dominance relations, such as the ones introduced in

262: the previous subsection, are more known, the unary ones,

263: introduced in \cite{Bor90,Bor93}, allow us to characterize a specific form of

264: the rational strategies.

265: 

266: \begin{figure}[htbp]

267:   \begin{center}

268: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}

269: \hline

270: dominance \verb+\+ strategies & pure & mixed \\

271: \hline \hline

272: unary    &          & \\ \hline

273: binary     &          & \\

274: \hline

275: \end{tabular}

276:     \caption{Classification of the order independence results}

277:     \label{fig:classification}

278:   \end{center}

279: \end{figure}

280: 

281: Further, we also consider combinations of binary dominance relations, both for

282: pure and for mixed strategies.

283: 

284: Having in mind such a plethora of possibilities it is difficult to expect a single

285: `master result' that would imply all the discussed order independence results.

286: Still, as we show, it is possible to provide uniform proofs of these results

287: based on the same principles.

288: Notably, our presentation focuses on so-called abstract reduction

289: systems (see, e.g., \cite{Ter03}) in particular on Newman's Lemma

290: (see \cite{New42}) and some of its natural refinements.

291: 

292: Newman's Lemma offers a simple but highly effective and versatile tool for

293: proving order independence results.  We discuss it and its

294: consequences in detail in the next section and later, in Section \ref{ars-more}.

295: Let us just mention here

296: that it deals with the properties of a binary relation $\myra$ on an

297: arbitrary set $A$. Below $\tra$ denotes the

298: transitive reflexive closure of $\myra$.  We say that $\myra$ is \oldbfe{weakly

299:   confluent} if for all $a,b,c \in A$

300: 

301: \begin{center}

302: $a$                                             \\

303: $\swarrow$ $\searrow$                           \\

304: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            \\

305: \end{center}

306: 

307: \NI

308: implies that for some $d \in A$

309: 

310: \begin{center}

311: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                        \\

312: $\searrow \!*$ \ $\!*\swarrow$                    \\

313: $d$

314: 

315: \end{center}

316: Then Newman's lemma simply states that whenever

317: 

318: \begin{itemize}

319: \item no infinite $\myra$ sequences exist,

320: 

321: \item $\myra$ is weakly confluent,

322: 

323: \end{itemize}

324: then for each element $a \in A$ all $\myra$ sequences starting in $a$

325: have a unique `end outcome'.

326: 

327: It turns out that to prove order independence of a (binary or

328: unary) dominance relation $R$ it suffices to establish weak confluence

329: of the corresponding reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and

330: apply Newman's lemma.  In fact, since only finite games are

331: considered, no infinite $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ sequences exist.

332: 

333: To deal with combinations of two dominance relations, in particular 

334: the combination of nice weak dominance \emph{NW}

335: and payoff equivalence \emph{PE}, a relativized version of Newman's

336: lemma is helpful, where one only claims unique `end outcome' up to an

337: equivalence relation.  In the game-theoretic setting this equivalence relation

338: is an `equivalence up to strategy renaming' relation on strategic games.

339: 

340: Further, the following notion involving a relative dependence between two binary 

341: relations $\myra_1$ and $\myra_2$ on some set $A$ turns out to be useful.

342: We say that

343: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ \oldbfe{left commutes with}

344: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ if

345: \[

346: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } \circ \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } \sse 

347: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } \circ \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: },

348: \]

349: i.e., if for all $a,b,c \in A$ \ 

350: $a \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } b \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } c$

351: implies that for some $d \in A$ \ 

352: $a \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } d \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } c$.

353: 

354: Now, one can prove that

355: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$.

356: This allows us to `push' the removal of the payoff equivalent strategies

357: to the `end' and prove a `structured' form of the order independence of \emph{NW}

358: combined with \emph{PE}, a result originally established in \cite{MS97}.

359: 

360: %\ce

361: 

362: Our presentation is also influenced by \cite{GKZ90} where

363: order independence for strict dominance was proved by establishing

364: this result first for arbitrary (binary) dominance relations that are strict

365: partial orders and hereditary.

366: 

367: In our approach we isolate other useful properties of dominance

368: relations, both for the case of pure and mixed strategies.  In

369: particular, we identify conditions that allow us to conclude order

370: independence up to a renaming of strategies for a combination of two

371: reduction relations.  This allows us to identify the

372: relevant properties of nice weak dominance that lead to the results of

373: \cite{MS97}.

374: 

375: Of course, each strategy elimination procedure needs to be motivated,

376: either by clarifying the reasoning used by the players or by

377: clarifying its effect on the structure of the game, for example on 

378: its set of Nash equilibria. In our exposition we ignore these issues

379: since we focus on the dominance relations and the entailed

380: elimination procedures that were introduced and motivated

381: in the cited references.

382: 

383: \subsection{Organization of the paper}

384: 

385: The paper is organized as follows.  In the next section we discuss 

386: Newman's lemma.  Then in Section

387: \ref{sec:dominance}, following \cite{GKZ90}, we set the stage by

388: discussing (binary) dominance relations for strategic games and their

389: natural properties, in particular \emph{hereditarity}.  Intuitively, a

390: dominance relation is hereditary if it is inherited from a game to any

391: restriction.  Some dominance relations are hereditary, while others not.

392: Usually, for non-hereditary dominance relations order independence

393: does not hold.

394: 

395: Then, in Section \ref{sec:bor}, we generalize the approach of

396: \cite{Bor90,Bor93} to deal with arbitrary non-hereditary dominance

397: relations.  Informally, each such binary dominance relation $R$ can be modified

398: to a unary dominance relation for which under some natural assumption

399: both entailed reduction relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ and

400: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ are order independent.

401: 

402: Next, in Section \ref{sec:mixeddom} we study dominance relations where

403: the dominating strategies are mixed. We mimic here the development of

404: Section \ref{sec:dominance} by identifying natural properties and

405: establishing a general result on order independence.  We apply then

406: these results to show order independence for strict dominance by 

407: mixed strategies.

408: In Section \ref{sec:borm} we generalize the approach of Section \ref{sec:bor}

409: to the case when the dominating strategies are mixed.

410: 

411: To prepare the ground for results involving game equivalence we

412: discuss in Section \ref{ars-more} a modification of Newman's Lemma in

413: presence of an equivalence relation.  Then in Section

414: \ref{sec:pure-equ} we resume the discussion of dominance relations by

415: focusing on the payoff equivalence.  For this

416: dominance relation order independence does not hold, but order

417: independence up to a renaming of strategies does hold.  Analogous

418: results hold in case of equivalence to a mixed strategy

419: and are discussed in Section \ref{sec:randomized}.

420: 

421: Then in Section \ref{sec:combining} we study conditions under which

422: order dominance up to a renaming of strategies can be proved for a

423: combination of two dominance relations.  Such a combination is useful

424: to study when one of these two relations is not hereditary.  Then in

425: Section \ref{sec:nweak} we apply the obtained general result to get a

426: simple and informative proof of a result of \cite{MS97} that nice weak

427: dominance is order independent up to the removal of the payoff

428: equivalent strategies and a renaming of strategies.  In the

429: next two Sections, \ref{sec:combiningm} and \ref{sec:mnweak}, we mimic

430: these developments for the case of equivalence to and dominance by a

431: mixed strategy.  Finally, in the concluding section we summarize the

432: results in a tabular form and explain why each of the discussed order

433: independence results has to be established separately.

434: 

435: \section{Abstract Reduction Systems}

436: \label{sec:ars}

437: 

438: We provide first completely general results concerning abstract

439: reduction systems. An \oldbfe{abstract reduction system}, see, e.g.,

440: \cite{Hue80}, (and \cite{Ter03} for a more recent account, where a

441: slightly different terminology is used) is a pair $(A,\myra)$ where

442: $A$ is a set and $\myra$ is a binary relation (a \emph{reduction}) on

443: $A$.  Let $\myra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}$ denote the transitive closure of

444: $\myra$ and $\tra$ the transitive reflexive closure of $\myra$.  So in

445: particular, if $a = b$, then $a \tra b$.  Further, $a

446: \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon} b$ means $a = b$ or $a \myra b$.

447: 

448: \begin{itemize}

449:   

450: \item We say that $b$ is a $\myra$-\oldbfe{normal form of} $a$ if $a

451:   \tra b$ and no $c$ exists such that $b \myra c$, and omit the

452:   reference to $\myra$ if it is clear from the context.  

453:   If every element of $A$ has a unique normal form, we say that

454:   $(A,\myra)$ (or just $\myra$ if $A$ is clear from the context)

455:   satisfies the \oldbfe{unique normal form property}.

456: %\cb

457: \footnote{

458: We stress the fact that this notion of a normal form, standard in the theory

459: of abstract reduction systems, has no

460:     relation whatsoever to the notion of a game in normal form, another name used

461:     for strategic games.  In particular, the reader should bear in

462:     mind that later we shall consider \emph{strategic} games that are

463:     \emph{normal forms} of specific reduction relations on strategic games.

464: }

465: %\ce

466: 

467: \item We say that $\myra$ is \oldbfe{weakly confluent}

468: if for all $a,b,c \in A$ 

469: 

470: \begin{center}

471: $a$                                             \\

472: $\swarrow$ $\searrow$                           \\

473: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            \\

474: \end{center}

475: 

476: \NI

477: implies that for some $d \in A$

478: 

479: \begin{center}

480: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                        \\

481: $\searrow \!*$ \ $\!*\swarrow$                    \\

482: $d$

483: 

484: \end{center}

485: 

486: \item Following \cite{GKZ90} we say that

487: $\myra$ is \oldbfe{one step closed} if

488: for all $a \in A$ some $a' \in A$ exists such that

489: \begin{itemize}

490: \item $a \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon} a'$,

491: 

492: 

493: \item if $a \myra b$, then $b \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon} a'$.

494: \end{itemize}

495: \end{itemize}

496: 

497: In all proofs of weak confluence given in the paper we shall actually establish that for some $d \in A$

498: we have $b \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon} d$ and $c \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon} d$.

499: 

500: In the sequel, as already mentioned, we shall repeatedly rely upon

501: the following lemma established in \cite{New42}. 

502: 

503: \begin{lemma} [Newman] \label{lem:newman}

504: Consider an abstract reduction system $(A,\myra)$ such that

505: 

506: \begin{itemize}

507: \item no infinite $\myra$ sequences exist,

508: 

509: \item $\myra$ is weakly confluent.

510: 

511: \end{itemize}

512: Then $\myra$ satisfies the unique normal form property.

513: \end{lemma}

514: 

515: \Proof 

516: (Taken from \cite[ page 15]{Ter03}.)

517: 

518: \NI By the first assumption every element of $A$ has a normal

519: form.  To prove uniqueness, call an element $a$ \emph{ambiguous} if it

520: has at least two different normal forms.  We show that for

521: every ambiguous $a$ some ambiguous $b$ exists such that $a \myra b$.

522: This proves absence of ambiguous elements by the first assumption.

523: 

524: So suppose that some element $a$ has two distinct normal forms $n_1$

525: and $n_2$.  Then for some $b, c$ we have $a \myra b \tra n_1$ and $a

526: \myra c \tra n_2$.  By weak confluence some $d$ exists such that $b

527: \tra d$ and $c \tra d$. Let $n_3$ be a normal form of $d$. It is also

528: a normal form of $b$ and of $c$. Moreover $n_3 \neq n_1$ or $n_3 \neq

529: n_2$. If $n_3 \neq n_1$, then $b$ is ambiguous and $a \myra b$.  

530: And if $n_3 \neq n_2$, then $c$ is ambiguous and $a \myra c$.  

531: \HB

532: \VV

533: 

534: %\cb 

535: Note that if $\myra$ is not irreflexive, then the first condition

536: is violated. So this lemma can be applicable only to the relations

537: $\myra$ that are irreflexive.  All reduction relations

538: on games here considered are by definition irreflexive.

539: Moreover, because the games are assumed to be finite, these

540: reduction relations automatically satisfy the first condition 

541: of Newman's lemma.

542: %\ce

543: 

544: Also, the following simple observation will be helpful.

545: 

546: \begin{note} [Unique Normal Form] \label{lem:uni}

547: Consider two abstract reduction systems $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

548:   1 \: })$ and $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: })$ such that

549: 

550: \begin{itemize}

551: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: }$ satisfies the unique normal form property,

552: 

553: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}^{\hspace{-1mm} +} = \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}^{\hspace{-1mm} +}$.

554: 

555: \end{itemize}

556: Then $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ satisfies the unique normal form property.

557: \HB

558: \end{note}

559: 

560: In the remainder of the paper we shall study abstract reduction

561: systems that consist of the set of all restrictions of a game and a

562: reduction relation on them. Since we limit ourselves to finite games,

563: in such abstract reduction systems $(A,\myra)$ no infinite $\myra$ sequences exist.

564: 

565: In this context there are three natural ways of establishing that $(A,\myra)$

566: satisfies the unique normal form property:

567: 

568: \begin{itemize}

569: \item by showing that $\myra$ is one step closed: this directly implies weak

570: confluence, and then Newman's Lemma can be applied;

571: 

572: \item by showing that $\myra$ is weakly confluent and applying 

573: Newman's Lemma;

574: 

575: \item by finding a `more elementary' reduction relation $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$

576: such that 

577: 

578: \begin{itemize}

579: 

580: \item no infinite $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ sequences exist,

581: 

582: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ is weakly confluent,

583: 

584: 

585: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}^{\hspace{-1mm} +} = \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}$,

586: 

587: \end{itemize}

588: and applying Newman's Lemma and the Unique Normal Form Note \ref{lem:uni}.

589: 

590: \end{itemize}

591: For some reduction relations all three results are equally easy to

592: establish, while for some others only one.

593: 

594: \section{Dominance Relations}

595: \label{sec:dominance}

596: 

597: We now study (binary) dominance relations in full generality.

598: A \oldbfe{dominance relation} is a function that assigns to each

599: game $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ a subset $R_G$

600: of

601: $

602: \bigcup_{i = 1}^{n} (S_i \times S_i).

603: $

604: Instead of writing that $s_i \ R_G \ s'_i$ holds we write that

605: $s_i \ R \ s'_i$ \oldbfe{holds for} $G$. We say then 

606: that \oldbfe{$s_i$ is

607: $R$-dominated by $s'_i$ in $G$} or that

608: that \oldbfe{$s'_i$ $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G$}.

609: When $G$ is clear from the context we drop a reference to it and view a dominance

610: relation as a binary relation on the strategies of $G$.

611: 

612: Given a dominance relation $R$ 

613: we introduce two notions of reduction between a game 

614: $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and its restriction $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)$.

615: 

616: \begin{itemize}

617: \item We write $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

618: 

619: \[

620: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $s'_i \in S_i$}.

621: \]

622: 

623: \item We write $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

624: 

625: \[

626: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $s'_i \in S'_i$}.

627: \]

628: \end{itemize}

629: 

630: So the relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

631: differ in just one symbol (spot the difference).  Namely, in the case

632: of $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: }$ we require that each strategy removed

633: from $S_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by a strategy in $S_i$, while in

634: case of $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: }$ we require that each strategy

635: removed from $S_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by a strategy in $S'_i$. So

636: in the latter case the dominating strategy should not be removed at

637: the same time.  

638: 

639: %\cb

640: In the literature both reduction relations were considered.

641: In our subsequent presentation we shall focus on the second one, $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$,

642: since

643: 

644: \begin{itemize}

645: \item for most of the reduction relations studied here 

646: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide,

647: 

648: \item for payoff equivalence these relations do not coincide

649: and only the second reduction relation is meaningful.

650: \end{itemize}

651: 

652: On the other hand, the first reduction

653: relation, $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$, allows us to define the `maximal'

654: elimination strategy according to which in each round all

655: $R$-dominated strategies are deleted.  Such a natural strategy is 

656: in particular of interest

657: when order independence fails, see, e.g., \cite{Gil02}.  

658: 

659: Further, note when $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$, the game $G'$

660: can be `degenerated' in the sense that some of the strategy sets of

661: $G'$ can be empty. However, this cannot happen when

662: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide, since

663: then $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ implies that $G'$ is not `degenerated'.

