2026-10-16 | | Total: 6
Many parameters of interest in economics depend on outcomes generated by machine learning (ML).These generated outcomes are subsequently used in standard econometric estimation and typically treated as observed, a practice that threatens the validity of downstream inference. Empirically relevant cases include dynamic treatment effects under sequential exogeneity, long-term effects with surrogates, the partially linear model with an ML-predicted outcome, productivity persistence with an unrestricted production function and constructed instruments, and outcomes residualized of confounding variation. This paper develops a three-step locally robust GMM framework for valid inference when the dependent variable is generated by ML. We construct a debiased moment condition that augments the identifying moment with first- and second-step influence functions, making inference on the parameter of interest locally insensitive to regularization and model selection biases at both steps. We establish consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator and illustrate its finite-sample performance through Monte Carlo simulations. We also apply the method to U.S. mortgage data to study conditional Black--White disparities in a race-blind ML default-risk score. The score predicts subsequent default well overall, but the conditional disparity embedded in the score is much smaller than the corresponding disparity in realized serious delinquency; accounting for first-step estimation also raises the naive out-of-sample estimate of the score disparity.
Single round-robin tournaments are widely regarded as unfair because of their home-away imbalance: some competitors play more home games than the others. Therefore, most sports leagues are played in a double round-robin format. However, some European football leagues contain a single round-robin (sub)tournament. To test whether empirical data can validate their unfairness, we construct a unique database and develop a strength of schedule metric based on Elo ratings with favourable theoretical properties. In contrast to the robust impact of relative team strength, the strength of schedule is found to have no significant effect on the number of points scored under the assumption of a league-specific home advantage. Consequently, the theoretical unfairness is not a serious issue in practice, or the standard approach of modelling home advantage in Elo ratings might need to be reconsidered.
This paper studies decision functionals under ambiguity when pure-risk evaluation is determined by a general, possibly non-affine statistic. We represent ambiguity perception by a Bayesian second-order model over first-order models and encode ambiguity attitude with a separate parameter. We formulate four consistency and monotonicity properties for decision functionals combining these objects. We show that second-order averaging does not generally preserve these properties for non-affine statistics, including expected shortfall, the industry-standard risk measure. To address this limitation, we introduce an ambiguity iron, a mapping from a second-order model and an ambiguity attitude to an ambiguity set of first-order models. Worst-case evaluation over this set preserves the chosen statistic as the pure-risk criterion. We construct an ambiguity iron by distorting the second-order model and show that it produces convex and compact sets of predictive models. We derive formulas for several classes of statistics and, in parametric settings, a sample-based approximation for the distorted expectation. Portfolio examples illustrate how ambiguity perception and attitude affect evaluations and allocations. Under posterior concentration and continuity of the parametrization, the ambiguity sets contract, and the associated decision functionals converge to their pure-risk values. We also describe a KL-based robustification for possible model misspecification.
We propose a test of whether the tail index of a heavy-tailed outcome is homogeneous across observed covariates. The key observation is that, under tail-index homogeneity, normalized log exceedances are asymptotically independent of the covariates even when tail frequencies vary with them. This leads to a simple-to-implement permutation test based on distance covariance, without estimating conditional tail indices or specifying the form of tail-index heterogeneity. For the global and locally balanced versions, we establish validity for order-statistic thresholds and give conditions for consistency and local power. Local balancing selects extremes within two covariate groups and can improve power when tail selection concentrates the covariates. Simulations illustrate these gains. In French motor insurance data, upper conditional quantiles vary with risk characteristics, but the tail-index tests do not reject a common tail index.
We study a model of heterogeneous multiplicative growth with mean-field redistribution and independent local stochastic resetting. The model describes populations or wealth distributed over sites with quenched growth-rate heterogeneity, while resets represent random local extinction or bankruptcy events. At large redistribution or resetting rate, we find a delocalized phase and we compute the growth rate as well as the stationary distribution of the population of a given site. We show that reset-free growth episodes generate power-law stationary tails with site-dependent exponents. For weak resetting and redistribution, favorable sites can undergo long reset-free episodes and localize. This produces a partially localized phase, in which a finite fraction of the total population is carried by a small set of sites whose identity changes on an $O(1)$ time scale within a subextensive pool of $N^{u^\star}$ favorable candidates, with $0<u^\star<1$. We derive the corresponding growth rate from a saddle point analysis, and show that the averaged stationary fractions display multifractal behavior.
Standard Bayesian experimental design (BED) methods assume the experimenter alone will act on the data, choosing the best action given their own beliefs and goals. In practice, data are often acted on by external parties whose procedures the experimenter cannot change and may not know, particularly when the data are released publicly. To extend BED to such settings, we introduce usage-aware experimental design, a framework in which an adaptive design policy is trained to minimise the usage risk: the experimenter's expected loss when one or more external rules act on the collected data. These rules may be non-Bayesian or black-box, and when several may apply, we either average over them or take the worst case. We show that, unlike in standard BED, more informative data can be harmful under such rules, so the usage risk cannot in general be expressed as an expected uncertainty reduction; our framework thus strictly generalises standard BED. We then use it to tackle a range of problems that are difficult to address with existing approaches.