pith. sign in

arxiv: 2406.15680 · v2 · submitted 2024-06-21 · 💰 econ.TH · cs.GT

Calibrated Forecasting and Persuasion

Atulya Jain , Vianney Perchet This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 00:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH cs.GT
keywords calibrationforecastingpersuasionmean-preserving contractionstationary ergodic processdynamic gameexpert adviceregret minimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

For stationary ergodic processes, calibrated forecast distributions are exactly the mean-preserving contractions of the conditional distributions.

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

The paper examines a repeated game in which an expert issues probabilistic forecasts that a decision-maker evaluates for calibration against past outcomes. It shows that the dynamic problem of sending calibrated forecasts to maximize payoff reduces to a static persuasion problem when the underlying process is stationary and ergodic. Under this reduction, the set of achievable forecast distributions equals the set of mean-preserving contractions of the distribution of true conditionals. This characterization yields a benchmark payoff for an informed expert versus an uninformed one and shows that an expert can secure at least this benchmark even when the decision-maker minimizes regret.

Core claim

For a stationary ergodic process, the distributions of forecasts that can arise under calibration are precisely the mean-preserving contractions of the distribution of conditionals.

What carries the argument

mean-preserving contractions of the distribution of conditionals, which characterize all forecast distributions compatible with passing the calibration test

If this is right

  • The expert's optimal strategy in the dynamic calibration game is obtained by solving the corresponding static persuasion problem.
  • An informed expert attains strictly higher payoffs than an uninformed expert under the same calibration constraint, quantifying the value of private information.
  • Against a regret-minimizing decision-maker the expert can always secure at least the calibration benchmark payoff and sometimes strictly more.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reduction implies that many results from static Bayesian persuasion can be imported directly into dynamic calibration settings.
  • Similar mean-preserving contraction characterizations may appear for other sequential testing criteria beyond calibration.
  • The benchmark could serve as a reference point when designing contracts or mechanisms that require repeated truthful reporting under verification.

Load-bearing premise

The data-generating process must be stationary and ergodic.

What would settle it

A sequence of forecasts that passes a standard calibration test yet whose empirical distribution is not a mean-preserving contraction of the realized conditional distributions would contradict the claimed characterization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2406.15680 by Atulya Jain, Vianney Perchet.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 𝑢ˆ 𝑠𝑖𝑔 𝑆 (𝑝) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 p ˆurep S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Financial App What could the app achieve if it was uninformed? The app would be able to approximately attain the indirect utility function 𝑢ˆ𝑆 (𝑝) (blue line).17 This corresponds to the no information signaling policy of the persuasion problem. The difference between the red and the blue line gives us the value of information for the Markov chain. It quantifies what an uninformed sender is willing to pay t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Receiver’s indirect utility: 𝑢ˆ𝑅 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 1 2 3 4 p uS u a1 S u a2 S u a3 S u a4 S uˆS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study a dynamic game where an expert sends probabilistic forecasts to a decision-maker. The decision-maker verifies these forecasts using a calibration test based on past data. How should the expert send forecasts to maximize her payoff while passing the test? For a stationary ergodic process, we characterize the optimal forecasting strategy by reducing the dynamic game to a static persuasion problem. The distributions of forecasts that can arise under calibration are precisely the mean-preserving contractions of the distribution of conditionals. We compare the payoffs attainable by an informed and uninformed expert, providing a benchmark for the value of information. Finally, we consider a regret-minimizing decision-maker and show that the expert can always guarantee at least the calibration benchmark and sometimes strictly more.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a dynamic game in which an expert sends probabilistic forecasts to a decision-maker who evaluates them with a calibration test on historical data. For stationary ergodic data-generating processes, the authors reduce the dynamic calibration-constrained problem to an equivalent static persuasion problem and characterize the attainable forecast distributions as exactly the mean-preserving contractions of the distribution of conditionals. They compare payoffs attainable by informed versus uninformed experts and show that, against a regret-minimizing decision-maker, the expert can always secure at least the calibration benchmark and sometimes strictly more.