664: 

665: Finally, let us mention that for various type of dominance relations

666: $R$ (unary or binary, for pure and mixed strategies) studied here the

667: equivalence between the corresponding $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and

668: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ reduction relations plays a crucial role in

669: the proofs of the order independence results.

670: 

671: So each reduction relation has some advantages and it is natural to introduce both of them.

672: %\ce

673: 

674: Recall that a strict partial order is an irreflexive transitive

675: relation.  We say now that a dominance relation $R$ is a

676: \oldbfe{strict partial order} if for each game $G$ the binary relation

677: $R_G$ is a strict partial order and reuse in a similar way other

678: typical properties of binary relations.  The following observation

679: clarifies the first item above and will be needed later.

680: 

681: \begin{lemma}[Equivalence] \label{lem:equ1}

682: If a dominance relation $R$ is a strict partial order, then

683: the relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$  and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide.

684: \end{lemma}

685: \Proof It suffices to show that if $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$, then $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$.

686: 

687: Let $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n,

688: p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  Suppose that some $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is

689: $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $s'_i \in S_i$.  

690: Since $R$ is a strict partial order and $S_i$ is finite,

691: a strategy $s'_i \in S_i$ exists

692: that $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G$ and is not $R$-dominated

693: in $G$.  So this $s'_i$ is not eliminated in the step $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ and

694: consequently $s_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $s'_i \in S'_i$.

695: \HB 

696: \VV

697: 

698: In what follows we establish a general `order independence' result for

699: the reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ for the dominance

700: relations $R$ that are strict partial orders and satisfy the following

701: natural assumption due to \cite{GKZ90}. We say that a dominance

702: relation $R$ is \oldbfe{hereditary} if for every game $G$, its restriction

703: $G'$ and two strategies $s_i$ and $s'_i$ of $G'$

704: \[

705: \mbox{$s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $s'_i$ in $G$ implies $s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $s'_i$ in $G'$.}

706: \]

707: 

708: 

709: Each reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ can be specialized by

710: stipulating that a \emph{single strategy} is removed.  We denote the

711: corresponding reduction relation by $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}$.  A

712: natural question when the reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

713: can be modeled using the iterated application of the

714: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R}$ reduction relation does

715: not turn out to be interesting.

716: 

717: In fact, for most dominance relations that are of importance such a

718: modeling is not possible.  The reason is that when removing strategies

719: in an iterated fashion, in particular in the one-at-a-time fashion,

720: some previously undominated strategies can become eligible for

721: removal.  So this process can yield a different outcome than a single

722: removal of several strategies.

723: 

724: In contrast, the following definition seems to capture a relevant

725: property.  We say that that a reduction relation 

726: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ satisfies the

727: \oldbfe{one-at-a-time} property if 

728: \[

729: \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} R}. 

730: \]

731: Obviously, if

732: $\Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm}

733:   +}_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$, then also $\Ra^{\hspace{-1mm}

734:   *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$.

735: The following result clarifies when the

736: one-at-a-time property holds.

737: 

738: \begin{theorem}[One-at-a-time Elimination] \label{thm:one}

739:   For a dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

740:     R}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

741: \end{theorem}

742: 

743: \Proof

744: Note that always $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R} \sse \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$, so

745: $

746: \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R} \sse \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} R}

747: $

748: always holds.

749: 

750: To prove the inverse inclusion it suffices to show that

751: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R} \sse \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}.

752: $

753: So suppose that $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$.

754: We prove that $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R \: } G'$ by

755: induction on the number $k$ of strategies deleted in the transition 

756: from $G$ to $G'$.

757: If $k=1$, then $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R \: } G'$ holds.

758: 

759: Suppose now that claim holds for some $k > 1$. Assume that

760: $

761: G := (S_1, \LL, S_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)

762: $

763: and

764: $

765: G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

766: $

767: For each $i \in [1..n]$ let $S_i \setminus S'_i := \C{t^{1}_i, \LL, t^{k_i}_{i}}$.

768: So for all $i \in [1..n]$ and all $j \in [1..k_i]$ 

769: the strategy $t^{j}_{i}$ is $R$-dominated

770: in $G$ by some $s^{j}_{i} \in S'_i$. Choose some strategy $t^{j_0}_{i_0}$ and let

771: $G''$ be the game resulting from $G$ by removing $t^{j_0}_{i_0}$ from $S_{i_0}$.

772: Then $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R \: } G''$.

773: 

774: Since $t^{j_0}_{i_0} \not\in \cup_{i=1}^{n} S'_{i}$ each strategy

775: $s^{j}_{i}$ is in $G''$.  So by the hereditarity of $R$ each strategy

776: $t^{j}_i$, where $(i,j) \neq (i_0, j_0)$, is $R$-dominated in $G''$ by

777: $s^{j}_{i}$.  This means that $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$. By

778: the induction hypothesis $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,

779:   R \: } G'$, hence $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R \: }

780: G'$.  

781: \HB 

782: \VV

783: 

784: Now, given a dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and is a strict

785: partial order we can establish that the

786: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ reduction

787: relation on the set of all restrictions

788: of a game $H$ satisfies the unique normal form property

789: (in short: \oldbfe{is UN}) in one of the following three ways:

790: 

791: \begin{itemize}

792: \item by showing that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ is one step closed;

793: this is the argument provided by \cite{GKZ90},

794: 

795: \item by proving that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ 

796: is weakly confluent,

797: 

798: \item by proving that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}$ 

799: is weakly confluent. 

800: \end{itemize}

801: 

802: In the last case one actually proceeds by showing that 

803: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}$ 

804: satisfies the diamond property, where 

805: we say that $\myra$ 

806: satisfies the 

807: \oldbfe{diamond property} if

808: for all $a,b,c \in A$ such that $b \neq c$

809: 

810: 

811: \begin{center}

812: $a$                                             \\

813: $\swarrow$ $\searrow$                           \\

814: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            \\

815: \end{center}

816: 

817: \NI

818: implies that for some $d \in A$

819: 

820: \begin{center}

821: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            \\

822: $\searrow$ $\swarrow$                           \\

823: $d$

824: 

825: \end{center}

826: 

827: All three proofs are straightforward.

828: As an illustration we provide the proof for the second approach

829: as its pattern will be repeated a number of times.

830: 

831: \begin{lemma}[Weak Confluence] \label{lem:diamond1}

832: Consider a dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and is a strict partial order.

833: Then the  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ relation on the set of all restrictions

834: of a game $H$ is weakly confluent.

835: \end{lemma}

836: 

837: \Proof

838: Suppose

839: \begin{center}

840: \ $G$            \\[-4mm]

841: \vspace{2mm}

842: $\Swarrow$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\[-4mm]

843: $\hspace{3mm}_{R}$ \ $_{R}\hspace{-1mm}\Searrow$                           \\

844: \ \ $G'$\ \  \ \ \ $G''$           

845: \end{center}

846: 

847: \NI

848: We prove that then

849: \begin{center}

850: \ \ $G'$\ \  \ \ \ \ \ \ $G''$       \\[-4mm]

851: \vspace{2mm}

852: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Swarrow$  \\[-4mm]

853: \ $_{R} \hspace{-1mm}\Searrow\! ^{\epsilon}$ \ \ $^{\epsilon}\! \hspace{2mm}_{R}$                           \\

854: $\ \ G' \cap G''$

855: \end{center}

856: 

857: \NI

858: Recall that $a \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } b$ means $a \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } b$ or $a = b$.

859: 

860: If  $G'$ is a restriction of $G' \cap G''$, then 

861: $G' = G' \cap G''$ and consequently $G' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G' \cap G''$.

862: Otherwise suppose

863: \[

864: G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n),

865: \]

866: \[

867: G'' := (S''_1, \LL, S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

868: \]

869: Then

870: \[

871: G' \cap G'' = (S'_1 \cap S''_1, \LL, S'_n \cap S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

872: \]

873: Fix $i \in [1..n]$ and consider a strategy $s_i \in

874: S'_i$ such that $s_i \not\in S'_i \cap S''_i$.  So $s_i$ is eliminated in

875: the step $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$.  Hence some $s'_i \in S_i$ $R$-dominates

876: $s_i$ in $G$.  

877: \II

878: 

879: \NI

880: \emph{Case 1.} $s'_i \in S'_i$. 

881: 

882: $G'$ is a restriction of $G$ and $R$ is hereditary so

883: $s'_i$ also $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G'$.

884: \II

885: 

886: \NI

887: \emph{Case 2.} $s'_i \not \in S'_i$. 

888: 

889: So $s'_i$ is eliminated in the step $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$.  Hence 

890: a strategy $s''_i \in S'_i$ exists

891: that $R$-dominates $s'_i$ in $G$.  By the transitivity of $R$, $s''_i$

892: $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G$ and hence, by hereditarity, in $G'$.

893: 

894: \III

895: 

896: This proves $G' \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G' \cap G''$

897: and hence, by the

898: Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equ1},  

899: $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G' \cap G''$.

900: 

901: By symmetry $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} \epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: }  G' \cap G''$. 

902: \HB

903: \VV

904: 

905: This brings us to the following result of \cite{GKZ90}.

906: 

907: \begin{theorem}[Elimination] \label{thm:hereditary}

908: For a dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and a strict partial order

909: the  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: }$ relation is UN.

910: \HB

911: \end{theorem}

912: 

913: To illustrate a direct use of the above results consider the strict

914: dominance relation $S$.

915: It entails the reduction relation

916: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S}$ on games obtained by instantiating $R$ in

917: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ by the strict dominance relation.  As already

918: noted by \cite{GKZ90} strict dominance is clearly hereditary and is a

919: strict partial order. So we get the following conclusion.

920: 

921: \begin{theorem}[Strict Elimination] \label{thm:strict1}

922: 

923: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

924:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

925: 

926: \item 

927: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S}$ relation is UN.

928: 

929: \item 

930: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

931: \HB

932: \end{enumerate}

933: \end{theorem}

934: 

935: In other words, the process of iterated elimination of strictly

936: dominated strategies yields a unique outcome and coincides with the

937: outcome of the iterated elimination of a single dominated strategy.

938: 

939: \section{Pure Strategies: Inherent Dominance}

940: \label{sec:bor}

941: 

942: In this section we introduce and study a natural generalization of the

943: binary dominance notion, due to \cite{Bor90,Bor93}.  Consider a game $(S_1, \LL,

944: S_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  Let $R$ be a dominance relation and

945: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ a non-empty subset of

946: $S_{-i}$.  We say that a strategy $s_i$ is $R$-\oldbfe{dominated

947:   given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$} by a strategy $s'_i$ if $s_i$ is

948: $R$-dominated by $s'_i$ in the game $(S_i, \tilde{S}_{-i}, p_1, \LL,

949: p_n)$.  Then we say that a strategy $s_i$ is \oldbfe{inherently

950:   $R$-dominated} if for every non-empty subset $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of

951: $S_{-i}$ it is $R$-dominated given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by some strategy

952: $s'_i$. So we turned in this way the binary relation $R$ to a

953: unary relation on the strategies.

954: 

955: Note that in the definition of inherent $R$-dominance for each subset

956: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S_{-i}$ a different strategy of player $i$ can

957: $R$-dominate the considered strategy $s_i$. This can make this notion

958: of dominance stronger than $R$-dominance.  \cite{Bor90,Bor93} studied

959: this notion of dominance for $R$ being weak dominance

960: and established for it the order independence.

961: The resulting dominance relation, inherent weak dominance, is an intermediate

962: notion between strict and weak dominance. Indeed, 

963: it is clearly implied by strict dominance and implies in turn weak

964: dominance. The converse implications do not hold

965: as the following two examples show.

966: In the game

967: \begin{center}

968: \begin{game}{3}{2}

969:       & $L$    & $R$ \\

970: $T$   &$2,-$   &$1,-$\\

971: $M$   &$1,-$   &$2,-$ \\

972: $B$   &$1,-$   &$3,-$

973: \end{game}

974: \end{center}

975: the strategy $M$ is weakly dominated by $T$ given $\C{L}$

976: and weakly dominated by $B$ given $\C{R}$ or given $\C{L,R}$.

977: So $M$ is inherently weakly dominated but is not strictly dominated

978: by any strategy.

979: 

980: In turn in the game

981: 

982: \begin{center}

983: \begin{game}{2}{2}

984:       & $L$    & $R$\\

985: $T$   &$2,-$   &$1,-$\\

986: $B$   &$1,-$   &$1,-$

987: \end{game}

988: \end{center}

989: the strategy $B$ is not inherently weakly dominated but is

990: weakly dominated.

991: 

992: It is well-known that weak dominance is not order independent.

993: We shall return to this matter in Section \ref{sec:nweak}.

994: The intuitive reason is that weak dominance is not hereditary.

995: As a consequence the proof of

996: the corresponding weak confluence property does not go through.  

997: 

998: The notion of inherent $R$-dominance does not fit into the framework

999: developed in Section \ref{sec:dominance}, since it is a unary relation.

1000: However, when studying reduction by means of it we

1001: can proceed in a largely analogous fashion.

1002: So first we introduce two notions of

1003: reduction between a game $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and its

1004: restriction $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$, this time involving

1005: the inherent $R$-dominance notion.

1006: 

1007: \begin{itemize}

1008: \item We write $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1009: \[

1010: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is inherently $R$-dominated in $G$}.

1011: \]

1012: 

1013: \item We write $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1014: for every non-empty subset $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S_{-i}$

1015: \[

1016: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$

1017: by some $s'_i \in S'_i$}.

1018: \]

1019: \end{itemize}

1020: 

1021: So in the $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: }$ relation for every non-empty

1022: subset $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S_{-i}$ we require $R$-dominance in $G$

1023: given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by some $s'_i \in S_i$, while in the

1024: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: }$ relation for every non-empty subset

1025: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S_{-i}$ we require $R$-dominance in $G$ given

1026: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by some $s'_i \in S'_i$.  \cite{Bor90,Bor93} considered the

1027: first relation, $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: }$, for $R$ being weak dominance.

1028: We introduce the

1029: second one, $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: }$, to streamline the

1030: presentation. As in Section \ref{sec:dominance} under a

1031: natural assumption both notions turn out to be

1032: equivalent.

1033: 

1034: \begin{lemma}[Equivalence] \label{lem:equ3} 

1035: For a dominance relation $R$ that is a strict partial order

1036: the relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$  and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ coincide.

1037: \end{lemma}

1038: 

1039: \Proof The proof is similar to that of the Equivalence Lemma

1040: \ref{lem:equ1}.  It suffices to show that if $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1041:   inh-R \: } G'$, then $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G'$.

1042: 

1043: Let $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n,

1044: p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  Suppose that some $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is

1045: inherently $R$-dominated in $G$. Let $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ be a non-empty subset of

1046: $S_{-i}$.  Some strategy $s'_i \in S_i$ \ $R$-dominates $s_i$

1047: in $G$ given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$.  $R$ is a strict partial order

1048: and $S_i$ is finite, so a

1049: strategy $s'_i \in S_i$ exists that $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G$

1050: given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ and is not $R$-dominated in $G$ given

1051: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by any strategy in $S_i$.  

1052: So this $s'_i$ is not eliminated in the step $G

1053: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G'$ and consequently $s_i$ is 

1054: $R$-dominated in $G$ given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by some $s'_i \in S'_i$.

1055: \HB 

1056: \VV

1057: 

1058: The following simple observation relates the 

1059: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ reduction relation to the

1060: previously introduced relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$.

1061: 

1062: \begin{note}[Comparison] \label{not:comparison}

1063: Consider a dominance relation $R$. Then

1064:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

1065: 

1066: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R} \sse \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$.

1067: 

1068: \item If $R$ is hereditary, then

1069: the relations $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide.

1070: \HB

1071: \end{enumerate}

1072: \end{note}

1073: 

1074: So for hereditary dominance relations no new reduction relations

1075: were introduced here. Further, it is easy to provide examples of a

1076: non-hereditary $R$, for instance weak dominance, for which the

1077: reduction relations $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ and

1078: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ differ.

1079: 

1080: We now establish order independence for specific

1081: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ reduction relations.

