Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Competing Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1907.03809 v5 pith:VO5H6I6D submitted 2019-07-08 econ.TH cs.LGecon.EM

Competing Models

classification econ.TH cs.LGecon.EM
keywords agentdifferentmodelmodelstheypredictionresultssamples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Different agents need to make a prediction. They observe identical data, but have different models: they predict using different explanatory variables. We study which agent believes they have the best predictive ability -- as measured by the smallest subjective posterior mean squared prediction error -- and show how it depends on the sample size. With small samples, we present results suggesting it is an agent using a low-dimensional model. With large samples, it is generally an agent with a high-dimensional model, possibly including irrelevant variables, but never excluding relevant ones. We apply our results to characterize the winning model in an auction of productive assets, to argue that entrepreneurs and investors with simple models will be over-represented in new sectors, and to understand the proliferation of "factors" that explain the cross-sectional variation of expected stock returns in the asset-pricing literature.

discussion (0)

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