Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.13901

Is the distribution of resolvable uncertainty Type I extreme value? A Test for Random Coefficient Models using Choice Probabilities

Romuald Meango
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Stated choice probabilities are increasingly used in conjunction with the random-coefficient model (RCM) to describe individual preferences. They allow survey respondents to express uncertainty about the future or the incompleteness of a hypothetical scenario: the resolvable uncertainty. Parametric assumptions such as a Type I extreme value (EV1) distribution are almost always imposed on this uncertainty to identify and estimate the associated RCM. This paper proposes the first test for these parametric assumptions, based on a nonparametric identification result for the population distribution of the interquantile range of the resolvable uncertainty. In all four empirical applications considered, the test finds strong evidence against the EV1 assumption.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Romuald Meango. 2025-03-18. Is the distribution of resolvable uncertainty Type I extreme value? A Test for Random Coefficient Models using Choice Probabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13901

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The time interpretation of expected utility theory

Ergodicity economics is a new branch of economic theory that notes the conceptual difference between time averages and expectation values, which coincide only for ergodic observables. It postulates that individual agents maximise the time average growth rate of wealth, known widely as growth optimality. This contrasts with the dominant behavioural model in economics, expected utility theory, in which agents maximise expectation values of changes in psychologically transformed wealth. Historically, growth optimality was explored for additive and multiplicative gambles. Here we apply it to a general class of wealth dynamics, extending the range of economic situations where it may be used. Moreover, we show a correspondence between growth optimality and expected utility theory, in which the ergodicity transformation in the former is identified as the utility function in the latter. This correspondence offers a theoretical basis for choosing utility functions and predicts that wealth dynamics are strong determinants of risk preferences.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Monetary Regimes and Trade before the Classical Gold Standard: Evidence from the Latin Monetary Union

This paper reexamines the trade effects of the Latin Monetary Union (LMU), a 19th century agreement to standardize gold and silver coinage among several European countries. The LMU provides a useful setting for studying whether monetary arrangements fostered trade before the classical gold standard, when gold, silver, bimetallic, and paper regimes coexisted. Because some countries already shared other monetary standards, treating all non-member pairs as a single control group mixes pairs with and without alternative forms of monetary coordination. I classify pairs by standard and estimate the LMU effect relative to pairs without a common standard, bringing the comparison closer to those used in the literature on the gold standard and contemporary currency unions. The results suggest that the LMU increased trade between its members by approximately 30\% during its early years, when bimetallism was still credible. These effects subsequently faded, converging to zero by the end of the 1870s. More broadly, these findings also highlight the importance of accounting for the existing monetary regimes when estimating the trade effects of other international policies.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN↗