1082: Following \cite{GKZ90} we say that a dominance relation $R$ satisfies

1083: the \oldbfe{individual independence of irrelevant alternatives} condition (in

1084: short, \oldbfe{IIIA}) if for every game $(S_i, S_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ 

1085: the following holds:

1086: \[

1087:   \begin{array}{l}

1088: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$, all non-empty $S'_i \sse S_i$ and $s_i, s'_i \in S'_i$} \\

1089: \mbox{$s_i \ R \ s'_i$ holds in $(S_i, S_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ iff it

1090:  holds in $(S'_i, S_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.}

1091:   \end{array}

1092: \]

1093: 

1094: IIIA is a very reasonable condition. All specific dominance relations

1095: considered in this paper satisfy it.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: \begin{lemma}[Weak Confluence] \label{lem:diamond3}

1099: For a dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition and is a strict partial order

1100: the  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ relation on the set of all restrictions

1101: of a game $H$ is weakly confluent.

1102: \end{lemma}

1103: 

1104: \Proof We proceed as in the proof of

1105: the Weak Confluence Lemma \ref{lem:diamond1}.

1106: Suppose $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G'$ and $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1107:   inh-R \: } G''$.  We prove that then $G' \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm}

1108:  \:  inh-R \: } G' \cap G''$ and $G'' \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm}  \: inh-R \: }

1109: G' \cap G''$.

1110: 

1111: If $G'$ is a restriction of $G' \cap G''$, then $G' = G' \cap G''$ and

1112: consequently $G' \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm}  inh-R \: } G' \cap G''$.

1113: Otherwise suppose

1114: $

1115: G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n),

1116: $

1117: $

1118: G'' := (S''_1, \LL, S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

1119: $

1120: Then

1121: $

1122: G' \cap G'' = (S'_1 \cap S''_1, \LL, S'_n \cap S''_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

1123: $

1124: 

1125: Fix $i \in [1..n]$.  Consider a strategy $s_i \in

1126: S'_i$ such that $s_i \not \in S'_i \cap S''_i$.  

1127: So $s_i$ is eliminated in the step $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}  \: inh-R \: }

1128: G''$.

1129: Take now a non-empty subset $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S'_{-i}$

1130: (and hence of $S_{-i}$). The strategy

1131: $s_i$ is $R$-dominated given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ in $G$ by

1132: some strategy $s'_i \in S_i$.

1133: \II

1134: 

1135: \NI

1136: \emph{Case 1.} $s'_i \in S'_i$. 

1137: 

1138: Then, since $R$ satisfies the IIIA condition, $s_i \ R \ s'_i$ holds in the game

1139: $(S'_i, \tilde{S}_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$, i.e., 

1140: $s_i$ is $R$-dominated given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ in $G'$.

1141: 

1142: \II

1143: 

1144: \NI

1145: \emph{Case 2.} $s'_i \not \in S'_i$. 

1146: 

1147: So $s'_i$ is eliminated in the step $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}  \: inh-R \: }

1148: G'$.  Hence a strategy $s''_i

1149: \in S'_i$ exists that $R$-dominates $s'_i$ in $G$ given

1150: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$.  By the transitivity of $R$ the strategy $s''_i$ \ $R$-dominates $s_i$ in

1151: $G$ given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ and hence, since $R$ satisfies the IIIA condition,

1152: $s_i$ is $R$-dominated given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ in $G'$.

1153: \III

1154: 

1155: So we showed that each strategy $s_i$ of player $i$ eliminated in the transition

1156: from $G'$ to $G' \cap G''$ is inherently $R$-dominated in $G'$.

1157: This proves $G' \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G' \cap G''$

1158: and hence, by the

1159: Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equ3}  

1160: $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R \: } G' \cap G''$.

1161: 

1162: By symmetry $G'' \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} \: inh-R \: } G' \cap G''$.  

1163: \HB

1164: \VV

1165: 

1166: We can now draw the desired conclusion using Newman's Lemma 

1167: \ref{lem:newman}.

1168: 

1169: \begin{theorem}[Inherent Elimination] \label{thm:strict3}

1170: For a dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition and is a strict partial order

1171: the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: inh-R \: }$ relation is UN.

1172: \HB

1173: \end{theorem}

1174: 

1175: As in Section \ref{sec:dominance} we introduce the 

1176: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, inh-R}$ reduction relation that

1177: removes exactly one strategy, and as before  we say that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1178:    inh-R}$ satisfies the \oldbfe{one-at-a-time} property when

1179: \[

1180: \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,inh-R} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}. 

1181: \]

1182: 

1183: The following counterpart of the One-at-a-time

1184: Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} then holds.

1185: 

1186: \begin{theorem}[One-at-a-time Elimination] \label{thm:oneB}

1187:   For a dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition the relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1188:    inh-R}$ satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

1189: \end{theorem}

1190: 

1191: \Proof

1192: Analogous to the proof of the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} and omitted.

1193: \HB

1194: \VV

1195: 

1196: Since the weak dominance relation $W$ satisfies the IIIA condition and

1197: is a strict partial order, by the above results we get the following

1198: counterpart of the Strict Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:strict1}.

1199: 

1200: \begin{theorem}[Inherent Weak Elimination] \label{thm:weak-inh}

1201: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

1202:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

1203: 

1204: \item 

1205: The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-W}$ relation is UN.

1206: 

1207: \item 

1208: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-W}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

1209: \HB

1210: \end{enumerate}

1211: \end{theorem}

1212: 

1213: The first item was established in \cite{Bor90}.

1214: %\cb

1215: In \cite{Bor93} it was shown that a strategy is inherently weakly dominated

1216: iff it is not rational, in the sense that it is not a best response to

1217: a belief formed over the pure strategies of other players when their payoff

1218: functions are not known --- it is only assumed that their payoff functions

1219: are compatible with their publicly known preferences.

1220: So the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-W}$ relation allows

1221: us to model iterated removal of strategies that are not rational

1222: in this sense.

1223: %\ce

1224: 

1225: \section{Mixed Dominance Relations}

1226: \label{sec:mixeddom}

1227: 

1228: The notion of dominance studied in Section \ref{sec:dominance}

1229: involved two pure strategies. In this section we study the

1230: dominance relations in which the dominating strategies are mixed

1231: and develop the appropriate general results.

1232: 

1233: Let us recall first the definitions.  Given a set of strategies $S_i$

1234: available to player $i$, by a \oldbfe{mixed strategy} we mean a

1235: probability distribution over $S_i$ and denote this set of mixed

1236: strategies by $M_i$.

1237: 

1238: Given a mixed strategy $m_i$ we

1239: define

1240: \[

1241: support(m_i) := \{s_i \in S_i \mid m_i(s_i) > 0\}.

1242: \]

1243: 

1244: Consider a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.

1245: Each payoff function $p_i$ is generalized to a function

1246: \[

1247: p_i: M_1 \times \LL \times M_n \myra \cal{R}

1248: \]

1249: by putting for a sequence $(m_1, \LL, m_n)$ of mixed strategies from

1250: $M_1 \times \LL \times M_n$

1251: \[

1252: p_i(m_1, \LL, m_n) := \sum_{s \in S} m_1(s_1) \: \LL \: m_n(s_n) \: p_i(s).

1253: \]

1254: 

1255: As usual, we identify a mixed strategy for player $i$ of a restriction

1256: $G'$ of $G$ with a mixed strategy of $G$ by assigning the probability

1257: 0 to the strategies of player $i$ that are present in $G$ but not in

1258: $G'$. Further, we can view a mixed strategy for player $i$ in $G$ as a

1259: mixed strategy in $G'$ if its support is a subset of the set of all

1260: strategies of player $i$ in $G'$.  Also, we can identify each pure

1261: strategy $s_i$ with the mixed strategy that assigns to $s_i$ the

1262: probability 1.

1263: 

1264: A \oldbfe{mixed dominance relation} is a function that assigns to each

1265: game $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ a subset $R_G$ of

1266: $

1267: \bigcup_{i = 1}^{n} (S_i \times M_i).

1268: $

1269: When $s_i \ R_G \ m'_i$ holds we say that $s_i \ R \ m'_i$ \oldbfe{holds for}

1270: $G$ and also say that 

1271: \oldbfe{$s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $m'_i$ in $G$}, or that

1272: \oldbfe{$m'_i$ $R$-dominates $s_i$ in $G$}.

1273: 

1274: As in Section \ref{sec:dominance}

1275: we introduce now two notions of reduction between a game $G :=

1276: (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and its restriction $G' := (S'_1, \LL,

1277: S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$, this time involving a mixed dominance relation $R$.

1278: 

1279: \begin{itemize}

1280: \item We write $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1281: 

1282: \[

1283: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $m'_i \in M_i$}.

1284: \]

1285: 

1286: \item We write $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1287: 

1288: \[

1289: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by some $m'_i \in M'_i$}.

1290: \]

1291: \end{itemize}

1292: 

1293: So, as before, the difference between the $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

1294: and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ lies in the requirement we put on the

1295: $R$-dominating ---this time mixed--- strategy.  In

1296: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ we require that each strategy removed

1297: from $S_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by a mixed strategy in $M_i$,

1298: while in $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ we require that it is $R$-dominated in

1299: $G$ by a mixed strategy in $M'_i$. So in the latter case no strategy

1300: from the support of the $R$-dominating mixed strategy should be

1301: removed at the same time.

1302: 

1303: To establish equivalence between both reduction relations we need a

1304: counterpart of the notion of a strict partial order.  Below, we

1305: occasionally write each mixed strategy $m'$ over the set of strategies

1306: $S_i$ as the sum $\sum_{t \in S_i} p_t \: t$, where each $p_t = m'(t)$.

1307: Then given two mixed strategies $m_{1}, m_{2}$ and a strategy $t_1$ we

1308: mean by $m_{2}[t_1/m_1]$ the mixed strategy obtained from $m_{2}$ by

1309: substituting the strategy $t_1$ by $m_1$ and by `normalizing' the

1310: resulting sum.

1311: 

1312: We now say that a mixed dominance relation $R$ is \oldbfe{regular} if

1313: in every game

1314: \begin{itemize}

1315: \item for all $\alpha \in (0,1]$, 

1316: $s \ R \ (1 - \alpha) s + \alpha \: m$ implies

1317: $s \ R \ m$,

1318: 

1319: \item $t_1 \ R \ m_1$ and $t_2 \ R \ m_2$ implies

1320: $t_1 \ R \ m_{1}[t_2/m_2]$.

1321: 

1322: \end{itemize}

1323: 

1324: 

1325: \begin{lemma}[Equivalence] \label{lem:equm}

1326: For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is regular

1327: the relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$  and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide.

1328: \end{lemma}

1329: \Proof

1330: We only need to show that $G \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$

1331: implies $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$.

1332: 

1333: Let $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G' := (S'_1, \LL,

1334: S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.  Take some $s''_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$.  Let

1335: $S_i \setminus S'_i := \{t_1, \LL, t_k\}$ with $t_k = s''_i$.  By

1336: definition for all $j \in [1..n]$ some $m_j \in M_i$ exists such that

1337: $t_j \ R \ m_j$ (holds in $G$).

1338: We prove by complete induction that in fact for all $j \in [1..k]$

1339: some $m'_j \in M_i$ exists such that $t_j \ R \ m'_j$ and

1340: $support(m'_{j}) \cap \C{t_1, \LL, t_{j}} = \ES$.

1341: 

1342: For some $\alpha \in (0,1]$ and a mixed strategy $m'_1$ with $t_1 \not

1343: \in support(m'_1)$ we have

1344: \[

1345: m_1 = (1 - \alpha) t_1 + \alpha \: m'_1.

1346: \]

1347: Since $R$ is regular, $t_1 \ R \ m_1$ implies $t_1 \ R \ m'_1$,

1348: which proves the claim for $k = 1$.

1349: 

1350: Assume now the claim holds for all $\ell \in [1..j]$.

1351: We have $t_{j+1} \ R \ m_{j+1}$. As in the case of $k = 1$ a mixed strategy

1352: $m''_{j+1}$ exists such that $t_{j+1} \not \in support(m''_{j+1})$ and 

1353: $t_{j+1} \ R \ m''_{j+1}$. Let

1354: 

1355: \[

1356: m'_{j+1} := m''_{j+1} [t_1/m'_1] \LL [t_j/m'_j]. 

1357: \]

1358: Then for all $\ell \in [1..j]$ we have $support(m''_{j+1} [t_1/m'_1]

1359: \LL [t_{\ell}/m'_{\ell}]) \cap \C{t_1, \LL, t_{\ell}, t_{j+1}} = \ES$,

1360: so $support(m'_{j+1}) \cap \C{t_1, \LL, t_{j+1}} = \ES$, i.e.,

1361: $support(m'_{j+1}) \sse S'_i$. 

1362: 

1363: Also $t_{j+1} \ R \ m''_{j+1}$ and

1364: $t_{\ell} \ R \ m'_{\ell}$ for all $\ell \in [1..j]$ imply 

1365: by the regularity of $R$ that $t_{j+1} \ R \ m'_{j+1}$.

1366: Hence $s''_i$ (which equals $t_k$)

1367: is $R$-dominated by the mixed strategy $m'_k \in M'_i$.

1368: \HB

1369: \VV

1370: 

1371: %\cb 

1372: The second condition of the regularity notion appears in Lemma 1

1373: of \cite{Rob03} under the name `transitivity'. In that paper order

1374: independence of conditional dominance is established, a notion

1375: introduced in \cite{SW98}.  Establishing `transitivity' for a

1376: specialized form of conditional dominance (called a robust

1377: demi-replacement) turns out to be a crucial step in the proof

1378: of the order independence.

1379: In our case regularity allows us to focus our representation on the second reduction

1380: relation, $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$.

1381: %\ce

1382: 

1383: In analogy to the case of dominance relations we say that a mixed dominance relation

1384: $R$ is \oldbfe{hereditary} if for every game $G$, its restriction $G'$,

1385: a strategy $s_i$ of $G'$ and a mixed strategy $m'_i$ of $G'$

1386: \[

1387: \mbox{$s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $m'_i$ in $G$ implies $s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $m'_i$ in $G'$.}

1388: \]

1389: 

1390: Also, as in the case of the dominance relations, given a mixed

1391: dominance relation $R$ we can specialize the reduction relation

1392: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ to $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}$ in which a

1393: single strategy is removed.

1394: The following counterpart of the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} 

1395: then holds.

1396: 

1397: \begin{theorem}[One-at-a-time Elimination] \label{thm:one2}

1398:   For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary the

1399:   $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

1400: \end{theorem}

1401: 

1402: \Proof Analogous to the proof of the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem

1403: \ref{thm:one} and left to the reader.  

1404: \HB 

1405: \VV

1406: 

1407: As in Section \ref{sec:dominance} for

1408: a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and regular we have

1409: three ways of proving that the reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

1410: is UN. Here, for a change, we provide a proof for the first approach.

1411: 

1412: \begin{lemma}[One Step Closedness] \label{thm:onem}

1413:   For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and regular the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

1414: relation is one step closed.

1415: \end{lemma}

1416: \Proof

1417: Given a game 

1418: $

1419: G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n),

1420: $

1421: let

1422: $

1423: G'' := (S''_1, \LL, S''_n,$  $p_1, \LL, p_n)

1424: $

1425: be the game obtained from $G$ by removing all the strategies that are $R$-dominated 

1426: by a mixed strategy in $G$.

1427: Then $G \myra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$, so

1428: by the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equm} $G \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$.

1429: 

1430: Suppose now that $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G'$ for some 

1431: $

1432: G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n).

1433: $

1434: Then clearly $S''_i \sse S'_i$ for all $i \in [1..n]$.

1435: If $G'$ and $G''$ coincide, then 

1436: $G' \Ra^{\epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$.

1437: 

1438: Otherwise fix $i \in [1..n]$ and consider a strategy $s_i$ such that $s_i \in

1439: S'_i \setminus S''_i$.

1440: So $s_i$ is eliminated in

1441: the step $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$. Hence

1442: $s_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G$ by a mixed strategy $m'_i \in M''_i$.

1443: By the hereditarity of $R$ \ 

1444: $s_i$ is $R$-dominated in $G'$ by $m'_i$.

1445: This proves

1446: $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G''$.

