IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.09500.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Heterogeneous Decision Rules From Choices When Menus Are Unobserved

Author

Listed:
  • Larry G Epstein
  • Kaushil Patel

Abstract

Given only aggregate choice data and limited information about how menus are distributed across the population, we describe what can be inferred robustly about the distribution of preferences (or more general decision rules). We strengthen and generalize existing results on such identification and provide an alternative analytical approach to study the problem. We show further that our model and results are applicable, after suitable reinterpretation, to other contexts. One application is to the robust identification of the distribution of updating rules given only the population distribution of beliefs and limited information about heterogeneous information sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Larry G Epstein & Kaushil Patel, 2024. "Identifying Heterogeneous Decision Rules From Choices When Menus Are Unobserved," Papers 2405.09500, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.09500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.09500
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    2. Bloch, Francis & de Clippel, Geoffroy, 2010. "Cores of combined games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2424-2434, November.
    3. Ned Augenblick & Eben Lazarus & Michael Thaler, 2021. "Overinference from Weak Signals and Underinference from Strong Signals," Papers 2109.09871, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    4. Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-319-30690-2, September.
    5. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2019. "Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1061-1094.
    6. Larry G. Epstein, 2006. "An Axiomatic Model of Non-Bayesian Updating," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 413-436.
    7. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    8. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Yusufcan Masatlioglu, 2023. "Progressive Random Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(3), pages 716-750.
    11. Christopher T. Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2013. "Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 1-30, November.
    12. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 1999. "Unforeseen Contingencies and Incomplete Contracts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 83-114.
    13. Steven Tenn, 2009. "Demand estimation under limited product availability," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 465-468.
    14. repec:spr:thdchp:978-3-319-30690-2_2 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ichiishi, Tatsuro, 1981. "Super-modularity: Applications to convex games and to the greedy algorithm for LP," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 283-286, October.
    16. Robert Chambers & Tigran Melkonyan, 2005. "Eliciting the core of a supermodular capacity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 203-209, July.
    17. Jason Abaluck & Abi Adams-Prassl, 2021. "What do Consumers Consider Before They Choose? Identification from Asymmetric Demand Responses," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1611-1663.
    18. Tenn, Steven & Yun, John M., 2008. "Biases in demand analysis due to variation in retail distribution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 984-997, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yaron Azrieli & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Marginal stochastic choice," Papers 2208.08492, arXiv.org.
    2. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    3. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    5. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    7. Gualdani, Cristina & Sinha, Shruti, 2019. "Identification and inference in discrete choice models with imperfect information," TSE Working Papers 19-1049, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2020.
    8. Roy Allen, 2024. "Exogenous Consideration and Extended Random Utility," Papers 2405.13945, arXiv.org.
    9. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    10. Michel Grabisch & Tomáš Kroupa, 2018. "The core of supermodular games on finite distributive lattices," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 18010, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    11. Cristina Gualdani & Shruti Sinha, 2019. "Identification in discrete choice models with imperfect information," Papers 1911.04529, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    12. Ante Sterc, 2022. "Limited Consideration in the Investment Fund Choice," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp729, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    13. Takeshi Fukasawa, 2022. "The Biases in Applying Static Demand Models under Dynamic Demand," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-18, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Jul 2022.
    14. Lu, Zhentong, 2022. "Estimating multinomial choice models with unobserved choice sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 368-398.
    15. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    16. Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Remarkable polyhedra related to set functions, games and capacities," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 24(2), pages 301-326, July.
    17. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    18. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2020. "Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models," Papers 2003.00276, arXiv.org.
    19. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    20. Ulrich Faigle & Michel Grabisch, 2019. "Least Square Approximations and Linear Values of Cooperative Game," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02381231, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.09500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.