Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 69 references

Heterogeneous Peer Effects with Endogenous Network Formation

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-25 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A new model estimates heterogeneous peer effects on firm R&D while correcting for endogenous network formation.

desk verdict The paper's core contribution is a joint Bayesian finite-mixture model for endogenous networks and heterogeneous peer effects, but the finite-mixture correction for unobserved factors driving both links and outcomes is the part that needs the most scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.24850 v1 pith:UO7JGAPM submitted 2026-06-23 econ.EM stat.ME

Duong Trinh , Santiago Montoya-Blandón This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMstat.ME
keywords heterogeneouspeereffectsendogenousnetworkformationspatialautoregressivemodelfinitemixtureBayesianestimationinnovationnetworksR&Dinvestmentsspillover
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops an econometric framework that jointly models how network links form and how outcomes are determined, incorporating a finite mixture to allow peer effects to differ across individuals. The goal is to recover credible estimates of spillover effects when unobserved factors influence both who connects to whom and the resulting behaviors. A fully Bayesian estimation procedure is used to handle the computational demands of the joint model. When applied to an innovation network of U.S. firms, the framework detects positive but varying peer influences on corporate R&D investments once endogeneity is addressed.

What carries the argument

The SCHSAR model, which jointly models link formation and outcomes via a finite mixture structure to correct for network endogeneity while allowing heterogeneous peer effects.

What would settle it

In the same U.S. firm data, estimates of peer effects on R&D become insignificant or lose heterogeneity when the finite mixture or the joint link-outcome modeling is removed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Selection-corrected Heterogeneous Spatial Autoregressive (SCHSAR) model jointly specifies the link-formation process and the outcome equation, using a finite mixture structure to capture heterogeneity in peer responses and unobserved individual-specific factors that drive both; this structure permits consistent estimation of heterogeneous spillover effects, and the empirical application to U.S. firm innovation networks reveals significant positive yet heterogeneous peer effects on R&D spending after the correction for endogenous formation.

Load-bearing premise

The finite mixture structure together with the joint modeling of link formation and outcomes is sufficient to capture and correct for unobserved individual-specific factors driving both network formation and outcome equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Firms respond differently to the same exogenous R&D policy shock.
  • Firm-level direct effects and spillover effects can be separately quantified.
  • Targeted policy design can exploit the identified variation in responses.
  • Accounting for endogenous formation alters the measured size and pattern of peer effects.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same joint-modeling logic could be applied to other economic networks where both connection decisions and outcomes are observed.
  • If the mixture components align with observable firm traits such as size or industry, policies could be designed to leverage the strongest spillover channels.
  • Failure to correct for endogeneity in similar settings would likely produce biased policy simulations that over- or under-state aggregate R&D responses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Selection-corrected Heterogeneous Spatial Autoregressive (SCHSAR) model, which jointly estimates endogenous network formation and outcomes via a finite mixture that captures unobserved individual-specific heterogeneity and heterogeneous peer effects. Estimation uses fully Bayesian data augmentation. A simulation study is used to validate the approach, and an empirical application to U.S. firm innovation networks finds significant positive but heterogeneous peer effects on R&D investment after the endogeneity correction, with implications for targeted policy.

Significance. If the joint mixture model fully absorbs the relevant unobserved factors, the framework would advance network econometrics by permitting credible estimation of heterogeneous spillovers in the presence of endogenous link formation, directly informing evidence-based R&D policy that differentiates firm responses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model section] Abstract and §3 (model section): the central claim that the finite mixture plus joint link/outcome modeling fully corrects for network endogeneity rests on the assumption that unobserved individual-specific factors are discrete and adequately captured by the chosen number of components. No evidence is provided on component selection, sensitivity to that choice, or post-estimation diagnostics for residual correlation between the link and outcome equations conditional on the mixture; if heterogeneity is continuous, the selection correction remains incomplete and the reported heterogeneous peer effects can retain bias.
  2. [Simulation study] Simulation study (mentioned in abstract): the validation exercise must demonstrate that the estimator recovers heterogeneous peer-effect parameters under data-generating processes where the latent factors are continuous rather than discrete, and under misspecification of the number of mixture components; without such checks the simulation does not address the load-bearing assumption identified above.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a duplicated word: 'shocks and and quantify'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important assumptions in our framework. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model section] Abstract and §3 (model section): the central claim that the finite mixture plus joint link/outcome modeling fully corrects for network endogeneity rests on the assumption that unobserved individual-specific factors are discrete and adequately captured by the chosen number of components. No evidence is provided on component selection, sensitivity to that choice, or post-estimation diagnostics for residual correlation between the link and outcome equations conditional on the mixture; if heterogeneity is continuous, the selection correction remains incomplete and the reported heterogeneous peer effects can retain bias.