Significance. If the reduction and characterization hold, the paper supplies a precise benchmark linking dynamic calibration to static information design, which is useful for assessing the value of information in forecasting settings. The explicit invocation of stationarity and ergodicity to justify the reduction, together with the regret extension, strengthens the contribution relative to purely static persuasion models.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that the distributions under calibration are 'precisely the mean-preserving contractions,' but the manuscript should include an explicit statement of the calibration test (e.g., the exact form of the empirical frequency condition) to make the equivalence fully verifiable.
  2. Notation for the distribution of conditionals versus the distribution of forecasts should be introduced with a short table or diagram in the main text to avoid confusion when moving between the dynamic and static formulations.
  3. The comparison between informed and uninformed experts would benefit from a short numerical example illustrating the payoff gap under a simple binary state space.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the supportive summary and recommendation of minor revision. The referee accurately captures the paper's main results on reducing the dynamic calibration problem to static persuasion via mean-preserving contractions under stationarity and ergodicity. No major comments were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The central result characterizes calibrated forecast distributions as mean-preserving contractions of the conditional distribution for stationary ergodic processes by reducing the dynamic game to a static persuasion problem. This reduction is explicitly derived from the ergodic theorem (equating time averages to expectations) under the stated assumption rather than by definitional identity, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The abstract and setup present the equivalence as a derived step with independent mathematical content, and no equations or claims reduce the output to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete and based solely on stated assumptions in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The data-generating process is stationary and ergodic.
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract to obtain the reduction to a static persuasion problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1013 out tokens · 23117 ms · 2026-05-24T00:14:35.713302+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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dynamic Cheap Talk without Feedback

    econ.TH 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Dynamic cheap talk without action feedback allows the sender to achieve any equilibrium payoff from a partial-commitment persuasion model and the Bayesian persuasion payoff when her payoff is state-independent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Robert J Aumann, Michael Maschler, and Richard E Stearns

    Optimal persuasion via bi-pooling.Theoretical Economics 18, 1 (2023), 15–36. Robert J Aumann, Michael Maschler, and Richard E Stearns

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 39, 4 (2014), 1057–1083

    Opportunistic approachability and generalized no-regret problems. Mathematics of Operations Research 39, 4 (2014), 1057–1083. James Best and Daniel Quigley

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    A vailable at SSRN 2908115 (2022)

    Persuasion for the long run. A vailable at SSRN 2908115 (2022). David Blackwell

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 24, 2 (1953), 265–272

    Equivalent Comparisons of Experiments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 24, 2 (1953), 265–272. Mark Braverman, Jieming Mao, Jon Schneider, and Matt Weinberg

    work page 1953

  5. [5]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Ithaca, NY, USA) (EC ’18)

    Selling to a No-Regret Buyer. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Ithaca, NY, USA) (EC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1145/3219166.3219233 Sébastien Bubeck and Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi

    work page doi:10.1145/3219166.3219233 2018

  6. [6]

    Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , title =

    Regret Analysis of Stochastic and Nonstochastic Multi-armed Bandit Problems. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 5, 1 (2012), 1–122. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000024 EC ’24, July 8–11, 2024, New Haven, CT, USA Atulya Jain and Vianney Perchet Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi and Gábor Lugosi

    work page doi:10.1561/2200000024 2012

  7. [7]

    Econometrica 50, 6 (1982), 1431–1451

    Strategic Information Transmission. Econometrica 50, 6 (1982), 1431–1451. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913390 A Philip Dawid

    work page arXiv 1982

  8. [8]

    The well-calibrated Bayesian. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77, 379 (1982), 605–610. Yuan Deng, Jon Schneider, and Balasubramanian Sivan

    work page 1982

  9. [9]

    https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/file/8b6dd7db9af49e67306feb59a8bdc52c- Paper.pdf Piotr Dworczak and Giorgio Martini

    Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/file/8b6dd7db9af49e67306feb59a8bdc52c- Paper.pdf Piotr Dworczak and Giorgio Martini

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Journal of Political Economy 127, 5 (2019), 1993–2048

    The Simple Economics of Optimal Persuasion. Journal of Political Economy 127, 5 (2019), 1993–2048. Federico Echenique and Eran Shmaya

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    On the Basic Representation Theorem for Convex Domination of Measures.Journal of mathematical analysis and applications 228, 2 (1998), 449–466. J. Elton and T. P. Hill

    work page 1998

  12. [12]

    The Annals of Probability 20, 1 (1992), 421–454

    Fusions of a Probability Distribution. The Annals of Probability 20, 1 (1992), 421–454. Dean P Foster and Sergiu Hart

    work page 1992

  13. [13]

    Dean P Foster, Alexander Rakhlin, Karthik Sridharan, and Ambuj Tewari

    Forecast hedging and calibration.Journal of Political Economy 129, 12 (2021), 3447–3490. Dean P Foster, Alexander Rakhlin, Karthik Sridharan, and Ambuj Tewari

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Biometrika 85, 2 (1998), 379–390

    Asymptotic Calibration. Biometrika 85, 2 (1998), 379–390. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2337364 Dean P Foster and Rakesh Vohra

    work page arXiv 1998

  15. [15]

    A vailable at SSRN 1791750 (2011)

