Behavioral game theoretic models: a Bayesian framework for parameter analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies in experimental economics have consistently demonstrated that Nash equilibrium is a poor description of human players ’ behavior in unrepeated normal-form games. Behavioral game theory offers alternative models that more accurately describe human behavior in these settings. These models typically depend upon the values of exogenous parameters, which are estimated based on experimental data. We describe methods for deriving and analyzing the posterior distributions over the parameters of such models, and apply these techniques to study two popular models (Poisson-CH and QLk), the latter of which we previously showed to be the best-performing existing model in a comparison of four widely-studied behavioral models [22]. Drawing on a large set of publicly available experimental data, we derive concrete recommendations for the parameters that should be used with Poisson-CH, contradicting previous recommendations in the literature. We also uncover anomalies in QLk that lead us to develop a new, simpler, and betterperforming family of models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it