1447: \HB

1448: \VV

1449: 

1450: The reader may note a `detour' in this proof through the $\myra$ reduction, 

1451: justified by the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equm}.

1452: The above lemma brings us to the following conclusion.

1453: 

1454: \begin{theorem}[Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:strictmixed}

1455: For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is hereditary and regular

1456: the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ relation is UN.

1457: \end{theorem}

1458: \Proof 

1459: We noted already in Section \ref{sec:ars} that one step

1460: closedness implies weak confluence. So Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman}

1461: applies.  

1462: \HB 

1463: \VV

1464: 

1465: In other words, when $R$ is a mixed dominance relation that is

1466: hereditary and regular, the process of iterated elimination of

1467: $R$-dominated strategies yields a unique outcome.

1468: 

1469: We can directly apply the results of this section to

1470: strict dominance by mixed strategies.

1471: Let us recall first the definition.

1472: Consider a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n,$  $p_1, \LL,

1473: p_n)$.  We say that a 

1474: strategy $s_i$ is \oldbfe{strictly dominated} by a mixed strategy

1475: $m'_i$, or equivalently, that 

1476: a mixed strategy $m'_i$ \oldbfe{strictly

1477:   dominates} a strategy $s_i$, if

1478: \[

1479: p_i(s_i, s_{-i}) < p_i(m'_i, s_{-i})

1480: \]

1481: for all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$.

1482: 

1483: This mixed dominance relation entails the reduction relation

1484: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$ on games obtained by

1485: instantiating the mixed dominance relation $R$ in 

1486: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ 

1487: by the strict dominance in the above sense.

1488: Clearly, strict dominance by a mixed strategy is hereditary and regular, so

1489: by virtue of the above results  we get the following

1490: counterpart of the Strict Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:strict1}.

1491: 

1492: \begin{theorem}[Strict Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:strictm}

1493: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

1494:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

1495: 

1496: \item 

1497: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$ relation is UN.

1498: 

1499: \item 

1500: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

1501: \HB

1502: \end{enumerate}

1503: \end{theorem}

1504: 

1505: The first item states that strict dominance by means of

1506: mixed strategies is order independent.

1507: 

1508: \section{Mixed Strategies: Inherent Dominance}

1509: \label{sec:borm}

1510: 

1511: The concepts and results of Section \ref{sec:bor} can be naturally

1512: modified to the case of mixed dominance relations.  Consider such a

1513: relation $R$ and a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n,$ $p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and let

1514: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ be a non-empty subset of $S_{-i}$.  We say that a

1515: strategy $s_i$ is $R$-\oldbfe{dominated given $\tilde{S}_{-i}$} by a

1516: mixed strategy $m'_i$ if $s_i$ is $R$-dominated by $m'_i$ in the

1517: game $(S_i, \tilde{S}_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and say that a strategy

1518: $s_i$ is \oldbfe{inherently $R$-dominated} if for every non-empty

1519: subset $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ of $S_{-i}$ it is $R$-dominated given

1520: $\tilde{S}_{-i}$ by some mixed strategy $m'_i$.

1521: 

1522: As before, each mixed dominance relation $R$ entails two reduction

1523: relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1524:   inh-R}$ on games  and their `one-at-a-time' versions,

1525: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, inh-R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, R}$.

1526: 

1527: The \oldbfe{individual independence of irrelevant alternatives} condition 

1528: (\oldbfe{IIIA}) now holds for a mixed dominance relation $R$

1529: if for every game $(S_i, S_{-i},$  $p_1, \LL, p_n)$

1530: \[

1531:   \begin{array}{l}

1532: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$, all non-empty $S'_i \sse S_i$, $s_i \in S'_i$ and $m_i \in M'_i$} \\

1533: \mbox{$s_i \ R \ m'_i$ holds in $(S_i, S_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ iff it

1534:  holds in $(S'_i, S_{-i}, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.}

1535:   \end{array}

1536: \]

1537: 

1538: By analogy we obtain the following results concerning the introduced reduction relations.

1539: 

1540: \begin{lemma}[Equivalence] \label{lem:equdm}

1541: For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that is regular

1542: the relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$  and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ coincide.

1543: \end{lemma}

1544: \Proof Analogous to the proof of the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equm} and omitted.

1545: \HB

1546: 

1547: \begin{lemma}[One Step Closedness] \label{thm:onedm}

1548:   For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition

1549:   and is regular the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ relation is one

1550:   step closed.

1551: \end{lemma}

1552: \Proof Analogous to the proof of the One Step Closedness Lemma \ref{thm:onem},

1553: using the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equdm}, and omitted.

1554: \HB

1555: 

1556: \begin{theorem}[Inherent Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:strict4}

1557: For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition and is regular

1558: the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: inh-R \: }$ relation is UN.

1559: \HB

1560: \end{theorem}

1561: \Proof By the One Step Closedness Lemma \ref{thm:onedm}

1562: and Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman}.

1563: \HB

1564: 

1565: \begin{theorem}[One-at-a-time Elimination] \label{thm:oneBd}

1566:   For a mixed dominance relation $R$ that satisfies the IIIA condition

1567:   the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-R}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time

1568:   property.

1569: \end{theorem}

1570: 

1571: \Proof

1572: Analogous to the proof of the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} and omitted.

1573: \HB

1574: \VV

1575: 

1576: These results can be directly applied to weak dominance by a mixed

1577: strategy.  Recall that given a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$

1578: we say that a strategy $s_i$ is \oldbfe{weakly dominated} by a mixed

1579: strategy $m'_i$, and write $s_i \ {\it WM} \ m'_i$, if

1580: \[

1581: p_i(s_i, s_{-i}) \leq p_i(m'_i, s_{-i})

1582: \]

1583: for all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$, with some disequality being strict.

1584: 

1585: It is straightforward to check that

1586: \emph{WM} satisfies the IIIA condition and is regular. However,

1587: somewhat unexpectedly, we do not get now any new results, since

1588: as shown by \cite{Bor90} the reduction relations $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1589:   inh-WM}$ and $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$ 

1590: (and hence $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1591:   inh-WM}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$)

1592: coincide.

1593: 

1594: 

1595: \section{More on Abstract Reduction Systems}

1596: \label{ars-more}

1597: 

1598: We shall soon deal with the elimination of payoff equivalent

1599: strategies and to this end we shall need a refinement of 

1600: Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman}.  Consider an abstract

1601: reduction system $(A,\myra)$ and assume an equivalence relation

1602: $\sim$ on $A$. We now relativize the previously introduced notions

1603: to $\sim$ and introduce one new concept linking $\myra$ and $\sim$.

1604: 

1605: 

1606: \begin{itemize}

1607: 

1608: \item If every element of $A$ has a unique up to $\sim$ normal form, we say that

1609: $(A,\myra)$ (or simply $\myra$)

1610: satisfies the \oldbfe{$\sim$-unique normal form property}.

1611: 

1612: \item We say that $\myra$ is \oldbfe{$\sim$-weakly confluent}

1613: if for all $a,b,c \in A$ 

1614: 

1615: \begin{center}

1616: $a$                                             \\

1617: $\swarrow$ $\searrow$                           \\

1618: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            

1619: \end{center}

1620: 

1621: \NI

1622: implies that for some $d_1, d_2 \in A$

1623: 

1624: \begin{center}

1625: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                        \\

1626: $\searrow \!*$ \ \ \ \ \ $\!*\swarrow$                    \\

1627: $d_1 \sim d_2$

1628: \end{center}

1629: 

1630: \item We say that $\myra$ is \oldbfe{$\sim$-bisimilar} if

1631: for all $a,b,c \in A$ 

1632: \begin{center}

1633: \ \ \ \ \ $a \sim b$                                             \\

1634: $\downarrow$ \\

1635: $c$ 

1636: \end{center}

1637: 

1638: \NI

1639: implies that for some $d \in A$

1640: 

1641: \begin{center}

1642: \ \ \ \ \ $a \sim b$                                             \\

1643: \ \ \ \ \ $\downarrow$ \ \ $\downarrow$ \\

1644: \ \ \ \ \ $c \sim d$ 

1645: \end{center}

1646: 

1647: \end{itemize}

1648: 

1649: The following lemma is then a relativized version of 

1650: Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman}. 

1651: %\cb

1652: It is a special case of Lemma 2.7 from

1653: \cite[ page 803]{Hue80}, with a more direct proof.

1654: %\ce

1655: 

1656: \begin{lemma}[$\sim$-Newman] \label{lem:newman2}

1657: Consider an abstract reduction system $(A,\myra)$ and an equivalence

1658: relation $\sim$ on $A$ such that

1659: 

1660: \begin{itemize}

1661: \item no infinite $\myra$ sequences exist,

1662: 

1663: \item $\myra$ is $\sim$-weakly confluent,

1664: 

1665: \item $\myra$ is $\sim$-bisimilar.

1666: 

1667: \end{itemize}

1668: Then $\myra$ satisfies the $\sim$-unique normal form property.

1669: \end{lemma}

1670: 

1671: \Proof 

1672: We modify the proof of Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman}.

1673: We call now an element $a$ \emph{ambiguous} if it

1674: has at least two normal forms that are not equivalent w.r.t.~$\sim$. 

1675: As before  we show that for

1676: every ambiguous $a$ some ambiguous $b$ exists such that $a \myra b$.

1677: This proves absence of ambiguous elements by the first assumption.

1678: 

1679: So suppose that some element $a$ has two distinct normal forms $n_1$

1680: and $n_2$ such that $n_1 \not\sim n_2$.

1681: Then for some $b, c$ we have $a \myra b \tra n_1$ and $a

1682: \myra c \tra n_2$.  By the $\sim$-weak confluence some $d_1$ and $d_2$ exist such that $b

1683: \tra d_1$, $c \tra d_2$ and $d_1 \sim d_2$. Let $n_3$ be a normal form of $d_1$. Then it

1684: is a normal form of $b$, as well.

1685: 

1686: By the repeated use of the $\sim$-bisimilarity of $\myra$

1687: 

1688: \begin{center}

1689: \ \ \ \ \ $d_1 \sim d_2$                                             \\

1690: $\downarrow _{*}$ \\

1691: $n_3$ 

1692: \end{center}

1693: 

1694: \NI

1695: implies that for some $n_4 \in A$

1696: 

1697: \begin{center}

1698: \ \ \ \ \ $d_1 \sim d_2$                                             \\

1699: \ \ \ \ \ $\downarrow _{*}$ \ \ \ $\downarrow _{*}$ \\

1700: \ \ \ \ \ $n_3 \sim n_4$ 

1701: \end{center}

1702: 

1703: Since $n_3$ is a normal form, by the $\sim$-bisimilarity of $\myra$ so is $n_4$.

1704: So $n_4$ is a normal form of $c$.

1705: Moreover $n_3 \not\sim n_1$ or $n_3 \not\sim n_2$, since otherwise $n_1 \sim n_2$ 

1706: would hold. If $n_3 \not\sim n_1$, then $b$ is ambiguous and $a \myra b$.  

1707: And if $n_3 \not\sim n_2$, then also $n_4 \not\sim n_2$

1708: and then $c$ is ambiguous and $a \myra c$.  

1709: \HB

1710: \VV

1711: 

1712: Also, we have the following relativized version of 

1713: the Unique Normal Form Note \ref{lem:uni}.

1714: 

1715: \begin{note} [$\sim$-Unique Normal Form] \label{lem:disp:4}

1716: Consider two abstract reduction systems $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1717:   1 \: })$ and $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: })$ and an equivalence

1718: relation $\sim$ on $A$ such that

1719: 

1720: \begin{itemize}

1721: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: }$ satisfies the $\sim$-unique normal form property,

1722: 

1723: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}^{\hspace{-1mm} +} = \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}^{\hspace{-1mm} +}$.

1724: 

1725: \end{itemize}

1726: Then $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ satisfies the $\sim$-unique normal form property.

1727: \HB

1728: \end{note}

1729: 

1730: We shall also study the combined effect of two forms of elimination. In what follows we

1731: abbreviate  $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1\: } \cup \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: }$ 

1732: to $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2\: }$.

1733: (The use of $\cup$ instead of $\vee$ would clash with the notation used in Section 

1734: \ref{sec:combining}.)

1735: Given two abstract reduction systems $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \:

1736:   })$ and $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: })$ we say that

1737: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ \oldbfe{left commutes with}

1738: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ if

1739: \[

1740: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } \circ \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } \sse 

1741: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } \circ \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: },

1742: \]

1743: i.e., if for all $a,b,c \in A$ \ 

1744: $a \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } b \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } c$

1745: implies that for some $d \in A$ \ 

1746: $a \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } d \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } c$.

1747: 

1748: \begin{note}[Left Commutativity] \label{not:left} 

1749: If $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ left commutes with $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$,

1750: then so does  $\myra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$.

1751: \HB

1752: \end{note}

1753: 

1754: Then we shall rely on the following result.

1755: 

1756: \begin{lemma}[Normal Form] \label{lem:nf}

1757: Consider two abstract reduction systems 

1758: 

1759: \NI

1760: $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

1761:   1 \: })$ and $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: })$ and an equivalence

1762: relation $\sim$ on $A$ such that

1763: 

1764: \begin{itemize}

1765: \item $(A,\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2})$ satisfies the $\sim$-unique normal form property,

1766: 

1767: \item $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$ left commutes with $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$.

1768: \end{itemize}

1769: Then for all $a \in A$, if

1770:   

1771: \begin{center}

1772: $a$                                             \\

1773: $*\hspace{-1mm}\swarrow\hspace{-2mm}_{2}$ $\hspace{2mm}_{2}\hspace{-2mm}\searrow \hspace{-1mm}*$                           \\

1774: $b$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $c$                            \\

1775: \end{center}

1776: for some $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: }$-normal forms

1777: $b$ and $c$, then for some $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2 \: }$-normal forms $d_1, d_2 \in A$

1778: 

1779: \begin{center}

1780: \ $b$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \  $c$                        \\

1781: $\hspace{2mm}_{1}\hspace{-2mm}\searrow \hspace{-1mm}* $ \ \ \ \ \ $* \hspace{-1mm}\swarrow\hspace{-2mm}_{1}$                    \\

1782: $\ \ d_1 \sim d_2$.

1783: \end{center}

1784: \end{lemma}

1785: \Proof

1786: Suppose that $a \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 2} b$ and $a \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 2} c$

1787: where $b$ and $c$ are $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: }$-normal forms.

1788: By the first assumption for some

1789: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2 \: }$-normal forms $d_1, d_2 \in A$ we have 

1790: $b \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2} d_1$, $c \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2} d_2$

1791: and $d_1 \sim d_2$.

1792: 

1793: If for some $e_1, e_2 \in A$ we have 

1794: $b \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1} e_1 \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2} e_2

1795:  \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2} d_1$, then by the second assumption 

1796: and the Left Commutativity Note \ref{not:left}

1797: for some $e_3 \in A$ we have $b \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2} e_3 \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1} e_2$,

1798: which contradicts the choice of $b$. So in the path $b \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2} d_1$

1799: there are no $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ transitions.

1800: By the same argument also in the path $c \myra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2} d_2$

1801: there are no $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ transitions.

1802: \HB

1803: 

1804: \section{Pure Strategies: Payoff Equivalence}

1805: \label{sec:pure-equ}

1806: 

1807: We now move on to a study of the elimination of payoff equivalent strategies.

1808: This binary relation on the strategies, {\it PE}, entails

1809: the corresponding reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE}}$ on the

1810: games. Let us recall the definition.  Given a game $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n,

1811: p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and its restriction $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL,

1812: p_n)$

1813: 

1814: \begin{itemize}

1815: 

1816: \item 

1817: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: } G'$ iff $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1818: 

1819: \[

1820: \mbox{each $s_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is payoff equivalent in $G$ to some $s'_i \in S'_i$}.