    Authors: We agree that the endogeneity correction relies on the finite mixture adequately capturing unobserved heterogeneity, and that continuous heterogeneity could leave residual bias. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit discussion of component selection (including BIC and marginal likelihood comparisons), sensitivity checks across alternative numbers of components, and post-estimation diagnostics for residual correlation between the link and outcome equations conditional on the mixture. These additions will clarify the scope of the correction and any remaining limitations if heterogeneity is continuous. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Simulation study] Simulation study (mentioned in abstract): the validation exercise must demonstrate that the estimator recovers heterogeneous peer-effect parameters under data-generating processes where the latent factors are continuous rather than discrete, and under misspecification of the number of mixture components; without such checks the simulation does not address the load-bearing assumption identified above.

    Authors: The current simulation is constructed under a discrete DGP that matches the model. To directly respond to the concern, we will extend the simulation section with additional Monte Carlo experiments that include continuous latent factors and misspecified component counts. These new results will document estimator performance under the suggested misspecifications and will be reported alongside the existing discrete-case results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; model and claims are self-contained

full rationale

The SCHSAR framework jointly specifies link formation and outcomes with a finite mixture for heterogeneity, estimated via Bayesian data augmentation. The simulation study and empirical results on heterogeneous peer effects are presented as outputs of this specification applied to data, without any reported 'prediction' or effect reducing by construction to a fitted parameter or mixture component. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the derivation chain. The central claim rests on the model's ability to absorb unobserved factors via the mixture and joint modeling, which is an independent modeling choice rather than a definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies insufficient detail to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the finite mixture components and joint error structure are implied but not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heterogeneous Peer Effects with Endogenous Network Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UO7JGAPM

@misc{pith2026260624850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heterogeneous Peer Effects with Endogenous Network Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UO7JGAPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.24850}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a new econometric framework for modeling social interactions with heterogeneous peer responses, addressing endogenous link formation. Our Selection-corrected Heterogeneous Spatial Autoregressive (SCHSAR) approach jointly models link formation and outcome determination. We incorporate a finite mixture structure to capture heterogeneity in peer effects and account for unobserved individual-specific factors driving both network formation and outcome equations, addressing network endogeneity for credible estimation of heterogeneous spillover effects. We propose a fully Bayesian data augmentation approach for estimation and inference, overcoming challenges posed to standard likelihood-based methods. A simulation study validates our approach. Our empirical application to an innovation network among U.S. firms reveals significant positive, yet heterogeneous, peer effects on corporate R&D investments, after accounting for endogenous network formation. The findings highlight varying firm behaviors in response to exogenous R&D policy shocks and and quantify firm-level direct and spillover effects, offering valuable insights for evidence-based and targeted policy design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of R&D intensity among firms exhibits visible multimodality. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Direct effects of a 1% reduction in a firm’s own R&D tax price. (b) Indirect spillin effects to each firm from a 1% reduction in peers’ R&D tax price. (c) Indirect spillout effects from each firm to its peers due to a 1% reduction in the firm’s own R&D tax price. The histogram shows the distribution of the effects of interest across firms. In the network graph, firms are represented as nodes colored by the effec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Total spillin effects on each firm due to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., and Chib, S

    Albert, J. H., and Chib, S. (1993), ``Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data,'' Journal of the American statistical Association, Taylor & Francis, 88, 669--679

    1993

  2. [2]

    (2008), ``A tutorial on adaptive MCMC,'' Statistics and computing, Springer, 18, 343--373

    Andrieu, C., and Thoms, J. (2008), ``A tutorial on adaptive MCMC,'' Statistics and computing, Springer, 18, 343--373

