AbstractA decision maker needs predictions about the realization of a repeated experiment in each period. An expert provides a theory that, conditional on each finite history of outcomes, supplies a probabilistic prediction about the next outcome. However, there may be false experts without any knowledge of the data-generating process who deliver theories strategically. Hence, empirical tests for predictions are necessary. A test is manipulable if a false expert can pass the test with a high probability. For tests, as contracts, to be implementable, they have to be computable. Considering only computable tests, we show that there is a test that is not manipulable by any computable strategies and that accepts true experts with high probabilities. In particular, the constructed test is both future independent (Olszewski and Sandroni, 2008) and sequential (Shmaya, 2008). On the other hand, any computable test is manipulable by a strategy that is computable relative to the halting problem. Our conclusion overturns earlier results that future independent tests are manipulable, and shows that computability considerations have significant effects in these problems.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Econometric Society in its journal Theoretical Economics.
Volume (Year): 8 (2013)
Issue (Month): 2 (May)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://econtheory.org
Computability; expert testing; calibration tests; zero-sum games;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shmaya, Eran, 2008. "Many inspections are manipulable," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(3), September.
- Eddie Dekel & Yossi Feinberg, 2006.
"Non-Bayesian Testing of a Stochastic Prediction,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 893-906.
- Lehrer, Ehud, 2003.
"A wide range no-regret theorem,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 101-115, January.
- Alvaro Sandroni, 2003. "The reproducible properties of correct forecasts," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 151-159, December.
- Lance Fortnow & Rakesh V. Vohra, 2009. "The Complexity of Forecast Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 93-105, 01.
- Lehrer, Ehud, 2001. "Any Inspection Is Manipulable," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1333-47, September.
- Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Sandroni, Alvaro & Smorodinsky, Rann & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2010. "Testing theories with learnable and predictive representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2203-2217, November.
- Alvaro Sandroni & Wojciech Olszewski, 2008.
"Strategic Manipulation of Empirical Tests,"
PIER Working Paper Archive
08-015, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- Expressible Inspections, T-W. Hu & E. Shmaya (2012)
by afinetheorem in A Fine Theorem on 2012-05-09 05:59:35
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martin J. Osborne).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.