Limit Theorems for Data with Network Structure

Guido M. Kuersteiner

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Limit Theorems for Data with Network Structure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Network statistics satisfy laws of large numbers and a stable central limit theorem when dependence is measured by a random characteristic-driven distance and the characteristic distribution is sparse.

desk verdict Novel random-metric mixingale framework, but Lemma 1's covariance cancellation is invalid and the LLN as stated is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02375 v1 pith:AOQ2TNYL submitted 2019-08-06 math.PR

Guido M. Kuersteiner This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60F0560F1562M30

keywords networkdatacross-sectionaldependencemixingalesrandommetricsummabilitylawsoflargenumbersstablecentrallimittheoremformation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper develops asymptotic theory for averages of network-dependent data. It treats two observations as close when a model-based inverse-distance function $g_{ij}(\zeta)$ is large, and assumes dependence decays as this distance grows. Under a summability condition that makes the expected number of close neighbors uniformly bounded, the paper proves that normalized sums of network statistics—including average degrees and average peer characteristics—converge: $S_n/n$ to zero in probability, almost surely under an added stability condition, and $n^{-1/2}S_n$ to a mixed normal distribution in the sense of stable convergence. This matters because it gives a path to inference in strategic network-formation and peer-effects settings without imposing conditional independence or exchangeability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatial mixingale array with random proximity: inverse-distance functions $g_{ij}(\zeta)$, often conditional link probabilities, satisfying $g_{ij}(\zeta)^{-1} \le g_{ik}(\zeta)^{-1}+g_{kj}(\zeta)^{-1}$, together with a decreasing transform $\Lambda(k)$ and mixing coefficients $\psi_{i,k}(\zeta)$ defined by $\|\mu_{i,n}-E[v_{i,n}|B^k_{i,n}]\|_{2,\zeta}$. The key work is a covariance bound in Lemma 1 that expresses $\operatorname{Cov}(v_i,v_j)$ as a weighted sum over distance shells; combined with a maximal inequality extended to triangular arrays, this yields the laws of large numbers. For the central limit theorem, a recursive blocking algorithm carves the sample into blocks $J_k(q_i)$ and buffer zones $T_{k,h}(q_i)$, so that block sums behave like approximately independent summands separated by wide empty strips.