    2008

  3. [3]

    Aquaro, M., Bailey, N., and Pesaran, M. H. (2021), ``Estimation and inference for spatial models with heterogeneous coefficients: An application to US house prices,'' Journal of Applied Econometrics, Wiley Online Library, 36, 18--44

    2021

  4. [4]

    (2020a), ``Identification and estimation of network models with heterogeneous interactions,'' in The econometrics of networks, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp

    Arduini, T., Patacchini, E., and Rainone, E. (2020a), ``Identification and estimation of network models with heterogeneous interactions,'' in The econometrics of networks, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 3--25

  5. [5]

    (2020b), ``Treatment effects with heterogeneous externalities,'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis, 38, 826--838

    Arduini, T., Patacchini, E., and Rainone, E. (2020b), ``Treatment effects with heterogeneous externalities,'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis, 38, 826--838

  6. [6]

    Arqué-Castells, P., and Spulber, D. F. (2022), ``Measuring the private and social returns to r&d: Unintended spillovers versus technology markets,'' Journal of Political Economy, The University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, 130, 1860--1918

    2022

  7. [7]

    F., and Rosenthal, J

    Atchadé, Y. F., and Rosenthal, J. S. (2005), ``On adaptive markov chain monte carlo algorithms,'' Bernoulli, Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics; Probability, 11, 815--828

    2005

  8. [8]

    (2022), ``Identification and estimation of a partially linear regression model using network data,'' Econometrica, Wiley Online Library, 90, 347--365

    Auerbach, E. (2022), ``Identification and estimation of a partially linear regression model using network data,'' Econometrica, Wiley Online Library, 90, 347--365

    2022

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    (2026), ``The local approach to causal inference under network interference,'' Quantitative Economics, Wiley Online Library, 17, 173--199

    Auerbach, E., Guo, H., and Tabord-Meehan, M. (2026), ``The local approach to causal inference under network interference,'' Quantitative Economics, Wiley Online Library, 17, 173--199

    2026

  2. [10]

    J., Tortú, C., and Forastiere, L

    Bargagli-Stoffi, F. J., Tortú, C., and Forastiere, L. (2025), ``Heterogeneous treatment and spillover effects under clustered network interference,'' The annals of applied statistics, 19, 28

    2025

  3. [11]

    L., and Topa, G

    Bayer, P., Ross, S. L., and Topa, G. (2008), ``Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labor market outcomes,'' Journal of political Economy, The University of Chicago Press, 116, 1150--1196

    2008

  4. [12]

    (2012), Adaptive algorithms and stochastic approximations, Springer Science & Business Media

    Benveniste, A., Métivier, M., and Priouret, P. (2012), Adaptive algorithms and stochastic approximations, Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  5. [13]

    Beugnot, J., Fortin, B., Lacroix, G., and Villeval, M. C. (2019), ``Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks,'' European Economic Review, Elsevier, 113, 207--224

    2019

  6. [14]

    E., Brock, W

    Blume, L. E., Brock, W. A., Durlauf, S. N., and Jayaraman, R. (2015), ``Linear social interactions models,'' Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, 123, 444--496

    2015

  7. [15]

    Botev, Z. I. (2017), ``The normal law under linear restrictions: Simulation and estimation via minimax tilting,'' Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, Oxford University Press, 79, 125--148

    2017

  8. [16]

    (2009), ``Identification of peer effects through social networks,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 150, 41--55

    Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., and Fortin, B. (2009), ``Identification of peer effects through social networks,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 150, 41--55

    2009

  9. [17]

    (2020), ``Peer effects in networks: A survey,'' Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, 12, 603--629

    Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., and Fortin, B. (2020), ``Peer effects in networks: A survey,'' Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, 12, 603--629

    2020

  10. [18]

    I., Geanakoplos, J

    Bulow, J. I., Geanakoplos, J. D., and Klemperer, P. D. (1985), ``Multimarket oligopoly: Strategic substitutes and complements,'' Journal of Political economy, The University of Chicago Press, 93, 488--511

    1985

  11. [19]

    (2009), ``Peer effects and social networks in education,'' The review of economic studies, Wiley-Blackwell, 76, 1239--1267

    Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., and Zenou, Y. (2009), ``Peer effects and social networks in education,'' The review of economic studies, Wiley-Blackwell, 76, 1239--1267

    2009

  12. [20]

    C., and Trivedi, P

    Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K. (2005), ``Microeconometrics: Methods and applications,'' Cambridge university press, p. 476

    2005

  13. [21]

    J., and Tobias, J

    Chan, J., Koop, G., Poirier, D. J., and Tobias, J. L. (2019), Bayesian econometric methods, Cambridge University Press, pp. 242--244

    2019

  14. [22]

    Chandrasekhar, A. G. (2016), ``Econometrics of network formation.''

