Researcher profile

Mark Kirstein

Mark Kirstein contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close 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

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Time is limited on the road to asymptopia

One challenge in the estimation of financial market agent-based models (FABMs) is to infer reliable insights using numerical simulations validated by only a single observed time series. Ergodicity (besides stationarity) is a strong precondition for any estimation, however it has not been systematically explored and is often simply presumed. For finite-sample lengths and limited computational resources empirical estimation always takes place in pre-asymptopia. Thus broken ergodicity must be considered the rule, but it remains largely unclear how to deal with the remaining uncertainty in non-ergodic observables. Here we show how an understanding of the ergodic properties of moment functions can help to improve the estimation of (F)ABMs. We run Monte Carlo experiments and study the convergence behaviour of moment functions of two prototype models. We find infeasibly-long convergence times for most. Choosing an efficient mix of ensemble size and simulated time length guided our estimation and might help in general.

preprint2020arXiv

What are we weighting for? A mechanistic model for probability weighting

Behavioural economics provides labels for patterns in human economic behaviour. Probability weighting is one such label. It expresses a mismatch between probabilities used in a formal model of a decision (i.e. model parameters) and probabilities inferred from real people's decisions (the same parameters estimated empirically). The inferred probabilities are called "decision weights." It is considered a robust experimental finding that decision weights are higher than probabilities for rare events, and (necessarily, through normalisation) lower than probabilities for common events. Typically this is presented as a cognitive bias, i.e. an error of judgement by the person. Here we point out that the same observation can be described differently: broadly speaking, probability weighting means that a decision maker has greater uncertainty about the world than the observer. We offer a plausible mechanism whereby such differences in uncertainty arise naturally: when a decision maker must estimate probabilities as frequencies in a time series while the observer knows them a priori. This suggests an alternative presentation of probability weighting as a principled response by a decision maker to uncertainties unaccounted for in an observer's model.