BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

John Rehbeck

John Rehbeck contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
econ.EMecon.GNecon.THq-fin.EC

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Marginal stochastic choice

Models of stochastic choice typically use conditional choice probabilities given menus as the primitive for analysis, but in the field these are often hard to observe. Moreover, studying preferences over menus is not possible with this data. We assume that an analyst can observe marginal frequencies of choice and availability, but not conditional choice frequencies, and study the testable implications of some prominent models of stochastic choice for this dataset. We also analyze whether parameters of these models can be identified. Finally, we characterize the marginal distributions that can arise under two-stage models in the spirit of Gul and Pesendorfer [2001] and of kreps [1979] where agents select the menu before choosing an alternative.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Counterfactual and Welfare Analysis with an Approximate Model

We propose a conceptual framework for counterfactual and welfare analysis for approximate models. Our key assumption is that model approximation error is the same magnitude at new choices as the observed data. Applying the framework to quasilinear utility, we obtain bounds on quantities at new prices using an approximate law of demand. We then bound utility differences between bundles and welfare differences between prices. All bounds are computable as linear programs. We provide detailed analytical results describing how the data map to the bounds including shape restrictions that provide a foundation for plug-in estimation. An application to gasoline demand illustrates the methodology.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models

This paper provides nonparametric identification results for random coefficient distributions in perturbed utility models. We cover discrete and continuous choice models. We establish identification using variation in mean quantities, and the results apply when an analyst observes aggregate demands but not whether goods are chosen together. We require exclusion restrictions and independence between random slope coefficients and random intercepts. We do not require regressors to have large supports or parametric assumptions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access