1821: \]

1822: \end{itemize}

1823: 

1824: Note that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE}}$ is not weakly confluent and

1825: it does not satisfy the unique normal form property. Indeed, given two

1826: payoff equivalent strategies $r$ and $s$, the removal of $r$ and the

1827: removal of $s$ yields two different games. But these games are

1828: obviously equivalent in the sense that a renaming of their strategies

1829: makes them identical.  To study the effect of the removal of the

1830: payoff equivalent strategies we shall therefore consider the following

1831: \oldbfe{equivalence relation} $\sim$ between two games, $G := (S_1,

1832: \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p'_1, \LL,

1833: p'_n)$:

1834: 

1835: \[

1836:   \begin{array}{l}

1837: \mbox{$G' \sim G''$ iff for all $i \in [1..n]$ there exists a 1-1 and onto mapping $f_i : S_i \myra S'_i$} \\

1838: \mbox{such that for all $i \in [1..n]$ and $s_i \in S_i$, \ $p_i(s_1, \LL, s_n) = p'_i(f_1(s_1), \LL, f_n(s_n))$.}

1839:   \end{array}

1840: \]

1841: 

1842: In what follows we shall consider various (also mixed) reduction relations

1843: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ on games in presence of the $\sim$ equivalence

1844: relation on the games. In each case it will be straightforward to see

1845: that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ is $\sim$-bisimilar. 

1846: Intuitively, the $\sim$-bisimilarity of $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

1847: simply means that $R$ does not depend

1848: on the strategy names.

1849: 

1850: Note that if a (mixed) reduction relation

1851: $R$ is hereditary, then to prove that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ is $\sim$-bisimilar

1852: it is sufficient on the account of the One-at-a-time

1853: Elimination Theorems \ref{thm:one} and \ref{thm:one2}

1854: to check that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,  R}$ is $\sim$-bisimilar.

1855: 

1856: Instead of saying that a reduction relation

1857: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ on the set of all restrictions of a game $H$ satisfies the

1858: $\sim$-unique normal form property, we shall simply say that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$

1859: \oldbfe{is $\sim$-UN}.

1860: 

1861: To reason about the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: }$ reduction relation we

1862: shall focus on the relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE}}$ concerned with

1863: the removal of a single strategy payoff equivalent strategy.  The

1864: following simple observation holds.

1865: 

1866: \begin{lemma}[Weak Confluence] \label{lem:diamond4}

1867:   Consider a game $H$. The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE}}$ relation

1868:   on the set of all restrictions of a game $H$ is $\sim$-weakly confluent.

1869: \end{lemma}

1870: 

1871: \Proof Suppose $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE} \: } G'$ and $G

1872: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE} \: } G''$.  Let $r$ and $s$ be the

1873: strategies eliminated in the first, respectively second, transition.

1874: If $r$ and $s$ are payoff equivalent in $G$, then $G' \sim G''$.

1875: Otherwise, by the hereditarity of {\it PE}, $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,

1876:   {\it PE} \: } G' \cap G''$ and $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE}

1877:   \: } G' \cap G''$.  

1878: \HB 

1879: \VV

1880: 

1881: This brings us to the following result that we shall need in the sequel.

1882: 

1883: \begin{theorem}[Payoff Equivalence Elimination] \label{thm:elim}

1884: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

1885:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

1886: 

1887:   \item The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE}}$ relation

1888:   is $\sim$-UN.

1889: 

1890:   \item The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

1891:   \end{enumerate}

1892: \end{theorem}

1893: \Proof

1894: 

1895: \NI 

1896: $(i)$ We just proved that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, PE}$ is

1897: $\sim$-weakly confluent.  Also, this reduction relation is clearly

1898: $\sim$-bisimilar.  So the conclusion follows by the $\sim$-Newman's

1899: Lemma \ref{lem:newman2}.

1900: 

1901: \NI

1902: $(ii)$

1903: First note that {\it PE} is hereditary, so

1904: by the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one}

1905: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} PE}$ satisfies the one-at-a-time property,

1906: that is, 

1907: \[

1908: \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, PE} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} PE}.

1909: \]

1910: It suffices now to apply the $\sim$-Unique Normal Form Note

1911: \ref{lem:disp:4}.

1912: \HB

1913: \VV

1914: 

1915: Informally, the process of iterated elimination of payoff equivalent

1916: strategies yields a unique outcome up to the introduced equivalence

1917: relation $\sim$ on the games.  This outcome can also be achieved in

1918: one step, by replacing each maximal set of at least two mutually

1919: payoff equivalent strategies by one representative. The resulting game

1920: is called in \cite{Mye91} a \oldbfe{purely reduced} game.  Of course,

1921: the above result is completely expected.  Still, we find that a

1922: concise formal justification of it is in order.

1923: 

1924: 

1925: \section{Mixed Strategies: Randomized Redundance}

1926: \label{sec:randomized}

1927: 

1928: The notion of payoff equivalent strategies generalizes in the obvious

1929: way to the mixed strategies. We denote by \emph{PEM} the corresponding

1930: mixed dominance relation. So for a strategy $s_i$ and a mixed

1931: strategy $m'_i$ of player $i$ \ $s_i \: \emph{PEM} \ m'_i$ if

1932: \[

1933: p_j(s_i, s_{-i}) = p_j(m'_i, s_{-i})

1934: \]

1935: for all $j \in [1..n]$ and all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$.

1936: 

1937: As explained in Section \ref{sec:mixeddom} \emph{PEM} entails the

1938: reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM}}$ 

1939: on games.

1940: Recall that a strategy $s_i$ of player $i$ is called

1941: \oldbfe{randomized redundant to} a mixed strategy $m_i$ if it is payoff equivalent to 

1942: $m_i$ and $s_i \not \in support(m_i)$.

1943: Note that for a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and its restriction

1944: $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n,$  $p_1, \LL, p_n)$ we have

1945: 

1946: \begin{itemize}

1947: \item 

1948: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: } G'$ when $G \neq G'$ and for all $i \in [1..n]$ 

1949: 

1950: \[

1951: \mbox{each $s'_i \in S_i \setminus S'_i$ is randomized redundant in $G$ to some $m'_i \in M'_i$}.

1952: \]

1953: \end{itemize}

1954: 

1955: As in the case of payoff equivalence it is

1956: more convenient to focus on the removal of a single strategy, so on the reduction 

1957: relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM}}$.

1958: The following counterpart of the Weak Confluence Lemma

1959: \ref{lem:diamond4} holds.

1960: 

1961: \begin{lemma}[Weak Confluence] \label{lem:diamond5}

1962: Consider a game $H$. The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM}}$ relation on the set of all restrictions

1963: of a game $H$ is $\sim$-weakly confluent.

1964: \end{lemma}

1965: \Proof

1966: Suppose $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM} \: } G'$ and $G

1967: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM} \: } G''$.  Let $r$ and $t$ be the

1968: strategies eliminated in the first, respectively second, transition.

1969: If $r$ and $t$ are payoff equivalent, then, as in the proof of the Weak Confluence Lemma

1970: \ref{lem:diamond4}, $G' \sim G''$.

1971: 

1972: Otherwise for some $\alpha \in [0,1)$ and $\beta \in [0,1)$

1973: $r$ is payoff equivalent to a mixed strategy $\alpha \: t + (1 - \alpha) m_1$ with $r,t \not \in support(m_1)$

1974: and $t$ is payoff equivalent to a mixed strategy $\beta \: r + (1 - \beta) m_2$ with $r,t \not \in support(m_2)$.

1975: So $r$ is payoff equivalent to $\alpha \: \beta \: r + \alpha (1 - \beta) m_2 + (1 - \alpha) m_1$,

1976: and hence to 

1977: \[

1978: m' := (\alpha (1 - \beta) m_2 + (1 - \alpha) m_1) / (1- \alpha \: \beta).

1979: \]

1980: Since $t \not \in support(m')$, $m'$ is a mixed strategy in $G''$. So

1981: by the hereditarity of \emph{PEM} \ $r$ is payoff equivalent to $m'$ in $G''$.

1982: Further, since $r,t \not \in support(m')$, $m'$ is a mixed strategy in $G' \cap G''$.

1983: So we showed that $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM} \: } G' \cap G''$.  

1984: By symmetry $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM} \: } G' \cap G''$.  

1985: \HB

1986: \VV

1987: 

1988: As in the case of the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE}}$ relation we can now conclude.

1989: 

1990: \begin{theorem}[Redundance Elimination] \label{thm:elim2}

1991: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

1992:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

1993:   \item The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PEM}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

1994: 

1995:   \item 

1996: The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

1997: \HB

1998:  \end{enumerate}

1999: \end{theorem}

2000: 

2001: So the process of iterated elimination of randomized redundant

2002: strategies yields a unique up to $\sim$ outcome.

2003: The result is called in \cite{Mye91} a \oldbfe{fully reduced} game.

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \section{Combining Two Dominance Relations}

2007: \label{sec:combining}

2008: 

2009: Given two dominance relation $R, Q$ we now consider the combined

2010: dominance relation $R \cup Q$.  Such a combination is meaningful to

2011: study when $Q$ is such that the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} Q}$ reduction

2012: relation is $\sim$-UN.  An example is the payoff equivalence \emph{PE}

2013: relation discussed in Section \ref{sec:pure-equ}.

2014:   

2015: Given two dominance relations $R$ and $Q$ we would like now to

2016: identify conditions that allow us to conclude that the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

2017:     R \cup Q}$ reduction relation is $\sim$-UN.

2018: To this end we introduce the following

2019:   concept.  We say that $R$ is \oldbfe{closed

2020:     under} $Q$ if in all games $G$ for all strategies $r,s,t$

2021: \begin{itemize}

2022: \item  $r \ R \ s$ and $s \ Q \ t$ implies $r \ R \ t$,

2023: 

2024: \item  $r \ Q \ s$ and $s \ R \ t$ implies $r \ R \ t$,

2025: 

2026: \end{itemize}

2027: i.e., if in all games $R \circ Q \sse R$ and $Q \circ R \sse R$.

2028: 

2029: Here is a result that we shall use in the sequel.

2030: 

2031: \begin{theorem}[Combination] \label{thm:combination}

2032: Consider two dominance relations $R$ and $Q$ such that 

2033: 

2034: \begin{itemize}

2035: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} Q}$ are  $\sim$-bisimilar,

2036: 

2037: \item $R$ is a strict partial order,

2038: 

2039: \item $R$ is closed under $Q$,

2040: 

2041: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, Q}$ is $\sim$-UN,

2042: 

2043: \item $R \cup Q$ is hereditary.

2044: \end{itemize}

2045: Then the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: R \cup Q}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2046: \end{theorem}

2047: 

2048: Notice that we do not insist here that $R$ is hereditary. In fact, in

2049: one of the uses of the above result the dominance relation $R$ will

2050: not be hereditary.

2051: \II

2052: 

2053: \Proof 

2054: Since $R \cup Q$ is hereditary, by the

2055: One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} and the

2056: $\sim$-Unique Normal Form Note \ref{lem:disp:4} it suffices

2057: to prove that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is $\sim$-UN.

2058: But by assumption both $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R}$ and

2059: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, Q}$ are $\sim$-bisimilar, so

2060: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is $\sim$-bisimilar, as well.

2061: So on the account of the $\sim$-Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman2} 

2062: the fact that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is $\sim$-UN is

2063: established once we show that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is

2064: $\sim$-weakly confluent.

2065: 

2066: So suppose that $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G'$

2067: and $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G''$.

2068: Let $r$ and $s$ be the

2069: strategies eliminated in the first, respectively second, transition.

2070: By the fourth assumption $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, Q}$ is

2071: is $\sim$-weakly confluent, so

2072: we only need to consider a situation when

2073: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R \: } G'$. 

2074: 

2075: We can assume that $G' \neq G''$.

2076: Then $r$ is in $G''$ and $s$ is in $G'$.

2077: By definition $r \: R \ t$ holds in $G$ for some strategy $t$ of $G'$

2078: and $s \: R \cup Q \ u$ holds in $G$ for some strategy $u$ of $G''$.

2079: To show that $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$

2080: we consider two cases.

2081: \II

2082: 

2083: \NI

2084: \emph{Case 1.} $t$ is in $G''$, i.e., $s \neq t$.

2085: 

2086: Then, by the hereditarity of $R \cup Q$, $r \ R \cup Q \ t$ holds in $G''$.

2087: \II

2088: 

2089: \NI

2090: \emph{Case 2.} $t$ is not in $G''$, i.e., $s = t$.

2091: 

2092: Then $r \: R \ s$ holds in $G$.  If $s \: R \ u$ holds in $G$, then, by the transitivity of $R$

2093: also $r \: R \ u$ holds in $G$.  

2094: 

2095: If $s \: Q \ u$ holds in $G$, then by the fact that $R$ is closed under $Q$ \ 

2096: $r \: R \ u$ holds in $G$, as well.  Further, $r

2097: \neq u$ by the irreflexivity of $R$, so $u$ is in $G'$.  Hence, by

2098: Case 1, $r \: R \cup Q \ u$ holds in $G''$.  \II

2099: 

2100: This proves that $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$.

2101: To show that $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$

2102: we again consider two cases.

2103: \II

2104: 

2105: \NI

2106: \emph{Case 1.} $u$ is in $G'$, i.e., $u \neq r$.

2107: 

2108: Then, by the hereditarity of $R \cup Q$, $s \ R \cup Q \ u$ holds in $G'$.

2109: Also $u$ is in $G''$.

2110: \II

2111: 

2112: \NI

2113: \emph{Case 2.} $u$ is not in $G'$, i.e., $u = r$.

2114: 

2115: Then $s \: R \cup Q \ r$ holds in $G$.  If $s \: R \ r$ holds in $G$, then, by the

2116: transitivity of $R$, $s \: R \ t$ holds in $G$.  

2117: 

2118: If $s \: Q \ r$ holds in $G$, then by the fact that $R$ is closed under $Q$ \ 

2119: $s \: R \ t$ holds in $G$, as well.  But $s$ and

2120: $t$ are strategies of $G'$, so by the hereditarity of $R$ \ $s \: R \ 

2121: t$ holds in $G'$.  This shows $G' \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G' \cap

2122: G''$.

2123: 

2124: By the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equ1} the relations

2125: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide, so

2126: some strategy $t'$ of $G'\cap G''$ exists such that $s \: R \ t'$, and a fortiori $s \:

2127: R \cup Q \ t'$, holds in $G'$.

2128: \II

2129: 

2130: This proves that $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$.

2131: \HB

2132: \VV

2133: 

2134: %\cb

2135: This result is a generalization of the

2136: Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:hereditary}. Indeed, it suffices to

2137: use instead of $\sim$ the identity relation on games, and use as

2138: $Q$ the identity dominance relation (according to which a strategy is only 

2139: dominated by itself). Then the assumptions of the above theorem reduce to those

2140: of the Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:hereditary}. 

2141: %\ce

2142: 

2143: 

2144: As a simple application of this result consider the

2145: combination of the strict dominance and the payoff equivalence.

2146: The strict dominance relation is

2147: hereditary and so is {\it PE}, and a union of two

2148: hereditary dominance relations is hereditary.  Further, strict

2149: dominance is a strict partial order and is easily seen to be closed

2150: under the payoff equivalence.  So the

2151: following direct consequence of the Payoff Equivalence Elimination

2152: Theorem \ref{thm:elim}$(i)$ and of the above result holds.

2153: 

2154: \begin{theorem}[Combined Strict Elimination] \label{thm:combined}

2155: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S \cup {\it PE} \: }$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2156: \HB

2157: \end{theorem}

2158: 

2159: In other words, the combined iterated elimination of strategies in

2160: which at each step we remove some strictly dominated strategies

2161: and some payoff equivalent strategies yields a unique up to the

2162: equivalence relation $\sim$ outcome.  

2163: 

2164: 

2165: \section{Combining Nice Weak Dominance with

2166: \mbox{\qquad \qquad} Payoff Equivalence}

2167: \label{sec:nweak}

2168: 

2169: In this section we show another application of the Combination 

2170: Theorem \ref{thm:combination} concerned with a modification of the 

2171: weak dominance. We denote by $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} W}$  

2172: the reduction relation on games corresponding to weak dominance.

2173: As mentioned earlier, $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} W}$

2174: does not satisfy the unique normal form property.

2175: An example relevant for us will be provided in a moment.

2176: 

2177: %\cb

2178: We studied already one modification of weak dominance in Section

2179: \ref{sec:bor} by considering inherent weak dominance, a notion

2180: due to \cite{Bor90}. 

