MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215887133

Persuasion in Global Games with Application to Stress Testing

2021· article· en· W3215887133 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Pavan, Nicolas Inostroza

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonotone polygonPersuasionAdversarial systemStochastic gameStress testAction (physics)Test (biology)Monotonic functionStress (linguistics)Information asymmetryEconomicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationEconometricsMathematical economicsMicroeconomicsActuarial scienceMathematicsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study robust/adversarial information design in global games, with an application to stress testing. We show that the optimal policy coordinates all market participants on the same course of action. Importantly, while it removes any strategic uncertainty, it preserves heterogeneity in structural (that is, in beliefs over payoff fundamentals). We identify conditions under which the optimal policy is a pass/fail test, show that the optimal test need not be monotone in fundamentals, but also identify conditions under which it is monotone. Finally, we show how the effects of an increase in market uncertainty on the toughness of the optimal stress test depend on the securities issued by the banks.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
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

Citations51
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207