    How to Buy Advice with Limited Instruments. A vailable at SSRN 1791750 (2011). Yingni Guo and Eran Shmaya

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    A vailable at Theoretical economics(2021)

    Costly Miscalibration. A vailable at Theoretical economics(2021). https://econtheory. org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewForthcomingFile/3991/28098/1 Chirag Gupta and Aaditya Ramdas

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

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

    Bayesian Persuasion. American Economic Review 101, 6 (October 2011), 2590–2615. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.6.2590 Bobby Kleinberg, Renato Paes Leme, Jon Schneider, and Yifeng Teng

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.101.6.2590 2011

  18. [18]

    Econometrica 89, 4 (2021), 1557–1593

    Extreme points and majorization: Economic applications. Econometrica 89, 4 (2021), 1557–1593. Anton Kolotilin

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Theoretical Economics 13, 2 (2018), 607–635

    Optimal information disclosure: A linear programming approach. Theoretical Economics 13, 2 (2018), 607–635. Aditya Kuvalekar, Elliot Lipnowski, and Joao Ramos

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Journal of Economic Theory 203 (2022), 105467

    Goodwill in communication. Journal of Economic Theory 203 (2022), 105467. Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09721 (2024)

    Generalized Principal-Agent Problem with a Learning Agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09721 (2024). Shie Mannor and Gilles Stoltz

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 35, 4 (2010), 721–727

    A geometric proof of calibration. Mathematics of Operations Research 35, 4 (2010), 721–727. Shie Mannor, John N Tsitsiklis, and Jia Yuan Yu

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 10, 3 (2009)

    Online Learning with Sample Path Constraints. Journal of Machine Learning Research 10, 3 (2009). Stephen Morris and Philipp Strack

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    The Wald Problem and the Relation of Sequential Sampling and Ex-Ante Information Costs. (2019). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2991567orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2991567 Wojciech Olszewski

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.2991567 2019

  25. [25]

    American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 3, 2 (2011), 89–113

    The Principal-Agent Approach to Testing Experts. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 3, 2 (2011), 89–113. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41237186 Lionel Page and Robert T. Clemen

    work page arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02561.x arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-pdf/123/568/491/26445200/ej0491.pdf Vianney Perchet

    Do Prediction Markets Produce Well-Calibrated Probability Fore- casts? The Economic Journal 123, 568 (12 2012), 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02561.x arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-pdf/123/568/491/26445200/ej0491.pdf Vianney Perchet

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02561.x 2012

  27. [27]

    Journal of Dynamics and Games 1, 2 (2014), 181–254

    Approachability, regret and calibration: Implications and equivalences. Journal of Dynamics and Games 1, 2 (2014), 181–254. Calibrated Forecasting and Persuasion EC ’24, July 8–11, 2024, New Haven, CT, USA Jérôme Renault, Eilon Solan, and Nicolas Vieille

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Journal of Economic Theory 148, 2 (2013), 502–534

    Dynamic sender–receiver games. Journal of Economic Theory 148, 2 (2013), 502–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2012.07.006 Joseph Whitmeyer and Mark Whitmeyer

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jet.2012.07.006 2013

  29. [29]

    Journal of Mathematical Economics 94 (2021), 102450

    Mixtures of mean-preserving contractions. Journal of Mathematical Economics 94 (2021), 102450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2020.11.006 EC ’24, July 8–11, 2024, New Haven, CT, USA Atulya Jain and Vianney Perchet A Omitted Results and Proofs A.1 Proposition A.1 Proposition A.1. There exists a sequence of error margins {𝜖𝑇 }∞ 𝑇 =1 such that lim𝑇 →∞ 𝜖𝑇 ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2020.11.006 2021

  30. [30]

    Given the forecasts exactly match with the conditionals, where |𝐷 | < ∞, we can put a bound on the event 𝐸𝑇 = (P(max𝑓 ∈𝐷 ) ∥𝑥 𝑓 𝑇 ∥ ≥ 𝜖𝑇 )

    The Borel-Cantelli lemma states that if the sum of the probability of a sequence of events is finite then the probability that infinitely many of them occur is zero. Given the forecasts exactly match with the conditionals, where |𝐷 | < ∞, we can put a bound on the event 𝐸𝑇 = (P(max𝑓 ∈𝐷 ) ∥𝑥 𝑓 𝑇 ∥ ≥ 𝜖𝑇 ). This bound represents the probability that the hone...