2181: Another approach was pursued in

2182: \cite{MS97} (see also \cite{MS00}) who

2183: studied the notion of nice weak dominance,

2184: introduced in Subsection \ref{subsec:prelim} and denoted by \emph{NW}.

2185: %\ce

2186: However, the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ reduction relation, 

2187: just as $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} W}$, does not satisfy the

2188: unique normal form property.  To see this consider the following game:

2189: 

2190: \begin{center}

2191: \begin{game}{2}{2}

2192:       & $L$    & $R$\\

2193: $T$   &$2,1$   &$2,1$\\

2194: $B$   &$2,1$   &$1,0$

2195: \end{game}

2196: %\gameeight{L}{R}{T}{B}{2,1}{2,1}{2,1}{1,0}

2197: \end{center}

2198: %\begin{verbatim}

2199: %         L     R

2200: 

2201: %     T  2,1   2,1

2202: 

2203: %     B  2,1   1,0

2204: %\end{verbatim}

2205: Clearly, all pairs of strategies are compatible, so weak dominance

2206: and nice weak dominance coincide here.

2207: This game can be reduced by means of the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ relation both to

2208: \begin{center}

2209: \begin{game}{1}{2}

2210:       & $L$    & $R$\\

2211: $T$   &$2,1$   &$2,1$

2212: \end{game}

2213: %\gamefive{L}{R}{T}{2,1}{2,1}

2214: \end{center}

2215: and to

2216: %\begin{verbatim}

2217: %         L     R

2218: 

2219: %     T  2,1   2,1

2220: %\end{verbatim}

2221: 

2222: \begin{center}

2223: \begin{game}{2}{1}

2224:       & $L$  \\

2225: $T$   &$2,1$ \\

2226: $B$   &$2,1$ 

2227: \end{game}

2228: %\gamebfive{L}{T}{B}{2,1}{2,1}

2229: \end{center}

2230: %\begin{verbatim}

2231: %         L  

2232: 

2233: %     T  2,1 

2234: 

2235: %     B  2,1 

2236: %\end{verbatim}

2237: In each case we reached a $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$-normal form.

2238: So the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ relation (and consequently the

2239: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}  \it{W}}$ relation) is not weakly confluent  

2240: and does not satisfy the unique normal form property.

2241: Note also that the strategy \texttt{L} (nicely) weakly dominates

2242: \texttt{R} in the original game but not in the first first restriction. 

2243: This shows that neither weak dominance nor nice weak dominance is hereditary.

2244: 

2245: A solution consists of combining nice weak dominance with the

2246: payoff equivalence and seeking conditions under which nice weak

2247: dominance and weak dominance coincide.  This is the approach taken in

2248: \cite{MS97} who proved that the

2249: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$-normal forms of a game are the same up

2250: to the removal of the payoff equivalent strategies and a renaming of

2251: strategies.\footnote{Also an addition of payoff equivalent strategies

2252:   is allowed.  Our proof shows this is not needed.}  They also

2253: observed that for the games $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ that

2254: satisfy the already mentioned in the Introduction \oldbfe{transference of

2255:   decisionmaker indifference} (TDI) condition:

2256: 

2257: \begin{equation}

2258:   \begin{array}{l}

2259: \mbox{for all $i, j \in [1..n]$, $s'_i, s''_i \in S_i$ and $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$} \\

2260: \mbox{$p_{i}(s'_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(s''_i, s_{-i})$ implies $p_{j}(s'_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(s''_i, s_{-i})$,}

2261:   \end{array}

2262: \label{eq:tdi}

2263: \end{equation}

2264: nice weak dominance and weak dominance coincide on all restrictions.  To

2265: see the latter note that the compatibility is hereditary and the TDI

2266: condition simply amounts to a statement that all pairs of strategies

2267: $s'_i$ and $s''_i$ are compatible.  So for the games that satisfy the

2268: TDI condition the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it W}}$-normal forms of a game

2269: are the same up to the removal of the payoff equivalent strategies and

2270: a renaming of strategies.

2271: 

2272: \cite{MS97} also provided a number of natural examples of games that

2273: satisfy this condition. We now present conceptually simpler proofs of

2274: their results by following the methodology used throughout the paper.

2275: In Section \ref{sec:mnweak} we shall deal with the case of the nice weak

2276: dominance by mixed strategies.

2277: 

2278: %\cb

2279: The following lemma summarizes the crucial properties of nice weak dominance.

2280: They are `crucial' in the sense that they allow us to directly apply

2281: the already discussed Combination 

2282: Theorem \ref{thm:combination} to nice weak dominance and payoff equivalence.

2283: 

2284: %\ce

2285: 

2286: \begin{lemma}[Nice Weak Dominance] \label{lem:nice}

2287: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

2288:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

2289: 

2290: \item 

2291: ${\it NW}$ is a strict partial order.

2292: 

2293: \item ${\it NW}$ is closed under {\it PE}.

2294: 

2295: \item ${\it NW} \cup {\it PE}$ is hereditary.

2296:   \end{enumerate}

2297: \end{lemma}

2298: 

2299: \Proof

2300: $(i)$  First, note that the relation ${\it NW}$ is clearly

2301: irreflexive. To prove transitivity consider a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n,

2302: p_1, \LL, p_n)$ and suppose that $s''_i \ {\it NW} \ s'_i$ and $s'_i \ {\it NW} \ s^{*}_i$.

2303: 

2304: Then clearly $s''_i$ is weakly dominated by $s^{*}_i$.

2305: To prove that $s''_i$ and $s^{*}_i$ are compatible

2306: suppose that for some $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$

2307: \[

2308: p_{i}(s''_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(s^{*}_i, s_{-i}).

2309: \]

2310: Then by the weak dominance

2311: \[

2312: p_{i}(s''_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(s'_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(s^{*}_i, s_{-i}).

2313: \]

2314: Hence by the compatibility of $s''_i$ and $s'_i$ and the compatibility of 

2315: $s'_i$ and $s^{*}_i$ for all $j \in [1..n]$

2316: \[

2317: p_{j}(s''_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(s'_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(s^{*}_i, s_{-i}).

2318: \]

2319: 

2320: \NI

2321: $(ii)$

2322: The proofs of the relevant two properties of ${\it NW}$ are

2323: analogous to the proof of $(i)$ and are omitted. 

2324: \III

2325: 

2326: \NI

2327: $(iii)$

2328: Let $G' := (S'_1, \LL, S'_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ be a restriction of $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$.

2329: Suppose $s'_i, s''_i \in S'_i$ are such that $s'_i \ {\it NW} \cup {\it PE} \ s''_i$ in $G$.

2330: Then $s''_i$ and $s'_i$ are

2331: compatible in $G$ and hence in $G'$.

2332: Moreover

2333: \[

2334: p_i(s''_i, s^{*}_{-i}) \geq p_i(s'_i, s^{*}_{-i})

2335: \]

2336: for all $s^{*}_{-i} \in S'_{-i}$.

2337: If for some $s^{*}_{-i} \in S'_{-i}$

2338: \[

2339: p_i(s''_i, s^{*}_{-i}) > p_i(s'_i, s^{*}_{-i}),

2340: \]

2341: then $s''_i$ weakly dominates $s'_i$ in $G'$

2342: and consequently $s''_i$ nicely weakly dominates $s'_i$ in $G'$.

2343: Otherwise 

2344: \[

2345: p_i(s''_i, s^{*}_{-i}) = p_i(s'_i, s^{*}_{-i})

2346: \]

2347: for all $s^{*}_{-i} \in S'_{-i}$, so, by the compatibility of

2348: $s''_i$ and $s'_i$ in $G'$,

2349: $s''_i$ and $s'_i$ are payoff equivalent in $G'$.

2350: 

2351: So we showed that $s''_i \ {\it NW} \cup {\it PE} \ s'_i$ in $G'$.

2352: \HB

2353: \VV

2354: 

2355: Nice weak dominance clearly satisfies the IIIA condition

2356: of Section \ref{sec:bor} and by item $(i)$ above it is a strict partial order.

2357: So using $R := \emph{NW}$ in the

2358: Inherent Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:strict3} 

2359: and the One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:oneB}

2360: we get the following result.

2361: 

2362: \begin{theorem}[Inherent Nice Weak Elimination] \label{thm:nweak-inh}

2363: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

2364:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

2365: 

2366: \item 

2367: The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-NW}$ relation is UN.

2368: 

2369: \item 

2370: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-NW}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

2371: \HB

2372: \end{enumerate}

2373: \end{theorem}

2374: 

2375: Further, the above lemma in conjunction with the Payoff Equivalence Elimination

2376: Theorem \ref{thm:elim}$(i)$ means that for $R := \emph{NW}$ and $Q :=\emph{PE}$

2377: all assumptions of the Combination Theorem \ref{thm:combination} 

2378: are satisfied. So we get the following conclusion.

2379: 

2380: \begin{theorem}[Nice Weak Elimination] \label{thm:nweak1}

2381: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{NW}  \cup \it{PE}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2382: 

2383: \HB

2384: \end{theorem}

2385: 

2386: Also, for games that satisfy the TDI condition

2387: (\ref{eq:tdi}) the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{NW} \cup \it{PE}}$ and

2388: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{W} \cup \it{PE}}$ relations coincide on all

2389: restrictions, so the following conclusion follows.

2390: 

2391: \begin{corollary}[Weak Elimination] \label{cor:weak1}

2392: Consider a game $H$ that satisfies the TDI condition (\ref{eq:tdi}). 

2393: Then the  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}  \it{W} \cup \it{PE}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2394: \HB

2395: \end{corollary}

2396: 

2397: %\cb

2398: To establish another form of order independence involving nice weak dominance

2399: we shall rely on the following observation that refers to the crucial

2400: concept of left commutativity.

2401: 

2402: \begin{note}[Left Commutativity] \label{not:left1} 

2403: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$.

2404: \end{note}

2405: \Proof

2406: By the One-at-a-time

2407: Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} the reduction relation $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} PE}$

2408: satisfies the one-at-a-time property, i.e.,  

2409: \[

2410: \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,PE} = \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} +}_{\hspace{-1mm} PE}. 

2411: \]

2412: So by the Left Commutativity Note \ref{not:left} it suffices to show that

2413: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$.

2414: Suppose $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE} \: } G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm}

2415:   {\it NW}} G''$.  

2416: In the proof below we repeatedly use the fact that if a strategy $r_j$ is nicely

2417: weakly dominated in $G'$ by a strategy $t_j$, then so it is in $G$.

2418: 

2419: Let $s_i$ be the strategy deleted in the first

2420: transition.  If all strategies that are payoff equivalent to $s_i$ are

2421: removed in the second transition, then by the Nice Weak Dominance

2422: Lemma \ref{lem:nice}\emph{(ii)} ${\it NW}$ is closed under {\it PE} which

2423: implies $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}} G''$. Consequently

2424: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \: } G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm}

2425:   \epsilon}_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, {\it PE} \: } G''$.  

2426: 

2427: Otherwise, by the fact that payoff equivalence is hereditary, we have 

2428: 

2429: \NI

2430: $G

2431: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \: } G_1 \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1, \it{PE}}

2432: G''$, where $G_1$ is obtained from $G''$ by adding $s_i$ to the set of

2433: strategies of player $i$.  

2434: \HB 

2435: \VV

2436: 

2437: As an aside, note that the same proof shows that

2438: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it W}}$

2439: and with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it S}}$.

2440: The relevant property is that both ${\it W}$ and ${\it S}$ are

2441: closed under {\it PE}.

2442: %\ce

2443: 

2444: We reached now the already mentioned result of \cite{MS97}.

2445: 

2446: \begin{theorem}[Structured Nice Weak Elimination] \label{thm:weak3}

2447:   Suppose that 

2448: 

2449: \NI

2450: $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \: } G'$

2451:   and $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \: } G''$, where

2452:   both $G'$ and $G''$

2453: are closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ reduction

2454: (i.e., are $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$-normal forms).

2455: 

2456: Then for some $\sim$-equivalent games $H'$ and $H''$

2457: closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \cup {\it PE}}$ reduction

2458: we have $G' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: } H'$ and 

2459: $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: } H''$.

2460: \end{theorem}

2461: 

2462: \Proof

2463: Since \emph{PE} is hereditary, each step $H_1 \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it

2464:     NW} \cup {\it PE} \: } H_2$ can be rewritten as $H_1

2465: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW} \: } H_3 \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: }

2466: H_2$ for some game $H_3$.

2467: So by the Nice Weak Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:nweak1}

2468: the $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \vee 2}$ relation,

2469: where $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1} := \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ and

2470: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2} := \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE}}$,

2471: is $\sim$-UN.

2472: 

2473: It suffices now to use the Left Commutativity Note \ref{not:left1} and

2474: the Normal Form Lemma \ref{lem:nf}. 

2475: \HB

2476: \VV

2477: 

2478: %\cb

2479: As explained at the end of Section \ref{sec:pure-equ}

2480: the reductions from $G'$ to $H'$ and from $G''$ to $H''$

2481: can be achieved in just one step.

2482: %\ce

2483: 

2484: 

2485: \begin{corollary}[Structured Weak Elimination] \label{cor:weak3}

2486: Consider a game $G$ that satisfies the TDI condition (\ref{eq:tdi}). 

2487: Suppose that $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} W \: } G'$ and 

2488: $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} W \: } G''$, where both $G'$ 

2489: and $G''$ are closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} W}$ reduction.

2490: 

2491: Then for some $\sim$-equivalent games $H'$ and $H''$

2492: we have $G' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: } H'$ and 

2493: $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PE} \: } H''$.

2494: \HB

2495: \end{corollary}

2496: 

2497: Recently, \cite{Ost04} provided an alternative proof of this corollary.

2498: 

2499: In the Weak Elimination Corollary \ref{cor:weak1} we can weaken the

2500: assumption that the initial game $H$ satisfies the TDI condition.

2501: Indeed, it suffices to ensure that each time an $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it W}}$ 

2502: reduction can take place, it is in fact an

2503:   $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NW}}$ reduction. This is guaranteed if the

2504:     following condition TDI$^+$ is satisfied, given an initial game

2505:     $H$:

2506: 

2507: \[

2508:   \begin{array}{l}

2509: \mbox{for all restrictions $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ of $H$,} \\

2510: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$ and $r_i, t_i \in S_i$} \\

2511: \mbox{if $t_i$ weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$, then $r_i$ and $t_i$ are compatible in $G$.}

2512:   \end{array}

2513: \]

2514: 

2515: An alternative, suggested by \cite{MS97} in the context of nice weak

2516: dominance by mixed strategies, is to use the following condition

2517: TDI$^{++}$, where, given a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$,

2518: a strategy $s'_i$ \oldbfe{very weakly dominates} a strategy $s''_i$ if

2519: \[

2520: p_i(s'_i, s_{-i}) \geq p_i(s''_i, s_{-i}) 

2521: \]

2522: for all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$:

2523: \[

2524:   \begin{array}{l}

2525: \mbox{for all restrictions $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ of $H$,} \\

2526: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$ and $r_i, t_i \in S_i$ if $t_i$ very weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$, then} \\

2527: \mbox{either $t_i$ weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$ or $r_i$ and $t_i$ are payoff equivalent in $G$.}

2528:   \end{array}

2529: \]

2530: 

2531: Indeed, it suffices to show that under the TDI$^{++}$ condition all

2532: assumptions of the Combination Theorem \ref{thm:combination} are

2533: satisfied by the weak dominance relation $W$. First, note that $W$ is

2534: a strict partial order and is clearly closed under the payoff

2535: equivalence.

2536: 

2537: Denote now the very weak dominance relation by $VW$. Note that

2538: \begin{itemize}

2539: \item $W \sse VW$ (i.e., weak dominance implies very weak dominance),

2540: 

2541: \item $VW$ is hereditary.

2542: 

2543: \end{itemize}

2544: 

2545: Additionally, by the TDI$^{++}$ assumption,

2546: 

2547: \begin{itemize}

2548: \item $VW \sse W \cup {\it PE}$

2549: 

2550: \end{itemize}

2551: holds in all restrictions of the initial game $H$.

