MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200504021 · doi:10.1080/07350015.2021.1981914

Inference in Games Without Equilibrium Restriction: An Application to Restaurant Competition in Opening Hours

2021· article· en· W3200504021 on OpenAlexaff
Erhao Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)InferenceEconomicsEconometricsMathematical economicsMicroeconomicsMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article relaxes the Bayesian Nash equilibrium assumption in the estimation of discrete choice games with incomplete information. Instead of assuming unbiased/correct expectations, the model specifies a player’s belief about the behaviors of other players as an unrestricted unknown function. I then study the joint identification of belief and payoff functions in a game where players have different numbers of actions (e.g., 3 × 2 game). This asymmetry in action sets partially identifies the payoff function of the player with more actions. Moreover, if usual exclusion restrictions are satisfied, the payoff and belief functions are point identified up to a scale, and the restriction of equilibrium beliefs is testable. Finally, under a multiplicative separability condition on payoffs, the above identification results are extended to the player with fewer actions and to games with symmetric action sets. I apply this model and its identification results to study the store hours competition between McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken in China. The null hypothesis of unbiased beliefs is rejected. If researchers incorrectly impose the equilibrium assumption, then the estimated interactive effect would be biased downward by more than 50%.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Economic StatisticsSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207