MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411945817 · doi:10.1145/3736252.3742649

Enhancing the Merger Simulation Toolkit with ML/AI

2025· article· en· W4411945817 on OpenAlexaff
Harold D. Chiang, Jack Collison, Lorenzo Magnolfi, Christopher Bane Sullivan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of WarwickNorthwestern University
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a flexible approach to predict the price effects of horizontal mergers using ML/AI methods. While standard merger simulation techniques rely on restrictive assumptions about firm conduct, we propose a data-driven framework that relaxes these constraints when rich market data are available. We develop and identify a flexible nonparametric model of supply that nests a broad range of conduct models and cost functions. To overcome the curse of dimensionality, we adapt the Variational Method of Moments (VMM) [Bennett and Kallus, 2023] to estimate the model, allowing for various forms of strategic interaction. Monte Carlo simulations show that our method significantly outperforms an array of misspecified models and rivals the performance of the true model, both in test sample prediction and in counterfactual merger simulations. As a way to interpret the economics of the estimated supply function, we simulate pass-through and find that the model learns markup and cost functions that imply approximately correct pass-through. Applied to the American Airlines-US Airways merger, our method produces more accurate post-merger price predictions than traditional approaches. The results demonstrate the potential for ML/AI techniques to enhance merger analysis while maintaining (nonparametric) structure from economics.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207