2552: 

2553: This implies under the TDI$^{++}$ assumption that $W \cup {\it PE}$ is

2554: hereditary since ${\it PE}$ is hereditary.

2555: By the Combination Theorem \ref{thm:combination} we

2556: conclude then that the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{W} \cup \it{PE}}$

2557: reduction relation is $\sim$-UN.

2558: 

2559: The same considerations apply to the Structured

2560: Weak Elimination Corollary \ref{cor:weak3}.

2561: However, to be able to use the TDI$^{++}$ condition

2562: we need in addition to prove that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{PE}}$ left commutes with

2563: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{W}}$. The proof is the same as that of the 

2564: Left Commutativity Note \ref{not:left1}.

2565: 

2566: 

2567: \section{Combining Two Mixed Dominance Relations}

2568: \label{sec:combiningm}

2569: 

2570: We now return to the mixed dominance relations

2571: and study a combination $R \cup Q$ of two

2572: such relations $R$ and $Q$. In the applications $Q$ will

2573: be the randomized redundance relation {\it PEM}

2574: studied in Section \ref{sec:randomized}.

2575: 

2576: We say that a combined mixed dominance relation $R$

2577: is \oldbfe{closed under} $Q$

2578: if in all games $G$ for all strategies $r,s$ and all mixed strategies $m_1, m_2$

2579: \begin{itemize}

2580: \item  $r \ R \ m_1$ and $s \ Q \ m_2$ implies $r \ R \ m_1 [s/m_2]$,

2581: 

2582: \item  $r \ Q \ m_1$ and $s \ R \ m_2$ implies $r \ R \ m_1 [s/m_2]$.

2583: 

2584: \end{itemize}

2585: 

2586: 

2587: The following counterpart of the Combination 

2588: Theorem \ref{thm:combination} holds. 

2589: 

2590: \begin{theorem}[Combination] \label{thm:mcombination}

2591: Consider two mixed dominance relations $R$ and $Q$ such that 

2592: 

2593: \begin{itemize}

2594: 

2595: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} Q}$ are  $\sim$-bisimilar,

2596: 

2597: \item $R$ is regular,

2598: 

2599: \item $R$ is closed under the randomized redundance,

2600: 

2601: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, Q}$ is $\sim$-UN,

2602: 

2603: \item $R \cup Q$ is hereditary.

2604: \end{itemize}

2605: Then the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: R \cup Q}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2606: \end{theorem}

2607: \Proof We proceed as in the proof of the Combination 

2608: Theorem \ref{thm:combination}.

2609: 

2610: Since $R \cup Q$ is hereditary, by the

2611: One-at-a-time Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:one} and the

2612: $\sim$-Unique Normal Form Note \ref{lem:disp:4} it suffices

2613: to prove that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ satisfies

2614: the $\sim$-unique normal form.  In turn, 

2615: by the $\sim$-Newman's Lemma \ref{lem:newman2}

2616: this is established once we show

2617: that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is $\sim$-weakly

2618: confluent.

2619: Indeed, as before $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q}$ is $\sim$-bisimilar.

2620: 

2621: So suppose that $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G'$

2622: and $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G''$.

2623: Let $r$ and $s$ be the

2624: strategies eliminated in the first, respectively second, transition.

2625: By the fourth assumption $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, Q}$ is $\sim$-weakly confluent,

2626: so we only need to consider a situation when

2627: $G \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1,R \: } G'$. 

2628: 

2629: We can assume that $G' \neq G''$.  Then $r$ is in $G''$ and $s$ is in

2630: $G'$.  By definition $r \: R \ m_1$ holds in $G$ for some mixed

2631: strategy $m_1$ of $G'$ and $s \: R \cup Q \ m_2$ holds in $G$

2632: for some mixed strategy $m_2$ of $G''$.  To show that $G''

2633: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$ we consider two

2634: cases.  

2635: \II

2636: 

2637: \NI

2638: \emph{Case 1.} $s \not\in support(m_1)$.

2639: 

2640: Then $m_1$ is a mixed strategy $G''$, so

2641: $r \ R \cup Q \ m_1$ holds in $G''$

2642: by the hereditarity of $R \cup Q$.

2643: \II

2644: 

2645: \NI

2646: \emph{Case 2.} $s \in support(m_1)$.

2647: 

2648: If $s \: R \ m_2$ holds in $G$, then, by the regularity of $R$,

2649: $r \: R \ m_1 [s/m_2]$ holds in $G$.  

2650: 

2651: If $s \: Q \ m_2$ holds in $G$, then by the fact that $R$ is closed under $Q$ \

2652: $r \: R \ m_1 [s/m_2]$ holds in $G$, as well.

2653: By assumption $m_2$ is a mixed strategy of $G''$, so $s \not\in

2654: support(m_2)$ and consequently $s \not\in support(m_1 [s/m_2])$.  So

2655: by the first clause of the regularity condition for some mixed

2656: strategy $m_3$ with $r, s \not\in support(m_3)$ we have $r \: R \ 

2657: m_3$.

2658: Hence, by Case 1, $r \ R \cup Q \ m_1$ holds in $G''$.

2659: \II

2660: 

2661: This proves that $G'' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$.

2662: To show that $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$

2663: we again consider two cases.

2664: \II

2665: 

2666: \NI

2667: \emph{Case 1.} $r \not\in support(m_2)$.

2668: 

2669: Then $m_2$ is a mixed strategy $G'$, 

2670: so $s \ R \cup Q \ m_2$ holds in $G'$

2671: by the hereditarity of $R \cup Q$.

2672: \II

2673: 

2674: \NI

2675: \emph{Case 2.} $r \in support(m_2)$.

2676: 

2677: Recall that $s \: R \cup Q \ m_2$ holds in $G$.

2678: If $s \: R \ m_2$ holds in $G$, then, by the regularity of $R$, $s \: R \ 

2679: m_2[r/m_1]$ holds in $G$.  If $s \: Q \ m_2$ holds in $G$, then by the fact

2680: that $R$ is closed under $Q$ \  $s \: R \ m_2[r/m_1]$

2681: holds in $G$, as well.

2682: By assumption $m_1$ is a mixed strategy of $G'$, so $r \not\in support(m_1)$

2683: and consequently $r \not\in support(m_2[r/m_1])$.

2684: So $m_2[r/m_1]$ is a mixed strategy of $G'$.

2685: This shows $G' \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R \: } G' \cap

2686: G''$.

2687: 

2688: By the Equivalence Lemma \ref{lem:equm} the relations

2689: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ and $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ coincide, so

2690: some mixed strategy $m_3$ of $G' \cap G''$

2691: exists such that $s \: R \ m_3$ and

2692: a fortiori $s \: R \cup Q \ m_3$, holds in $G'$.

2693: \II

2694: 

2695: This proves that $G' \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \: 1, R \cup Q} G' \cap G''$.

2696: \HB

2697: \VV

2698: 

2699: This result can be directly applied to the combination of the

2700: elimination by strict dominance by mixed strategies and by the randomized

2701: redundance.  Indeed, we already noticed that both mixed dominance

2702: relations are hereditary, so their union is, as well.  Also, we

2703: already saw that strict dominance by means of mixed strategies is

2704: regular and it is easy to see it is closed under the randomized

2705: redundance. So by the Redundance

2706: Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:elim2}$(i)$

2707: and the above result we can draw the following

2708: conclusions.

2709: 

2710: \begin{theorem}[Combined Mixed Strict Elimination] \label{thm:mcombined}

2711: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM \cup {\it PDM} \: }$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2712: \HB

2713: \end{theorem}

2714: 

2715: 

2716: 

2717: \section{Combining Nice Weak Dominance with \mbox{\qquad} Randomized Redundance}

2718: \label{sec:mnweak}

2719: 

2720: Finally, we provide a proof of another result of \cite{MS97} that deals with the

2721: nice weak dominance by mixed strategies. 

2722: This concept is obtained by generalizing in the obvious way the definition

2723: of nice weak dominance to the case when the dominating strategy is mixed.

2724: 

2725: Recall from Section \ref{sec:borm} that given a game $G$ we write

2726: $s''_i \ {\it WM} \ m'_i$ when the strategy $s''_i$ is weakly

2727: dominated in $G$ by the mixed strategy $m'_i$. We also write $s''_i \ 

2728: {\it NWM} \ m'_i$ when the strategy $s''_i$ is nicely weakly dominated

2729: in $G$ by the mixed strategy $m'_i$, that is when $s''_i \ {\it WM} \ 

2730: m'_i$ and $s''_i$ and $m'_i$ are compatible.

2731: 

2732: As in Section \ref{sec:nweak} we summarize first the relevant properties of the

2733: nice weak mixed dominance relation.

2734: 

2735: \begin{lemma}[Nice Mixed Weak Dominance] \label{lem:nicem}

2736: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

2737:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

2738: 

2739: \item ${\it NWM}$ is regular.

2740: 

2741: \item ${\it NWM}$ is closed under {\it PEM}.

2742: 

2743: \item ${\it NWM} \cup {\it PEM}$ is hereditary.

2744:   \end{enumerate}

2745: \end{lemma}

2746: 

2747: \Proof Fix  a game $(S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL,p_n)$. 

2748: 

2749: \NI

2750: $(i)$ 

2751: Suppose that for some $\alpha \in (0,1]$ and some strategy $s$ 

2752: and a mixed strategy $m$ of player $i$ \ 

2753: \[

2754: s \ {\it NWM} \ (1 - \alpha) s + \alpha \: m

2755: \]

2756: holds. By definition for all $j \in [1..n]$ and

2757: all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$

2758: \[

2759: p_j((1 - \alpha) s + \alpha \: m, s_{-i}) = (1 - \alpha) p_j(s, s_{-i}) +  \alpha \: p_j(m, s_{-i}),

2760: \]

2761: so for all $op \in \{=, <, \leq\}$

2762: \[

2763: \mbox{$p_j(s, s_{-i}) \: op \: p_j((1 - \alpha) s + \alpha \: m, s_{-i})$ iff $p_j(s, s_{-i}) \: op \: p_j(m, s_{-i})$.}

2764: \]

2765: This implies $s \ {\it NWM} \ m$. 

2766: 

2767: Next, consider the strategies $t_1$ and $t_2$ and mixed

2768: strategies $m_1$ and $m_2$ of player $i$.

2769: For some $\alpha \in [0,1]$ and a mixed strategy $m$ we have

2770: $m_1 = \alpha \: t_2 + (1 - \alpha) m$.

2771: By definition for all $j \in [1..n]$ and all $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$

2772: 

2773: \begin{equation}

2774:   \label{eq:mone}

2775: p_j(m_1, s_{-i}) =  \alpha \: p_j(t_2, s_{-i}) + (1 - \alpha) p_j(m, s_{-i})

2776: \end{equation}

2777: and

2778: \begin{equation}

2779:   \label{eq:mtwo}

2780: p_j(m_1 [t_2/m_2], s_{-i}) =  \alpha \: p_j(m_2, s_{-i}) + (1 - \alpha) p_j(m, s_{-i}).  

2781: \end{equation}

2782: It is now easy to check that 

2783: $t_1 \ {\it WM} \ m_1$ and $t_2 \ {\it WM} \ m_2$ implies

2784: $t_1 \ {\it WM} \ m_{1}[t_2/m_2]$.

2785: 

2786: Suppose now that $t_1 \ {\it WNM} \ m_1$ and $t_2 \ {\it WNM} \ m_2$.

2787: We prove that $t_1$ and $m_{1}[t_2/m_2]$ are compatible.

2788: So suppose that for some $i \in [1..n]$ and $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$

2789: \[

2790: p_i(t_1, s_{-i}) = p_i(m_1 [t_2/m_2], s_{-i}).

2791: \]

2792: Then by (\ref{eq:mone}) and (\ref{eq:mtwo}) and the fact

2793: that $t_1 \ {\it WM} \ m_1$ and $t_2 \ {\it WM} \ m_2$

2794: \[

2795: \mbox{$p_i(t_1, s_{-i}) = p_i(m_1, s_{-i})$ and $p_i(t_2, s_{-i}) = p_i(m_2, s_{-i})$.}

2796: \]

2797: So by the compatibility of $t_1$ and $m_1$ and of

2798: $t_2$ and $m_2$ for all $j \in [1..n]$

2799: \[

2800: \mbox{$p_j(t_1, s_{-i}) = p_i(m_1, s_{-i})$ and $p_j(t_2, s_{-i}) = p_i(m_2, s_{-i})$,}

2801: \]

2802: so again by (\ref{eq:mone}) and (\ref{eq:mtwo})

2803: \[

2804: p_j(t_1, s_{-i}) = p_j(m_1 [t_2/m_2], s_{-i}).

2805: \]

2806: $(ii)$ 

2807: The proofs of the relevant two properties of ${\it NWM}$ are

2808: analogous to the proof of $(i)$ and are omitted. 

2809: \III

2810: 

2811: \NI

2812: $(iii)$ Analogous to the proof of the Nice Weak Dominance Lemma

2813: \ref{lem:nice}$(iii)$ and omitted.

2814: \HB

2815: \VV

2816: 

2817: We can now apply to nice weak mixed dominance the

2818: Inherent Mixed Elimination Theorem \ref{thm:strict4}. This way we obtain the following

2819: result.

2820: 

2821: \begin{theorem}[Inherent Nice Weak Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:nweakm-inh}

2822: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

2823:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

2824: 

2825: \item 

2826: The $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-NWM}$ relation is UN.

2827: 

2828: \item 

2829: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} inh-NWM}$ relation satisfies the one-at-a-time property.

2830: \HB

2831: \end{enumerate}

2832: \end{theorem}

2833: 

2834: Further, on the account of the Redundance Elimination Theorem

2835: \ref{thm:elim2}$(i)$ for $R := \emph{NWM}$ and $Q :=\emph{PEM}$ 

2836: all assumptions of

2837: the Combination Theorem \ref{thm:mcombination} are satisfied. We 

2838: can then draw the following conclusion.

2839: 

2840: \begin{theorem}[Nice Weak Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:mnweak1}

2841: The  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{NWM}  \cup \it{PEM}}$

2842: relation is $\sim$-UN.

2843: \HB

2844: \end{theorem}

2845: 

2846: To draw a similar conclusion for the weak dominance by mixed strategies, 

2847: as in Section \ref{sec:nweak} we provide three alternative conditions.

2848: The first one, TDIM, is the direct counterpart of the TDI condition 

2849: (\ref{eq:tdi}):

2850: 

2851: \[

2852:   \begin{array}{l}

2853: \mbox{for all $i, j \in [1..n]$, $r_i \in S_i$, $m_i \in M_i$  and $s_{-i} \in S_{-i}$} \\

2854: \mbox{$p_{i}(r_i, s_{-i}) = p_{i}(m_i, s_{-i})$ implies $p_{j}(r_i, s_{-i}) = p_{j}(m_i, s_{-i})$}

2855:   \end{array}

2856: \]

2857: Equivalently, for all $i \in [1..n]$, $r_i \in S_i$ and $m_i \in M_i$,

2858: $r_i$ and $m_i$ are compatible.

2859: 

2860: Indeed, the compatibility as a mixed dominance relation is hereditary, 

2861: so the TDIM condition implies that nice weak dominance and weak dominance,

2862: both by mixed strategies, coincide on all restrictions.

2863: 

2864: The second one, TDIM$^+$, is the counterpart of the TDI$^+$ condition of Section

2865: \ref{sec:nweak}. Given an initial game $H$ we postulate that

2866: 

2867: 

2868: \[

2869:   \begin{array}{l}

2870: \mbox{for all restrictions $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ of $H$,} \\

2871: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$, $r_i \in S_i$ and $m_i \in M_i$} \\

2872: \mbox{if $m_i$ weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$, then $r_i$ and $m_i$ are compatible in $G$.}

2873:   \end{array}

2874: \]

2875: 

2876: Then each time an $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it WM}}$ reduction can take

2877: place, it is in fact an $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM}}$ reduction.

