MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143189941

Recent developments in empirical IO: dynamic demand and dynamic games

2010· article· en· W3143189941 on OpenAlexaff
Vı́ctor Aguirregabiria, Aviv Nevo

Bibliographic record

VenueMPRA Paper · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligopolyCounterfactual thinkingEconomicsCompetition (biology)Profitability indexWork (physics)Computer scienceEstimationCurse of dimensionalityMicroeconomicsEconometricsCournot competition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirically studying dynamic competition in oligopoly markets requires dealing with large states spaces and tackling difficult computational problems, while handling heterogeneity and multiple equilibria. In this paper, we discuss some of the ways recent work in Industrial Organization has dealt with these challenges. We illustrate problems and proposed solutions using as examples recent work on dynamic demand for differentiated products and on dynamic games of oligopoly competition. Our discussion of dynamic demand focuses on models for storable and durable goods and surveys how researchers have used the inclusive value to deal with dimensionality problems and reduce the computational burden. We clarify the assumptions needed for this approach to work, the implications for the treatment of heterogeneity and the different ways it has been used. In our discussion of the econometrics of dynamics games of oligopoly competition, we deal with challenges related to estimation and counterfactual experiments in models with multiple equilibria. We also examine methods for the estimation of models with persistent unobserved heterogeneity in product characteristics, firms' costs, or local market profitability. Finally, we discuss different approaches to deal with large state spaces in dynamic games.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMPRA PaperSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207