Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We study how different types of instrument rules affect the outcome of a monetary policy game between the central bank and the private sector. Policy rules can be independent of output and a shock, functions of the shock, or functions of output. We rank the Nash equilibria generated by different types of policy rules according to the central bank's ex ante expected loss. If both players can condition on output, then the following is true: no equilibrium exists if the central bank cares much about output stability and little about price stability, and infinitely many equilibria exist otherwise. JEL classification: E52, E61 Equilibres à la Nash des règles de politique. L’auteur étudie comment le choix de divers types de règles instrumentales a un effet sur le résultat d’un jeu de politique monétaire entre la banque centrale et le secteur privé. Les règles de politique peuvent être indépendantes de la production ou d’un choc, être fonction d’un choc ou de la production. On établit un ordre des équilibres à la Nash engendrés par ces divers types de règles de politique selon la taille des pertes anticipées ex ante par la banque centrale. Si les deux joueurs fondent leur comportement sur la production, il s’ensuit que — aucun équilibre n’existe si la banque centrale est très préoccupée par la stabilité du niveau de production et peu préoccupée de la stabilité des prix, et autrement, une infinité d’équilibres existent.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Economics paper on Nash equilibria of monetary policy rules.
It develops mathematical models of monetary policy equilibria, not research itself.
Monetary policy game-theory model of instrument rules; economics domain, not research systems.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".