MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122648313 · doi:10.1093/restud/rdz013

Identification and Estimation of Dynamic Games When Players’ Beliefs Are Not in Equilibrium

2019· preprint· en· W3122648313 on OpenAlexaff
Vı́ctor Aguirregabiria, Arvind Magesan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economic Studies · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsStochastic gameInstrumental variableIdentification (biology)GeneralizationMathematicsEconometricsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article deals with the identification and estimation of dynamic games when players’ beliefs about other players’ actions are biased, that is, beliefs do not represent the probability distribution of the actual behaviour of other players conditional on the information available. First, we show that an exclusion restriction, typically used to identify empirical games, provides testable non-parametric restrictions of the null hypothesis of equilibrium beliefs in dynamic games with either finite or infinite horizon. We use this result to construct a simple Likelihood Ratio test of equilibrium beliefs. Second, we prove that this exclusion restriction, together with consistent estimates of beliefs at two points in the support of the variable involved in the exclusion restriction, is sufficient for non-parametric point-identification of players’ belief functions as well as useful functions of payoffs. Third, we propose a simple two-step estimation method. We illustrate our model and methods using both Monte Carlo experiments and an empirical application of a dynamic game of store location by retail chains. The key conditions for the identification of beliefs and payoffs in our application are the following: (1) the previous year’s network of stores of the competitor does not have a direct effect on the profit of a firm, but the firm’s own network of stores at previous year does affect its profit because the existence of sunk entry costs and economies of density in these costs; and (2) firms’ beliefs are unbiased in those markets that are close, in a geographic sense, to the opponent’s network of stores, though beliefs are unrestricted, and potentially biased, for unexplored markets which are farther away from the competitors’ network. Our estimates show significant evidence of biased beliefs. Furthermore, imposing the restriction of unbiased beliefs generates a substantial attenuation bias in the estimate of competition effects.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Economic StudiesSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207