What would settle it

Take a network formation model with i.i.d. characteristics on a compact interval and a link probability that does not decay with sample size, so each node's expected number of close neighbors grows like $n$; computing $\operatorname{Var}(n^{-1/2}S_n)$ should then diverge rather than vanish, contradicting the weak law stated in Theorem 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a spatial mixingale condition based on a random metric—not a fixed index-space metric—is enough to control cross-sectional dependence. The paper defines inverse-distance functions $g_{ij}(\zeta)$ in $[0,1]$ with a triangular inequality, builds $\sigma$-fields $B^k_{i,n}$ that retain only agents farther than a characteristic-distance threshold, and measures dependence by the $L_2$ deviation of conditional means. Assumption 1's summability condition over the characteristic distribution is the critical sparsity ingredient. Theorem 3 then gives weak and strong laws of large numbers for $S_n/n$, and Proposition 2 and Theorem 4 give $C$-stable convergence of $n^{-1/2}S_n$ to $N(0,\eta^2)$ with possibly random $\eta$, using blocking with growing buffer zones and a characteristic-function product expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand or fall on the assumption that the characteristic distribution is sparse enough for the summability condition in Assumption 1 to hold—in expectation, each node has only boundedly many close neighbors—and that the inverse-distance functions $g_{ij}$ satisfy the triangular inequality (2).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any network statistic satisfying the mixingale and summability conditions, sample averages converge to their means at rate $n^{-1/2}$ in the normalized sense, so descriptive network measures such as average degree and average peer characteristics are consistent.
The limiting distribution of $n^{-1/2}S_n$ is mixed normal $N(0,\eta^2)$ with $C$-stable convergence, and standardizing by a consistent estimator of $\eta$ yields an asymptotically standard normal statistic, so conventional confidence intervals and Wald tests remain pivotal even when $\eta$ is random.
The regularity conditions are verified for a sparse, $m$-dependent-type network formation model with bounded link support and a cut-off; there the mixingale coefficients vanish for distances beyond the cut-off.
The block-construction algorithm provides a practical way to choose neighborhoods and buffer zones in the data and to estimate the standard deviation $\eta$ from local sample averages.
Because the setup is nonparametric, the limit theory applies to any statistic whose dependence is governed by observed or unobserved characteristics, not only to explicitly defined graphs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper's claims, the same proof strategy should extend to other dependence structures—panel data with common shocks, point processes with stabilizing functionals, or spatial data with random locations—where distance is random rather than fixed.
A natural next step is to estimate $g_{ij}$ from a parametric or nonparametric network-formation model and account for estimation error in the blocking algorithm; the paper notes that $g_{ij}$ is currently treated as known.
The summability condition could be tested empirically by estimating the expected number of close neighbors for each node; if that number grows with the sample size, the paper's theory would not be expected to hold.
One could compare the block-based standard errors proposed here with cluster-robust or spatial HAC errors in simulations of peer-effects models; the theory predicts they should remain valid even when the mixing variance $\eta$ is random.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the random-metric mixingale idea is genuinely new and worth engaging, but the current proof of the main LLN does not work. The stress-test note is right. Lemma 1's covariance decomposition has a real error: in (A.2), conditional on A_{k_m}(i,j), g_ij > Λ(k_m), so the indicator in w^k_{j,i,n} is zero and v_j,n is not measurable with respect to B^{i,n}_{k_m}; replacing μ_i,n with μ_j,n doesn't fix it. The claimed zero is not justified, so the covariance bound (14) and variance bound (15) do not follow from Assumptions 1 and 2. The final variance step also implicitly uses a sup_i sum_j P_ij ≤ K row-summability condition that Assumption 1 does not state; the log-weighted double sum in (8) is strictly weaker. Since Lemma 1 drives Theorems 1–3, the weak and strong laws are unproven as stated.

What is good: the paper proposes a dependence measure based on random distances and a summability condition over the distribution of characteristics; that combination does not appear in the Bolthausen, Jenish-Prucha, Penrose–Yukish, Lee–Song, or Menzel lines of work. The extension of Stout's maximal inequality to triangular arrays with explicitly bounded variance is a real technical contribution. Section 5's example verifies the conditions in a simple m-dependent case, and the writing is generally clear about the high-level strategy of using approximate martingale cancellation.

Soft spots: the CLT rests on Propositions 1–2 and Theorem 4 with high-level block and mixing-decay conditions that are only checked in the m-dependent example. That would be acceptable if the LLN foundation were solid, but with Lemma 1 failing, the whole edifice shifts. The worked example is genuinely simple—dependence is essentially local by construction. Minor issues: the reference list has a few gaps (McLeish 1975b is incomplete, Park-Newman too), but those are not decisive.

Who this is for: econometric theorists working on network asymptotics. The framework could be useful after a corrected version, and a serious referee should see a revision, but I would not accept the current manuscript. If the author fixes Lemma 1—either by strengthening Assumption 1 to the needed row-summability and repairing the conditioning argument, or by proving the covariance bound differently—the paper could become viable. As it stands, the central claim is not established.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an asymptotic theory for averages of network statistics when dependence across observations is governed by observable and unobservable characteristics. A random inverse-distance function g_{ij}(zeta) and a conditional mixingale condition (5) are introduced, together with a summability condition, Assumption 1, on the distribution of the characteristics zeta. The paper claims a weak law of large numbers (Lemma 1 and Theorem 3), a strong law under an additional stability condition (Assumption 3 and Theorem 3), and a stable central limit theorem under higher-level block and mixing-decay conditions (Propositions 1 and 2, Theorem 4). A worked m-dependent network formation model in Section 5 is used to verify the conditions. The central mathematical object is Lemma 1, which is supposed to establish the covariance bound needed for all subsequent results.

Significance. If the main results were correct, the paper would offer a genuinely general, nonparametric limit theory for network statistics that does not require exchangeability, conditional independence, or a fixed spatial metric; this would be useful for peer-effects and strategic-network econometrics. The paper's strengths include the explicit construction of conditional mixingales driven by random characteristics, the use of Stout's maximal inequality and a blocking argument, and a worked example in which the mixingale coefficients are computed explicitly. However, the current proof of Lemma 1 contains incorrect measurability claims and uses a stronger row-summability condition than Assumption 1 states; these are load-bearing issues because every LLN and the CLT rely on that lemma. The errors appear repairable, but the manuscript as written does not establish its main theorems.

major comments (3)

[A.2, Eq. (A.2)] The proof of Lemma 1 claims that the first term in the covariance decomposition vanishes because, conditional on A_{k_m}(i,j), the factor (v_{j,n} - μ_{i,n}) is measurable with respect to B_{k_m}^{i,n}. This is false: on A_{k_m}(i,j) one has g_{ij} > Λ(k_m), so the indicator defining w_{j,i,n}^{k_m} = v_{j,n} 1{g_{ij} ≤ Λ(k_m)} is zero, and v_{j,n} is not measurable with respect to the σ-field generated by such truncated variables. The statement that B_{k_m}^{i,n} ⊇ A_{k_m}(i,j) is also not established and would not imply the claimed measurability. The term can instead be bounded by the same conditional Cauchy-Schwarz argument used for the neighboring term, with μ_{i,n} corrected to μ_{j,n}; with that modification the covariance bound (14) is recoverable, but the proof as written is invalid and must be rewritten.
[A.2, Eq. (A.4)] The final inequality in the proof of Lemma 1 passes from the double sum Σ_{i,j} c_i c_j Σ_m E[ψ | A]P(A) to n sup_i Σ_j Σ_m E[ψ | A]P(A) and concludes that the bound is O(n^{-1}). This step requires a row-summability condition sup_i Σ_j Σ_m E[ψ|A]P(A) ≤ K, which is not part of Assumption 1. Assumption (8) only controls the log-weighted double sum Σ_i [log^2(i+1)/i^2] Σ_{j≥i} Σ_m E[ψ|A]P(A). Consequently the stated variance bound (15) is unsupported, and the proof of Theorem 3's rate of convergence does not follow from the stated assumptions. The weak law may still be salvageable by directly bounding n^{-2} times the double sum using Assumption 1, but the currently displayed argument is not valid.
[Lemma 1 / Assumption 1 (indexing)] Assumption 1 defines the events A_{k_m}(i,j) for m ∈ N and states the summability condition with a sum over m = 1,...,∞, but Lemma 1 and the proofs sum over m = 0,...,∞. The event A_{k_0} is not defined, and k_0 is only mentioned as Λ(k_0)=1 later in the text. This indexing mismatch matters because the covariance decomposition in Lemma 1 is over a partition of the sample space; the proof must make the partition explicit for all values of m appearing in the sums.

minor comments (4)

[Global] There are numerous typos and incomplete references that should be corrected: 'Wether' in the abstract, 'attentition', 'conext', 'parametetric', 'sparicity', 'maximual', 'applixable', 'deﬁntion', and 'sample sapce' in Assumption 1.
[References] Reference [34] 'McLeish, D.L, 1975b' lacks a title and venue, and reference [38] 'Park and Newman (2004)' is incomplete. Please provide full bibliographic entries.
[Section 4, Proposition 2 and Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 says the blocking algorithm ensures Conditions (iv) and (v) of Proposition 2 'by construction,' but the algorithm has a terminal branch that assigns all remaining indices to T_{k,h}(q_N); the proof should explain why this residual block cannot violate the required cardinality condition (v) asymptotically.
[Section 4, Proposition 1 and Proposition 2] Proposition 1(v) requires E[ψ_{h'_n}(ζ)^2] = O(n^{-(1+δ)}), while Proposition 2(vi) requires E[ψ_{h'_n}(ζ)] = O(n^{-1+δ}); the relationship between these two conditions and which one is actually used in the proof of Proposition 2 should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LLN and CLT are derived from explicit high-level summability and mixingale conditions, with author self-citation used only as proof technology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is conditional on high-level assumptions rather than fitted to the target quantities. Assumption 1 imposes a summability condition on the mixing coefficients ψ_{i,k}(ζ) and the partition probabilities P(A_k(i,j)); Lemma 1 then bounds Cov(v_{i,n}, v_{j,n}) by exactly that sum, and Theorem 3 combines this with Assumptions 2–3 and Stout’s maximal inequality. This is a theorem from assumptions, not a renaming of the conclusion. The only author self-citation is the use of Kuersteiner and Prucha (2013) in Proposition 1 to adapt Hall and Heyde’s stable CLT proof to a baseline filtration; that result is published with an independent proof, is used as proof technology rather than as a premise that defines the mixingale conditions, and the paper’s central construction—random-distance spatial mixingales and the summability condition—does not reduce to it. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then “predicted”; no uniqueness theorem from the authors’ prior work is invoked; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The Lemma 1 measurability concern raised by the skeptic is a mathematical correctness objection, not a circularity, and is therefore not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data are used, so there are no fitted free parameters. The theorems rest on the listed high-level assumptions; the most fragile are the triangular inequality and the summability condition, which are model restrictions rather than consequences of primitives.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption g_{ij}(zeta)=g_{ji}(zeta) and g_{ij}^{-1} <= g_{ik}^{-1}+g_{kj}^{-1} for all k
Assumption 1 and used in the metric construction in Section 2. It is a nontrivial model restriction; not every link probability satisfies it.
domain assumption Sparsity/summability condition: sum_i log^2(i)/i^2 sum_{j>=i} sum_m E[psi_{i,k_m}|A_{k_m}]Pr(A_{k_m}) <= K
Assumption 1; controls the distribution of characteristics. The proof of Lemma 1 silently replaces it with a stronger sup_i row-sum bound.
domain assumption Moment bounds: sup_i E[|v_{i,n}|^{2+delta}|zeta] <= K and Var(v_{i,n}|zeta) <= K c_i
Assumption 2; uniform integrability for the LLN and CLT arguments.
domain assumption Stability under sample growth: |v_{i,m}-v_{i,n}| <= u_{i,n}(n log^2(n+1))^{-1} with a summability condition
Assumption 3; needed to extend Stout's SLLN to triangular arrays.
ad hoc to paper Mixingale decay and block-size conditions in Proposition 2, including E[psi_{h'_n}^2] = O(n^{-(1+delta)})
High-level conditions for the CLT; not verified for realistic strategic network models beyond the simple m-dependent example.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Limit Theorems for Data with Network Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOQ2TNYL

@misc{pith2026190802375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Limit Theorems for Data with Network Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOQ2TNYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02375}
}

read the original abstract

This paper develops new limit theory for data that are generated by networks or more generally display cross-sectional dependence structures that are governed by observable and unobservable characteristics. Strategic network formation models are an example. Wether two data points are highly correlated or not depends on draws from underlying characteristics distributions. The paper defines a measure of closeness that depends on primitive conditions on the distribution of observable characteristics as well as functional form of the underlying model. A summability condition over the probability distribution of observable characteristics is shown to be a critical ingredient in establishing limit results. The paper establishes weak and strong laws of large numbers as well as a stable central limit theorem for a class of statistics that include as special cases network statistics such as average node degrees or average peer characteristics. Some worked examples illustrating the theory are provided.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

Aguirregabiria, V. and P. Mira, 2007, Sequential Estima tion of Dynamic Discrete Games, Econometrica, 75, 1-53

work page 2007
[2]

Aldous, D. J. and G. K. Eagleson, 1978, On Mixing and Stabi lity of Limit Theorems. The Annals of Probability, 6, 325-331

work page 1978
[3]

Andrews, D.W.K., 2005, Cross-Section regression with c ommon shocks, Econometrica, 73, 1551-1585

work page 2005
[4]

Benkard and J

Bajari, P., C.L. Benkard and J. Levin, 2007, Esitmating D ynamic Models of Imperfect Competition, Econometrica, 75, 1331-1370

work page 2007
[5]

Billingsley, P., 1968, Convergence of Probability Meas ures, John Wiley and Sons, New York

work page 1968
[6]

Brock, S.N

Blume, L.E., W.A. Brock, S.N. Durlauf, and Y.M. Ioannide s, 2011, Identiﬁcation of social interactions. In J. Benhabib, M.O. Jackson and A. Bis in, eds., Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1B, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 853-964

work page 2011
[7]

Bolthausen, E., 1982, On the Central Limit theorem for St ationary Mixing Random Fields, The Annals of Probability, 10, 1047-1050

work page 1982
[8]

Djebbari, B

Bramoull´ e, Y., H. Djebbari, B. Fortin, 2009, Identiﬁcation of peer eﬀects through social networks, Journal of Econometrics 150, 41-55

work page 2009

Show all 53 references

[9]

Brock, W.A. and S. N. Durlauf, 2001, Discrete Choice with Social Interactions, Review of Economic Studies, 68, 235-260

2001
[10]

Patacchini, Y

Calvo-Armengol, A., E. Patacchini, Y. Zenou, 2009, Pee r Eﬀects and Social Networks in Education, The Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1239-1267

2009
[11]

Chandasekhar, A., 2015, Econometrics of Network Forma tion, manuscript

2015
[12]

Diaconis and A

Chatterjee, S., P. Diaconis and A. Sly, 2011, Random Gra phs with a Given Degree Sequence, The Annals of Applied Probability, 21, 1400-1458

2011
[13]

1999, GMM estimation with cross sectional de pendence, Journal of Econo- metrics, 92, 1-45

Conley, T. 1999, GMM estimation with cross sectional de pendence, Journal of Econo- metrics, 92, 1-45

1999
[14]

cem map working paper CWP06/16

de Paula, A., 2016, Econometrics of network models. cem map working paper CWP06/16. 27

2016
[15]

Erd˝ os, P. and A. R´ enyi, 1959, On random graphs, Publ. M ath. Debrecen, 6, 156

1959
[16]

(1984), Weak convergence of partial sums o f absolutely regular sequences

Eberlein, E. (1984), Weak convergence of partial sums o f absolutely regular sequences. Statistics and Probability Letters, Vol 2, 291-293

1984
[17]

Goldsmith-Pinkham, P. and G. W. Imbens, 2013, Social Ne tworks and the Identiﬁca- tion of Peer Eﬀects, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31, pp. 253-264

2013
[18]

S., 2008, Identifying social interactions t hrough conditional variance re- strictions, Econometrica, 76, vol

Graham, B. S., 2008, Identifying social interactions t hrough conditional variance re- strictions, Econometrica, 76, vol. 3, 643-660

2008
[19]

S., 2016, Homophily and Transitivity in Dyna mic Network Formation, NBER WP 22186

Graham, B. S., 2016, Homophily and Transitivity in Dyna mic Network Formation, NBER WP 22186

2016
[20]

S., 2017, An Econometric Model of Network For mation with Degree Het- erogeneity, Econometrica, 85, 1033-1063

Graham, B. S., 2017, An Econometric Model of Network For mation with Degree Het- erogeneity, Econometrica, 85, 1033-1063

2017
[21]

Heyde, 1980, Martingale Limit Theory and its Applications , Academic Press, New York

Hall, P., and C. Heyde, 1980, Martingale Limit Theory and its Applications , Academic Press, New York

1980
[22]

Holland, P.W. and S. Leinhardt, 1981, An exponential fa mily of probability distribu- tions for directed graphs, Journal of the American Statisti cal Association, 76, 33–50

1981
[23]

Jackson, M. O. (2008), Social and Economic Networks. Pr inceton University Press

2008
[24]

Jenish, N. and I. R. Prucha, 2009, Central Limit Theorem s and Uniform Laws of Large Numbers for Arrays of Random Fields, Journal of Econometrics 150, 86-89

2009
[25]

Jenish, N. and I. R. Prucha, 2012, On Spatial Processes a nd Asymptotic Inference under Near-Epoch Dependence, Journal of Econometrics , 167, 224-239

2012
[26]

Kelejian and I.R

Kapoor, M., H.H. Kelejian and I.R. Prucha, 2007, Panel D ata Models with Spatially Correlated Error Components, Journal of Econometrics 140, 97-130

2007
[27]

Prucha, 2013, Limit theory for panel data models with cross sectional dependence and sequential exogeneity, Journal of Econometrics 174, 107-126

Kuersteiner, G.M., and I.R. Prucha, 2013, Limit theory for panel data models with cross sectional dependence and sequential exogeneity, Journal of Econometrics 174, 107-126

2013
[28]

Prucha (2015, Dynamic Spat ial Panel Models: Networks, Common Shocks, and Sequential Exogeneity, CES ifo Working P aper No

Kuersteiner, G.M., and I.R. Prucha (2015, Dynamic Spat ial Panel Models: Networks, Common Shocks, and Sequential Exogeneity, CES ifo Working P aper No. 5445

2015
[29]

Lee, J.H. and K. Song, 2017, Stable Limit Theorems for Em pirical Processes under Conditional Neighborhood Dependence. arXiv:1705.08413v 3 [math.ST]. 28

2017 arXiv
[30]

Leung, M., 2016, A Weak Law for Moments of Pairwise-Stab le Networks, manuscript

2016
[31]

Manski, C.F., 1993, Identiﬁcation of Endogenous Socia l Eﬀects: The Reﬂection Prob- lem, The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531-542

1993
[32]

McLeish, D.L., 1974, Dependent Central Limit Theorems and Invariance Principles, The Annals of Probability, 620-628

1974
[33]

McLeish, D.L., 1975, A maximal inequality and dependen t strong laws, Annals of Probability 3, 829–839

1975
[35]

Meester, R. and R. Roy, 1996, Continuum Percolation, Ca mbridge Tracts in Mathe- matics, Book 119, Cambridge Univeristy Press

1996
[36]

(2015), A Structural Model of Segregation in So cial Networks, manuscript

Mele, A. (2015), A Structural Model of Segregation in So cial Networks, manuscript

2015
[37]

Menzel, K., 2016, Stratetic Network Formation with Man y Agents, manuscript

2016
[38]

Park and Newman (2004)

2004
[39]

Penrose, M.D., 2003, Random Geometric Graphs, Oxford U niversity Press

2003
[40]

Penrose, M.D. and J.E. Yukish, 2001, Central Limit Theo rems for some Graphs in Computational Geometry, The Annals of Applied Probability , 11, 1005-1041

2001
[41]

Penrose, M.D. and J.E. Yukish, 2003, Weak Laws of Large N umbers in Geometric Probability, 13, 277-303

2003
[42]

Rainone and Y

Patacchini, E., E. Rainone and Y. Zenou, 2013, Heteroge neous peer eﬀects in educa- tion, Syracuse University, Department of Economics workin g paper

2013
[43]

Sul, 2003, Dynamic panel estim ation and homogeneity testing under cross sectional dependence, Econometrics Journal 6, 217-259

Phillips, P.C.B., and D. Sul, 2003, Dynamic panel estim ation and homogeneity testing under cross sectional dependence, Econometrics Journal 6, 217-259

2003
[44]

Sul, 2007, Transition modelin g and econometric convergence tests, Econometrica 75, 1771-1855

Phillips, P.C.B., and D. Sul, 2007, Transition modelin g and econometric convergence tests, Econometrica 75, 1771-1855

2007
[45]

Poincare, Section B , 29(4), 587–597

Rio, E., 1993, Covariance Inequalities for strongly mi xing processes, Annales de l’institut H. Poincare, Section B , 29(4), 587–597

1993
[46]

Rust, J., 1994, Estimation of Dynamic Structural Model s, Problems and Prospects: Discrete Decision Processes, in Advances in Econometrics - Sixth World Congress, Vol II, ed. C.A. Sims, Cambridge University Press. 29

1994
[47]

Ridder, G. and S. Sheng, 2016, Estimation of Large Netwo rk Formation Games, manuscript

2016
[48]

Sankya Ser

Renyi, A, 1963, On stable sequences of events. Sankya Ser. A , 25, 293-302

1963
[49]

Salem, R. and A. Zygmund, 1947, On lacunary trigonometr ic series I. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 33, 333-338

1947
[50]

Sheng, S., 2016, A Structural Econometric Analysis of N etwork Formation Games, manuscript

2016
[51]

30 A Appendix A.1 Probability Space Let B ( Rd) the Borel algebra of subset of Rd

Stout, W.F, 1974, Almost Sure Convergence, Academic Pr ess, New York. 30 A Appendix A.1 Probability Space Let B ( Rd) the Borel algebra of subset of Rd. Consider the sequence of probability spaces ( Rd, B ( Rd )) = (Ω 1, F1), ( Rd × Rd, B ( Rd ) ⊗ B ( Rd )) = (Ω 1 × Ω 2, F1 ⊗ ...

1992
[52]

For the same ε there exists an n2 < ∞ such that for all n′ >n 2 and for any k2 < ∞ ﬁxed it holds that ∞∑ j=n2+1 P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζj ⏐ ⏐ ≤k2 ) ≤ ε

(A.30) More speciﬁcally, since ∑ n j=1P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζ j ⏐ ⏐ ≤k ) ≤K choose k1 such that k1 ≥ log (2K/ε). For the same ε there exists an n2 < ∞ such that for all n′ >n 2 and for any k2 < ∞ ﬁxed it holds that ∞∑ j=n2+1 P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζj ⏐ ⏐ ≤k2 ) ≤ ε
[53]

Finally, s etk = max (k1,k 4)and combine (A.30) and (A.33) to show that E [ ψi,k (ζ) ] ≤ε

(A.31) Finally, for any n2 given in (A.31) there is a k3 < ∞ such that inf j≤n2 P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζ j ⏐ ⏐ ≤k3 ) ≥ 1 − ε 4n2 (A.32) and It then follows that for k4 = max (k2,k 3) n∑ j=1 ⏐ ⏐P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζ j ⏐ ⏐ ≤k4 ) − 1 ⏐ ⏐P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζ j ⏐ ⏐ ≤k4 ) (A.33) ≤ n2∑ j=1 ⏐ ⏐P (⏐ ⏐ζ i −ζ j ⏐ ⏐ ...
[54]

The mean µi,n is given as µi,n = n∑ j=1 E [dij] = i+1∑ j=i−1 E [ H ( − ⏐ ⏐ζ ij ⏐ ⏐) 1 {⏐ ⏐ζ ij ⏐ ⏐< 1 }] because by the properties of the distribution of ζ it follows that 1 {⏐ ⏐ζij ⏐ ⏐< 1 } = 0 for j <i − 1 or j >i + 1. Similarly, E [ vi,n (ζ) |Bk i,n ] = n∑ j=1 E [ dij|Bk i,...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aguirregabiria, V. and P. Mira, 2007, Sequential Estima tion of Dynamic Discrete Games, Econometrica, 75, 1-53

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Aldous, D. J. and G. K. Eagleson, 1978, On Mixing and Stabi lity of Limit Theorems. The Annals of Probability, 6, 325-331

work page 1978

[3] [3]

Andrews, D.W.K., 2005, Cross-Section regression with c ommon shocks, Econometrica, 73, 1551-1585

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Benkard and J

Bajari, P., C.L. Benkard and J. Levin, 2007, Esitmating D ynamic Models of Imperfect Competition, Econometrica, 75, 1331-1370

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Billingsley, P., 1968, Convergence of Probability Meas ures, John Wiley and Sons, New York

work page 1968

[6] [6]

Brock, S.N

Blume, L.E., W.A. Brock, S.N. Durlauf, and Y.M. Ioannide s, 2011, Identiﬁcation of social interactions. In J. Benhabib, M.O. Jackson and A. Bis in, eds., Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1B, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 853-964

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Bolthausen, E., 1982, On the Central Limit theorem for St ationary Mixing Random Fields, The Annals of Probability, 10, 1047-1050

work page 1982

[8] [8]

Djebbari, B

Bramoull´ e, Y., H. Djebbari, B. Fortin, 2009, Identiﬁcation of peer eﬀects through social networks, Journal of Econometrics 150, 41-55

work page 2009