AbstractPrequential testing of a forecaster is known to be manipulable if the test must pass an informed forecaster for all possible true distributions. Stewart (2011) provides a non-manipulable prequential likelihood test that only fails an informed forecaster on a small, category I, set of distributions. We present a prequential test based on calibration that also fails the informed forecaster on at most a category I set of true distributions and is non-manipulable. Our construction sheds light on the relationship between likelihood and calibration with respect to the distributions they reject.
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 InfoPaper provided by Stanford University, Graduate School of Business in its series Research Papers with number 2090.
Date of creation: Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015
Phone: (650) 723-2146
Web page: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- 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, 2001. "Any Inspection Is Manipulable," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1333-47, September.
- Nabil I. Al-Najjar & Jonathan Weinstein, 2006.
"Comparative Testing of Experts,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
321307000000000590, David K. Levine.
- Alvaro Sandroni & Wojciech Olszewski, 2008.
"Manipulability of Future-Independent Tests,"
PIER Working Paper Archive
08-014, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
- Colin, Stewart, 2011.
"Nonmanipulable Bayesian testing,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 2029-2041, September.
- Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Rann, 1999.
"Calibrated Forecasting and Merging,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 151-169, October.
- Ehud Kalai, 1995. "Calibrated Forecasting and Merging," Discussion Papers 1144, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Ehud Kalai, 1995. "Calibrated Forecasting and Merging," Discussion Papers 1144R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Ehud Kalai & Ehud Lehrer & Rann Smorodinsky, 2010. "Calibrated Forecasting and Merging," Levine's Working Paper Archive 584, David K. Levine.
- Wojciech Olszewski & Alvaro Sandroni, 2006.
"Strategic Manipulation of Empirical Tests,"
1425, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Alvaro Sandroni, 2003. "The reproducible properties of correct forecasts," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 151-159, December.
- Yossi Feinberg & Colin Stewart, 2008.
"Testing Multiple Forecasters,"
Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 561-582, 05.
- Shmaya, Eran, 2008. "Many inspections are manipulable," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(3), 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.