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    (37) Let 𝐺𝑖 𝑗 = 𝜇 𝑗 𝛼𝑖 𝑗 𝜆𝑖

    (36) As 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝 (𝑃) is affinely independent, we have ⇒ 𝜆𝑖 = 𝑚∑︁ 𝑗=1 𝜇 𝑗𝛼𝑖 𝑗 ∀𝑖 ∈ { 1, .., 𝑛}. (37) Let 𝐺𝑖 𝑗 = 𝜇 𝑗 𝛼𝑖 𝑗 𝜆𝑖 . The matrix𝐺 is a row-stochastic. Using this matrix, we show that the distribution 𝑄 is a simple mean-preserving contraction of the distribution 𝑃. Formally, we show it satisfies equation (6): 𝑛∑︁ 𝑖=1 𝜆𝑖𝐺𝑖 𝑗 = 𝑛∑︁ 𝑖=1 𝜇 𝑗𝛼𝑖 𝑗, (38) = 𝜇 𝑗...

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    (50) Using the martingale convergence theorem we have that 𝑓𝑛 → 𝑓∞ 𝜇-a.s

    𝑓𝑛 = 𝜇 (𝜔0 = · | 𝜔 0 −𝑛), (49) 𝑓∞ = 𝜇 (𝜔0 = · | 𝜔 0 −∞). (50) Using the martingale convergence theorem we have that 𝑓𝑛 → 𝑓∞ 𝜇-a.s.. Given 𝜇 is stationary, using the shift transformation 𝑇 , we have 𝑓𝑛 ◦ 𝑇 𝑛 = 𝜇 (𝜔𝑛 = · | 𝜔𝑛 0 ) = 𝑝𝑛. (51) Since 𝑓𝑛 and 𝑝𝑛 = 𝑓𝑛 ◦ 𝑇 𝑛 have the same distribution for all 𝑛 ∈ N+, we can conclude that 𝑝𝑛 → 𝑝∞ = 𝜇 (𝜔∞ = · | 𝜔 ∞ 0...

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    (61) It is a vector of |𝐹𝜖 | elements of size R| Ω| with one non-zero element (at the position for 𝑓 ) while the rest are equal to 0 ∈ R| Ω|

    ∈ R|𝐹𝜖 | |Ω| . (61) It is a vector of |𝐹𝜖 | elements of size R| Ω| with one non-zero element (at the position for 𝑓 ) while the rest are equal to 0 ∈ R| Ω|. The 𝜖-calibration condition (2.2) can be rewritten as follows: the average of the sequence of vector-valued calibration costs 𝑐𝑡 = 𝑐 (𝑓𝑡, 𝜔𝑡 ) converges to the set 𝐸𝜖 almost surely, where 𝐸𝜖 = {𝑥 ∈ R|...

    work page 1953

  34. [34]

    In block 𝑙, nature plays i.i.d

    Consider a game with𝑇 periods where nature plays in a sequence of 𝑘 blocks, where the size of block 𝑙 is 𝛼𝑙𝑇 . In block 𝑙, nature plays i.i.d. according to 𝑝𝑙. First, we show that for any i.i.d process with distribution 𝑝 the only forecasting strategy that passes the 𝜖−calibration test sends the pure forecast 𝑓 ∗ (𝑝) almost surely. In other words, a sende...

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    If 𝑄 = Δ(Ω), then we obtain the same bounds as in the case of an adversarial environment

    show that if nature’s play is empirically 𝑄-restricted with respect to a partition with subexponentially increasing blocks, then lim 𝑛→∞ 𝑑 ( ˆ𝑟𝑛, 𝑅+(𝑄)) = 0 where, 𝑅+(𝑄) = ∩𝜖>0𝐶𝑜 { ˆ𝑢𝑆 (𝑝) : 𝑑 (𝑝, 𝑄) ≤ 𝜖} (68) Here, 𝑅+(𝑄) denotes the closed convex image of the indirect utility restricted to the set 𝑄. If 𝑄 = Δ(Ω), then we obtain the same bounds as in the ...

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Furthermore, we can characterize the set of outcomes that result from calibrated strategies and solve for the optimal forecasting strategy

    to induce the distribution 𝜂 is given by 𝜎 (𝑓 | ˜𝜔, ˜𝑓 ) =    𝜂 ( ˜𝑓 , ˜𝜔,𝑓 ) 𝜂 ( ˜𝑓 , ˜𝜔 ) if 𝜂 ( ˜𝑓 , ˜𝜔) > 0 𝜂 (𝑓 ) if 𝜂 ( ˜𝑓 , ˜𝜔) = 0 □ The sender’s maximization problem is given by the following linear program: max 𝜇 ∈ F ∑︁ 𝑓 𝜇 (𝑓 ) ˆ𝑢𝑆 (𝑓 ) (81) Thus, we can extend our model to situations where the receiver’s action affects the distribution of...

    work page 2011