2878: The last alternative, TDI$^*$, was proposed in  \cite{MS97}. It refers to the notion

2879: of the very weak dominance introduced in Section \ref{sec:nweak},

2880: now used as a mixed dominance relation:

2881: 

2882: \[

2883:   \begin{array}{l}

2884: \mbox{for all restrictions $G := (S_1, \LL, S_n, p_1, \LL, p_n)$ of $H$,} \\

2885: \mbox{for all $i \in [1..n]$, $r_i \in S_i$ and $m_i \in M_i$} \\

2886: \mbox{if $m_i$ very weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$, then} \\

2887: \mbox{either $m_i$ weakly dominates $r_i$ in $G$ or $r_i$ and $m_i$ are payoff equivalent in $G$.}

2888:   \end{array}

2889: \]

2890: 

2891: Then the following result holds.

2892: 

2893: \begin{theorem}[Weak Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:mweak1}

2894: Consider a game $H$ that satisfies the TDI$\: ^*$ condition.

2895: Then the  $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{WM}  \cup \it{PEM}}$ relation is $\sim$-UN.

2896: \end{theorem} 

2897: \Proof

2898: We proceed as in Section \ref{sec:nweak}. 

2899: Denote the very weak mixed dominance relation by $VWM$. Note that

2900: \begin{itemize}

2901: \item $WM \sse VWM$,

2902: 

2903: \item $VWM$ is hereditary.

2904: 

2905: \end{itemize}

2906: 

2907: Additionally, by the TDI$^{*}$ assumption,

2908: 

2909: \begin{itemize}

2910: \item $VWM \sse WM \cup {\it PEM}$

2911: 

2912: \end{itemize}

2913: holds in all restrictions of the initial game $H$.

2914: 

2915: So under the TDI$^{*}$ assumption $WM \cup {\it PEM}$ is

2916: hereditary since ${\it PEM}$ is hereditary.

2917: By the Combination Theorem \ref{thm:mcombination} we

2918: conclude that the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} \it{WM} \cup \it{PEM}}$

2919: relation is $\sim$-UN.

2920: 

2921: To establish another form of order independence 

2922: involving nice mixed weak dominance

2923: we need the following observation.

2924: 

2925: \begin{note}[Left Commutativity] \label{not:left2} 

2926: \mbox{} \vspace{-3mm} %\\[-6mm]

2927:   \begin{enumerate} \smallromani

2928: 

2929: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM}}$.

2930: 

2931: \item $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: }$ left commutes with $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it WM}}$.

2932:   \end{enumerate}

2933: \end{note}

2934: \Proof 

2935: $(i)$

2936: By the Nice Mixed Weak Dominance Lemma \ref{lem:nicem}$(ii)$

2937: ${\it NWM}$ is closed under the randomized redundance. 

2938: The rest of the proof is now analogous to the proof of the 

2939: Left Commutativity Note \ref{not:left1} and is omitted. 

2940: \III

2941: 

2942: \NI

2943: $(ii)$ By the same argument as in $(i)$.

2944: \HB

2945: \VV

2946: 

2947: As in Section \ref{sec:nweak} we can now draw the following results due to \cite{MS97}.

2948: 

2949: \begin{theorem}[Structured Nice Weak Mixed Elimination] \label{thm:weak4}

2950:   Suppose 

2951: 

2952: \NI

2953: that $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM} \: } G'$

2954:   and $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM} \: } G''$, where

2955:   both $G'$ and $G''$

2956: are closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM}}$ reduction.

2957: 

2958: Then for some $\sim$-equivalent games $H'$ and $H''$

2959: closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it NWM} \cup {\it PEM}}$ reduction

2960: we have $G' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: } H'$ and 

2961: $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: } H''$.

2962: \HB

2963: \end{theorem}

2964: 

2965: \begin{corollary}[Structured Weak Mixed Elimination] \label{cor:weak4}

2966: Consider a game $G$ that satisfies the TDI$\: ^{*}$ condition.

2967: Suppose that $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} WM \: } G'$ and 

2968: $G \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} WM \: } G''$, where both $G'$ 

2969: and $G''$ are closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} WM}$ reduction.

2970: 

2971: Then for some $\sim$-equivalent games $H'$ and $H''$

2972: closed under the $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it WM} \cup {\it PEM}}$ reduction

2973: we have $G' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: } H'$ and 

2974: $G'' \Ra^{\hspace{-1mm} *}_{\hspace{-1mm} {\it PEM} \: } H''$.

2975: \HB

2976: \end{corollary}

2977: 

2978: \section{Conclusions}

2979: \label{sec:conclusions}

2980: 

2981: In this paper we presented uniform proofs of order independence for

2982: various strategy elimination procedures. The main ingredients of our approach

2983: were reliance on Newman's Lemma and related results on the abstract

2984: reduction systems, and an

2985: analysis of the structural properties of the dominance relations.

2986: This exposition allowed us to clarify which structural properties

2987: account for the order independence of the entailed reduction relations

2988: on the games.

2989: 

2990: In Figure \ref{fig:summary} below we summarize the order independence

2991: results discussed in this article.  We use here the already introduced

2992: abbreviations, so:

2993: \begin{description}

2994: \item[--]

2995: \emph{S} denotes strict dominance, 

2996: \item[--]

2997: \emph{W} denotes weak dominance, 

2998: \item[--]

2999: \emph{NW} denotes nice weak dominance, 

3000: \item[--]

3001: \emph{PE} denotes payoff equivalence.

3002: \end{description}

3003: Further, \emph{RM} stands for the `mixed strategy' version of the dominance relation $R$

3004: and \emph{inh-R} stands for the `inherent' version of the (mixed) dominance relation $R$

3005: discussed in Sections \ref{sec:bor} and \ref{sec:borm}.

3006: 

3007: Recall also that UN stands for the uniqueness of the normal form, i.e., for the order independence

3008: and $\sim$-UN is its `up to the game equivalence' version.

3009: All the results refer to the order independence of the

3010: $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} R}$ reduction relation on games,

3011: introduced in Section \ref{sec:dominance}.

3012: 

3013: \begin{figure}[htbp]

3014:   \begin{center}

3015: \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|l|}

3016: \hline

3017: Dominance                         & Property & Proved                    & Result originally due to \\

3018: Notion                             &                  & in Section                & \\

3019: \hline \hline

3020: \emph{S}                           & UN               & \ref{sec:dominance}    & \cite{GKZ90}, \\

3021:                                    &                  &                        & \cite{Ste90} \\

3022: $inh-W$                       & UN               & \ref{sec:bor}          & \cite{Bor90} \\

3023: $inh-NW$                      & UN               & \ref{sec:nweak}    & \\

3024: \emph{SM}                          & UN               & \ref{sec:mixeddom}    & \cite{OR94} \\

3025: $inh-WM$                      &        UN        & \ref{sec:borm}    & (\cite{Bor90}: equal to \emph{SM}) \\

3026: $inh-NWM$                   & UN               & \ref{sec:mnweak}    & \\

3027: \emph{PE}                     & $\sim$-UN        & \ref{sec:pure-equ}    & \\

3028: $\emph{S} \cup \emph{PE}$         & $\sim$-UN        & \ref{sec:combining}    &  \\

3029: $\emph{NW} \cup \emph{PE}$         & $\sim$-UN        & \ref{sec:nweak}    & \cite{MS97} \\

3030: \emph{PEM}                    & $\sim$-UN        & \ref{sec:randomized}    & \\

3031: $\emph{SM} \cup \emph{PEM}$        & $\sim$-UN       & \ref{sec:combiningm}    &  \\

3032: $\emph{NWM} \cup \emph{PEM}$        & $\sim$-UN       & \ref{sec:mnweak}    & \cite{MS97} \\

3033: \hline

3034: \end{tabular}

3035:     \caption{Summary of the order independence results}

3036:     \label{fig:summary}

3037:   \end{center}

3038: \end{figure}

3039: 

3040: 

3041: The reduction relations on games that we studied are naturally

3042: related.  For example we have $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S} \sse

3043: \Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$, with the strict inclusion for some games.

3044: However, the respective results about these reduction relations are

3045: not related.  For example, the fact that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S}$ is

3046: UN not a special case of the fact that $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$ is

3047: UN.

3048: 

3049: Indeed, given two abstract reduction systems $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm}

3050:   1 \: })$ and $(A, \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: })$ such that

3051: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } \sse \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: }$ the

3052: uniqueness of a normal form with respect to $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \:

3053:   }$ does not imply the uniqueness of a normal form with respect to

3054: $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$. Indeed, just take $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1

3055:   \: } := \{(a,b), (a,c)\}$ and $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2 \: } :=

3056: \myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1 \: } \cup \{(b,d), (c,d)\}$. This example also

3057: shows that weak confluence of $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 2}$ does not imply

3058: weak confluence of $\myra_{\hspace{-1mm} 1}$.  So the weak confluence

3059: of $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} S}$ is not a consequence of the weak

3060: confluence of $\Ra_{\hspace{-1mm} SM}$.  The same remarks apply to

3061: other pairs of dominance relations.

3062: 

3063: The provided proofs of the order independence results break down for

3064: infinite games.  The reason is that the crucial assumption of Newman's

3065: Lemma, namely that that no infinite $\myra$ sequences exist, does not

3066: hold then anymore.  Moreover, for infinite games the Equivalence Lemma

3067: \ref{lem:equ1} does not hold.  Still, it would be interesting to try

3068: to establish the main result of \cite{DS02} using the abstract

3069: reduction systems techniques.

3070: 

3071: %\cb

3072: 

3073: \subsection*{Acknowledgement}

3074: We thank Bernhard von Stengel for a useful email exchange on the

3075: subject of mixed strategies in the initial stage of this research,

3076: Femke van Raamsdonk for her comments on abstract reduction systems,

3077: and Jeroen Swinkels and the referees for helpful suggestions.

3078: 

3079: %\ce

3080: 

3081: 

3082: \bibliographystyle{handbk}

3083: 

3084: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

3085: 

3086: 

3087: %\bibliography{/home/staff/apt/bib/e}

3088: 

3089: \begin{thebibliography}{1999}

3090: 

3091: \normalsize

3092:  

3093: \bibitem[B\"{o}rgers:\nameindex{B\"{o}rgers, T.}:1990]{Bor90}

3094: {\sc B\"{o}rgers, T.\nameindex{B\"{o}rgers, T.}}, {\em Ordinal versus Cardinal

3095:   Notions of Dominance}, tech. rep., University of Basel.

3096: 

3097: \bibitem[B\"{o}rgers:\nameindex{B\"{o}rgers, T.}:1993]{Bor93}

3098: {\sc B\"{o}rgers, T.\nameindex{B\"{o}rgers, T.}}, Pure strategy dominance, {\em

3099:   Econometrica}, 61, pp.~423--430.

3100: 

3101: \bibitem[Dufwenberg and Stegeman:\nameindex{Dufwenberg, M.}\nameindex{Stegeman,

3102:   M.}:2002]{DS02}

3103: {\sc Dufwenberg, M.\nameindex{Dufwenberg, M.} and

3104:   M.~Stegeman\nameindex{Stegeman, M.}}, Existence and uniqueness of maximal

3105:   reductions under iterated strict dominance, {\em Econometrica}, 70,

3106:   pp.~2007--2023.

3107: 

3108: \bibitem[Gilboa, Kalai and Zemel:\nameindex{Gilboa, I.}\nameindex{Kalai,

3109:   E.}\nameindex{Zemel, E.}:1990]{GKZ90}

3110: {\sc Gilboa, I.\nameindex{Gilboa, I.}, E.~Kalai\nameindex{Kalai, E.}, and

3111:   E.~Zemel\nameindex{Zemel, E.}}, On the order of eliminating dominated

3112:   strategies, {\em Operation Research Letters}, 9, pp.~85--89.

3113: 

3114: \bibitem[Gilli:\nameindex{Gilli, M.}:2002]{Gil02}

3115: {\sc Gilli, M.\nameindex{Gilli, M.}}, Iterated admissibility as solution

3116:   concepts in game theory.

3117: \newblock Working Paper of Dipartimento di Economia Politica, n. 47.

3118: 

3119: \bibitem[Huet:\nameindex{Huet, G.}:1980]{Hue80}

3120: {\sc Huet, G.\nameindex{Huet, G.}}, Confluent reductions: Abstract properties

3121:   and applications to term rewriting, {\em Journal of the ACM}, 27,

3122:   pp.~797--821.

3123: 

3124: \bibitem[Marx and Swinkels:\nameindex{Marx, L.~M.}\nameindex{Swinkels,

3125:   J.~M.}:1997]{MS97}

3126: {\sc Marx, L.~M.\nameindex{Marx, L.~M.} and J.~M. Swinkels\nameindex{Swinkels,

3127:   J.~M.}}, Order independence for iterated weak dominance, {\em Games and

3128:   Economic Behavior}, 18, pp.~219--245.

3129: 

3130: \bibitem[Marx and Swinkels:\nameindex{Marx, L.~M.}\nameindex{Swinkels,

3131:   J.~M.}:2000]{MS00}

3132: {\sc Marx, L.~M.\nameindex{Marx, L.~M.} and J.~M. Swinkels\nameindex{Swinkels,

3133:   J.~M.}}, Corrigendum, order independence for iterated weak dominance, {\em

3134:   Games and Economic Behavior}, 31, pp.~324--329.

3135: 

3136: \bibitem[Myerson:\nameindex{Myerson, R.~B.}:1991]{Mye91}

3137: {\sc Myerson, R.~B.\nameindex{Myerson, R.~B.}}, {\em Game Theory: Analysis of

3138:   Conflict}, Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

3139: 

3140: \bibitem[Newman:\nameindex{Newman, M. H.~A.}:1942]{New42}

3141: {\sc Newman, M.~H.~A. \nameindex{Newman, M. H.~A.}}, On theories with a

3142:   combinatorial definition of {``equivalence''}, {\em Annals of Math.}, 43,

3143:   pp.~223--243.

3144: 

3145: \bibitem[Osborne and Rubinstein:\nameindex{Osborne,

3146:   M.~J.}\nameindex{Rubinstein, A.}:1994]{OR94}

3147: {\sc Osborne, M.~J. \nameindex{Osborne, M.~J.} and

3148:   A.~Rubinstein\nameindex{Rubinstein, A.}}, {\em A Course in Game Theory}, The

3149:   {MIT} Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

3150: 

3151: \bibitem[{{\O}sterdal}:\nameindex{{{\O}sterdal}, L.~P.}:2004]{Ost04}

3152: {\sc {{\O}sterdal}, L.~P. \nameindex{{{\O}sterdal}, L.~P.}}, Iterated weak

3153:   dominance and subgame dominance, {\em Journal of Mathematical Economics}.

3154: \newblock To appear.

3155: 

3156: \bibitem[Pearce:\nameindex{Pearce, D.~G.}:1984]{Pea84}

3157: {\sc Pearce, D.~G. \nameindex{Pearce, D.~G.}}, Rationalizable strategic behavior

3158:   and the problem of perfection, {\em Econometrica}, 52, pp.~1029--1050.

3159: 

3160: \bibitem[Robles:\nameindex{Robles, J.}:2003]{Rob03}

3161: {\sc Robles, J.\nameindex{Robles, J.}}, Order independence for conditional

3162:   dominance.

3163: \newblock Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Colorado.

3164: 

3165: \bibitem[Shimoji and Watson:\nameindex{Shimoji, M.}\nameindex{Watson,

3166:   J.}:1998]{SW98}

3167: {\sc Shimoji, M. \nameindex{Shimoji, M.} and J.~Watson\nameindex{Watson, J.}},

3168:   Conditional dominance, rationalizability, and game forms, {\em Journal of

3169:   Economic Theory}, 83, pp.~161--195.

3170: 

3171: \bibitem[Stegeman:\nameindex{Stegeman, M.}:1990]{Ste90}

3172: {\sc Stegeman, M.\nameindex{Stegeman, M.}}, {\em Deleting strictly eliminating

3173:   dominated strategies}.

3174: \newblock Working Paper 1990/6, Department of Economics, University of North

3175:   Carolina.

3176: 

3177: \bibitem[Terese:\nameindex{Terese,}:2003]{Ter03}

3178: {\sc Terese\nameindex{Terese,}}, {\em Term Rewriting Systems}, Cambridge Tracts

3179:   in Theoretical Computer Science 55, Cambridge University Press.

3180: 

3181: \end{thebibliography}

3182: 

3183: 

3184: \end{document}

3185: 

3186: