pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.12140 · v4 · pith:BZ5TYZEUnew · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🧮 math.OC · econ.TH· q-fin.MF

Forecasting and Manipulating the Forecasts of Others

Sam Babichenko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC econ.THq-fin.MF
keywords dynamic gamesprivate informationbelief hierarchiesNash equilibriumlinear quadratic Gaussianinformation wedgerecursive representationhigher-order beliefs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Any fixed point in the noise-state linear class is a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations in dynamic games with dispersed private information.

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

The paper develops a recursive representation for finite-player dynamic games where actions affect both payoffs and opponents' information, creating belief hierarchies. It introduces a noise state that records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks generating the history, so higher-order beliefs arise by composing functions rather than by adding separate state variables for each order. In the canonical continuous-time linear-quadratic-Gaussian setting this representation becomes explicit: beliefs, value gradients, and policy rules are deterministic impulse-response functions, and an equilibrium is a fixed point in those functions. Any such fixed point is shown to be a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations. The approach also isolates an information wedge, the shadow price of actions that alter opponents' posteriors.

Core claim

The paper establishes a recursive representation for dynamic games with dispersed private information. The noise state records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks that generate histories, allowing higher-order beliefs to be generated by composition rather than tracked as separate state variables. In the continuous-time LQG benchmark, beliefs, value gradients, and policy rules become deterministic impulse-response functions, and equilibrium is a deterministic fixed point in those functions. Any fixed point in the noise-state linear class is a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations. The first-order system contains an information wedge, the shadow price of changing,

What carries the argument

The noise state, a variable that records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks generating the history and thereby generates higher-order beliefs by composition.

If this is right

  • In a two-player benchmark the information wedge shows that gains from pooling information are mostly strategic.
  • Optimal allocation of signal precision can starve an inefficient player of information.
  • Changes in signal precision alter policy rules themselves, so the separation principle fails.
  • Equilibrium computation reduces to solving a deterministic fixed-point problem in impulse-response functions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The representation could be used to study how a designer chooses information structures to shift the equilibrium wedge in larger games.
  • Similar noise-state constructions might simplify analysis of non-LQG settings by approximating the impulse responses numerically.
  • The wedge provides a natural pricing mechanism for information-manipulation incentives that could be tested in laboratory games.

Load-bearing premise

The noise state is assumed to fully record agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks that generate histories, so higher-order beliefs can be produced by composition rather than tracked separately.

What would settle it

A concrete L² deviation strategy for which a candidate fixed point in the noise-state linear class yields strictly lower payoff than the equilibrium strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12140 by Sam Babichenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Information-to-action feedback in the worked example. Actions move [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Equilibrium mean control D¯ 1 t as a function of signal precision p, with the perfect-information benchmark (dashed). Low precision makes opponents’ posteriors sluggish, amplifying the incentive to manipulate beliefs; as p → ∞ the mean policy converges to the perfect-information limit. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 ¹Di(t) Mean controls D¹1 (solid) D¹2 (dashed) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t 0.2 0.1 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Asymmetric equilibrium with p1 = 3 fixed and p2 varying. Left: mean controls D¯ 1 t (solid) and D¯ 2 t (dashed) diverge as the precision gap widens. Center: the mean state path X¯ t tilts toward the better-informed player’s target. Right: aggregate mean effort |D¯ 1 |+|D¯ 2 | exceeds the perfect-information benchmark (gray dashed), with the excess growing in the precision asymmetry. for both competitive (o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean information wedges V¯1 t and V¯2 t as p2 varies (p1 = 3 fixed). Both wedges are hump-shaped in t, confirming that belief manipulation is most valuable at intermediate dates. Increasing the opponent’s precision amplifies the wedge: a better-informed opponent reacts more sharply to drift, raising the marginal value of manipulating their posterior. The wedges vanish at the terminal date, consistent with … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Equilibrium costs under private signals (dashed) and pooled signals (solid) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Equilibrium quantities across the precision split, opposing targets ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Noise-State Linear fixed-point loop. (i) Assume opponents use Noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Finite-player dynamic games with dispersed private information are difficult because actions both move payoffs and reshape what opponents learn, generating hierarchies of beliefs about beliefs. This paper provides a recursive representation for this problem. The noise state records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks that generate histories, so higher-order beliefs are generated by composition rather than tracked as separate state variables. In the canonical continuous-time LQG benchmark, the representation becomes explicit: beliefs, value gradients, and policy rules are deterministic impulse-response functions, and equilibrium is a deterministic fixed point in those functions. Any fixed point in the noise-state linear class is a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible \(L^2\) deviations. The first-order system contains an information wedge, the shadow price of changing opponents' posteriors. In a two-player benchmark, the wedge explains why pooling gains are mostly strategic, why optimal precision allocation can starve an inefficient player of information, and why signal precision changes policy rules themselves, so separation fails.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a recursive representation for finite-player dynamic games with dispersed private information. The noise state records agents' beliefs about underlying shocks generating histories, so that higher-order beliefs arise by composition of the state transition rather than as separate variables. In the continuous-time LQG benchmark, beliefs, value gradients, and policy rules are deterministic impulse-response functions, and equilibrium is a fixed point in this function class. The central claim is that any fixed point in the noise-state linear class constitutes a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations. The first-order system contains an information wedge (shadow price of changing opponents' posteriors), which is used to explain strategic pooling, precision allocation, and failure of separation in a two-player benchmark.

Significance. If the representation is shown to be complete and the Nash claim is rigorously verified, the framework could substantially advance the analysis of strategic information transmission and belief manipulation in dynamic games. The reduction of belief hierarchies to a single noise state offers a promising route to tractability in continuous time, where traditional methods face infinite-dimensional state spaces. The explicit LQG characterization and the information-wedge concept provide concrete, potentially falsifiable predictions about equilibrium policy rules and information choices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, paragraph on recursive representation: the claim that the noise state 'records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks that generate histories, so higher-order beliefs are generated by composition rather than tracked separately' is load-bearing for the Nash property. If the representation is incomplete for some belief hierarchies (e.g., those requiring variables not reducible to the noise-state transition in infinite-dimensional continuous-time histories), then an admissible L² deviation could profit by conditioning on the missing information, violating the asserted Nash equilibrium.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract, claim on fixed points: the statement that 'any fixed point in the noise-state linear class is a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations' is presented without derivation or verification steps. Because this is the central technical result, the manuscript must supply an explicit argument showing that the recursive representation is sufficient to rule out profitable deviations that exploit unrepresented higher-order beliefs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Define 'admissible L² deviations' and 'noise-state linear class' more explicitly, including the precise function space and integrability conditions, to make the Nash claim accessible.
  2. [Two-player benchmark] In the two-player benchmark discussion, clarify how the information wedge quantitatively accounts for the 'mostly strategic' nature of pooling gains and the starvation of information to an inefficient player.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments correctly identify that the completeness of the noise-state representation and the verification of the Nash property are central to the paper's contribution. We address each point below and will strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, paragraph on recursive representation: the claim that the noise state 'records agents' beliefs about the underlying shocks that generate histories, so higher-order beliefs are generated by composition rather than tracked separately' is load-bearing for the Nash property. If the representation is incomplete for some belief hierarchies (e.g., those requiring variables not reducible to the noise-state transition in infinite-dimensional continuous-time histories), then an admissible L² deviation could profit by conditioning on the missing information, violating the asserted Nash equilibrium.

    Authors: We agree that this claim is load-bearing. The noise state is defined as the minimal sufficient statistic for the entire history of shocks under the players' common prior and the equilibrium strategies; any higher-order belief is obtained by applying the known transition kernel to this state. Because the underlying shock processes are Gaussian and the admissible strategies are L², every feasible belief hierarchy generated by the game is captured by iterated composition within this finite-dimensional state. We will add a formal lemma in the revised version establishing that the representation is complete for all admissible L² strategies, thereby ruling out profitable deviations that rely on unrepresented information. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, claim on fixed points: the statement that 'any fixed point in the noise-state linear class is a Nash equilibrium against arbitrary admissible L² deviations' is presented without derivation or verification steps. Because this is the central technical result, the manuscript must supply an explicit argument showing that the recursive representation is sufficient to rule out profitable deviations that exploit unrepresented higher-order beliefs.

    Authors: The manuscript sketches the argument via the recursive representation but does not contain a self-contained verification. We accept the referee's point. In the revision we will insert a dedicated proposition (with proof) showing that if a candidate strategy profile is a fixed point of the noise-state linear map, then the first-order condition for any admissible L² deviation is violated unless the deviation coincides with the candidate strategy. The argument proceeds by showing that any deviation corresponds to a different impulse-response function, which cannot improve payoff once the information wedge and the fixed-point condition are imposed. This directly precludes exploitation of missing higher-order beliefs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; representation and Nash property derived independently

full rationale

The paper defines a recursive noise-state representation that encodes agents' beliefs about shocks, with higher-order beliefs obtained by composition of the state transition. It then states as a result that any fixed point in the noise-state linear class constitutes a Nash equilibrium against admissible L^2 deviations. No equation or definition is shown to presuppose the Nash property inside the state construction itself, nor does the argument reduce to a self-citation or fitted input renamed as prediction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the stated assumptions without internal reduction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted beyond the modeling assumptions stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The setting is the canonical continuous-time LQG benchmark in which beliefs, value gradients, and policy rules are deterministic impulse-response functions.
    Abstract states that the representation becomes explicit in this benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1019 out tokens · 44696 ms · 2026-05-21T11:59:45.464397+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Optimal Design of Stealthy Attacks in Partially Observed Linear Systems: A Likelihood-Based Approach

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A likelihood-based detection and hierarchical optimization framework yields optimal stealthy attacks for deterministic and adaptive information structures in partially observed linear systems.

  2. Optimal Design of Stealthy Attacks in Partially Observed Linear Systems: A Likelihood-Based Approach

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A tractable framework for optimal stealthy attacks in partially observed linear systems via innovation likelihood detection, with hierarchical optimization and separation principle yielding semi-explicit adaptive attacks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Efficient use of information and social value of information.Econometrica, 75(4):1103–1142, 2007

    George-Marios Angeletos and Alessandro Pavan. Efficient use of information and social value of information.Econometrica, 75(4):1103–1142, 2007. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468-0262.2007.00783.x

    work page arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Wolfgang Arendt, Charles J. K. Batty, Matthias Hieber, and Frank Neubran- der.Vector-Valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, volume 96 of Monographs in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser, 2nd edition, 2011. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-0348-0087-7. 50

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Insider trading in continuous time.The Review of Financial Studies, 5(3):387–409, 1992

    Kerry Back. Insider trading in continuous time.The Review of Financial Studies, 5(3):387–409, 1992. doi: 10.1093/rfs/5.3.387

    work page doi:10.1093/rfs/5.3.387 1992

  4. [4]

    Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2): 487–522, 2016

    Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2): 487–522, 2016. doi: 10.3982/TE1808

    work page doi:10.3982/te1808 2016

  5. [5]

    Information design: A unified perspective

    Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: A unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1):44–95, 2019. doi: 10.1257/jel.20181489

    work page doi:10.1257/jel.20181489 2019

  6. [6]

    Information and volatil- ity.Journal of Economic Theory, 158:427–465, 2015

    Dirk Bergemann, Tibor Heumann, and Stephen Morris. Information and volatil- ity.Journal of Economic Theory, 158:427–465, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2014.12. 002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jet.2014.12 2015

  7. [7]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2019

    Pierre Cardaliaguet, Fran¸ cois Delarue, Jean-Michel Lasry, and Pierre-Louis Li- ons.The Master Equation and the Convergence Problem in Mean Field Games, volume 201 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Springer, 2018

    Ren´ e Carmona and Fran¸ cois Delarue.Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications, volume I–II ofProbability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56436-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56436-4 2018

  9. [9]

    Douglas Foster and S

    F. Douglas Foster and S. Viswanathan. Strategic trading when agents forecast the forecasts of others.The Journal of Finance, 51(4):1437–1478, 1996. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb04075.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb04075.x 1996

  10. [10]

    Grossman and Joseph E

    Sanford J. Grossman and Joseph E. Stiglitz. On the impossibility of informa- tionally efficient markets.American Economic Review, 70(3):393–408, 1980

    work page 1980

  11. [11]

    Lars Peter Hansen and Thomas J. Sargent. Linear rational expectations models for dynamically interrelated variables. In Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Thomas J. Sargent, editors,Rational Expectations and Econometric Practice, volume 1, pages 127–156. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1981

    work page 1981

  12. [12]

    Bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players, I–III. Part I. the basic model.Management Science, 14(3):159–182,

    work page

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159. 51

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159

  14. [14]

    Malham´ e, and Peter E

    Minyi Huang, Roland P. Malham´ e, and Peter E. Caines. Large population stochastic dynamic games: Closed-loop McKean–Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle.Communications in Information and Systems, 6 (3):221–252, 2006

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Rational expectations models with higher-order beliefs

    Zhen Huo and Naoki Takayama. Rational expectations models with higher-order beliefs. Working paper, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    American Economic Review 101, 6 (October 2011), 2590–2615

    Emir Kamenica and Matthew Gentzkow. Bayesian persuasion.American Eco- nomic Review, 101(6):2590–2615, 2011. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.6.2590

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.101.6.2590 2011

  17. [17]

    Forecasting the forecasts of others in the frequency domain

    Kenneth Kasa. Forecasting the forecasts of others in the frequency domain. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24(5–7):875–902, 2000. doi: 10. 1016/S0165-1889(99)00085-6

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Springer, 2002

    Davar Khoshnevisan.Multiparameter Processes: An Introduction to Random Fields. Springer, 2002. doi: 10.1007/b97363

    work page doi:10.1007/b97363 2002

  19. [19]

    Albert S. Kyle. Continuous auctions and insider trading.Econometrica, 53(6): 1315–1335, 1985. doi: 10.2307/1913210

    work page doi:10.2307/1913210 1985

  20. [20]

    Liptser and Albert N

    Robert S. Liptser and Albert N. Shiryaev.Statistics of Random Processes, vol- ume I–II. Springer, 2nd edition, 2001

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Optimal sticky prices under rational inattention.American Economic Review, 99(3):769–803, 2009

    Bartosz Ma´ ckowiak and Mirko Wiederholt. Optimal sticky prices under rational inattention.American Economic Review, 99(3):769–803, 2009. doi: 10.1257/aer. 99.3.769

    work page doi:10.1257/aer 2009

  22. [22]

    Rational inattention: A review.Journal of Economic Literature, 61(1):226–273, 2023

    Bartosz Ma´ ckowiak, Filip Matˇ ejka, and Mirko Wiederholt. Rational inattention: A review.Journal of Economic Literature, 61(1):226–273, 2023. doi: 10.1257/ jel.20211524

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Yale University Press, New Haven, 1972

    Jacob Marschak and Roy Radner.Economic Theory of Teams. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1972

    work page 1972

  24. [24]

    Social value of public informa- tion.American Economic Review, 92(5):1521–1534, 2002

    Stephen Morris and Hyun Song Shin. Social value of public informa- tion.American Economic Review, 92(5):1521–1534, 2002. doi: 10.1257/ 000282802762024610. 52

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Decentralized stochastic control with partial history sharing: A common information approach

    Ashutosh Nayyar, Aditya Mahajan, and Demosthenis Teneketzis. Decentralized stochastic control with partial history sharing: A common information approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(7):1644–1658, 2013

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Kristoffer P. Nimark. Dynamic higher order expectations. Working paper, Cor- nell University, 2017

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Lamperti

    Roy Radner. Team decision problems.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33(3):857–881, 1962. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177704455

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704455 1962

  28. [28]

    Giacomo Rondina and Todd B. Walker. Confounding dynamics.Journal of Economic Theory, 196:105293, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2021.105293

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jet.2021.105293 2021

  29. [29]

    A continuous-time version of the principal-agent problem.The Review of Economic Studies, 75(3):957–984, 2008

    Yuliy Sannikov. A continuous-time version of the principal-agent problem.The Review of Economic Studies, 75(3):957–984, 2008. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-937X. 2008.00486.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-937x 2008

  30. [30]

    Thomas J. Sargent. Equilibrium with signal extraction from endogenous vari- ables.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 15(2):245–273, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0165-1889(91)90012-P

    work page doi:10.1016/0165-1889(91)90012-p 1991

  31. [31]

    Schelling.The Strategy of Conflict

    Thomas C. Schelling.The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cam- bridge, MA, 1960

    work page 1960

  32. [32]

    Christopher A. Sims. Implications of rational inattention.Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(3):665–690, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00029-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3932(03)00029-1 2003

  33. [33]

    Townsend

    Robert M. Townsend. Forecasting the forecasts of others.Journal of Political Economy, 91(4):546–588, 1983. doi: 10.1086/261166

    work page doi:10.1086/261166 1983

  34. [34]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008

    Xavier Vives.Information and Learning in Markets: The Impact of Market Microstructure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008. ISBN 978-0- 691-12743-9

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    Imperfect common knowledge and the effects of monetary policy

    Michael Woodford. Imperfect common knowledge and the effects of monetary policy. In Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Wood- ford, editors,Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeco- nomics: In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps, pages 25–58. Princeton University Press, 2003. 53

    work page 2003