    2016

  15. [23]

    G., and Udry, C

    Conley, T. G., and Udry, C. R. (2010), ``Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in ghana,'' American economic review, American Economic Association, 100, 35--69

    2010

  16. [24]

    (1988), ``Coordinating coordination failures in keynesian models,'' The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, 103, 441--463

    Cooper, R., and John, A. (1988), ``Coordinating coordination failures in keynesian models,'' The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, 103, 441--463

    1988

  17. [25]

    J., and Parent, O

    Cornwall, G. J., and Parent, O. (2017), ``Embracing heterogeneity: The spatial autoregressive mixture model,'' Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, 64, 148--161

    2017

  18. [26]

    (2020), ``Consumption network effects,'' The Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, 87, 130--163

    De Giorgi, G., Frederiksen, A., and Pistaferri, L. (2020), ``Consumption network effects,'' The Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, 87, 130--163

    2020

  19. [27]

    (2023), ``Bayesian inference of network formation models with payoff externalities.''

    Ding, C., Estrada, J., and Montoya-Blandón, S. (2023), ``Bayesian inference of network formation models with payoff externalities.''

    2023

  20. [28]

    Dzemski, A. (2019), ``An empirical model of dyadic link formation in a network with unobserved heterogeneity,'' Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA journals-info , 101, 763--776

    2019

  21. [29]

    P., and Galeotti, A

    Fainmesser, I. P., and Galeotti, A. (2016), ``Pricing network effects,'' The Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, 83, 165--198

    2016

  22. [30]

    (2006), Finite mixture and markov switching models, Springer

    Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2006), Finite mixture and markov switching models, Springer

    2006

  23. [31]

    (2007), ``Interpretation and inference in mixture models: Simple MCMC works,'' Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, 51, 3529--3550

    Geweke, J. (2007), ``Interpretation and inference in mixture models: Simple MCMC works,'' Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, 51, 3529--3550

    2007

  24. [32]

    Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., and Imbens, G. W. (2013), ``Social networks and the identification of peer effects,'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis, 31, 253--264

    2013

  25. [33]

    Graham, B. S. (2015), ``Methods of identification in social networks,'' Annu. Rev. Econ., Annual Reviews, 7, 465--485

    2015

  26. [34]

    Graham, B. S. (2017), ``An econometric model of network formation with degree heterogeneity,'' Econometrica, Wiley Online Library, 85, 1033--1063

    2017

  27. [35]

    Han, X., Hsieh, C.-S., and Ko, S. I. (2021), ``Spatial modeling approach for dynamic network formation and interactions,'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis, 39, 120--135

    2021

  28. [36]

    Han, X., and Lee, L.-F. (2016), ``Bayesian analysis of spatial panel autoregressive models with time-varying endogenous spatial weight matrices, common factors, and random coefficients,'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis, 34, 642--660

    2016

  29. [37]

    Heckman, J. J. (1979), ``Sample selection bias as a specification error,'' Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, JSTOR, 153--161

    1979

  30. [38]

    J., and Robb Jr, R

    Heckman, J. J., and Robb Jr, R. (1985), ``Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 30, 239--267

    1985

  31. [39]

    Hong, G., and Raudenbush, S. W. (2013), ``Heterogeneous agents, social interactions, and causal inference,'' in Handbook of causal analysis for social research, Springer, pp. 331--352

    2013

  32. [40]

    (2026), ``Count data models with heterogeneous peer effects under rational expectations,'' Journal of Applied Econometrics, Wiley Online Library

    Houndetoungan, A. (2026), ``Count data models with heterogeneous peer effects under rational expectations,'' Journal of Applied Econometrics, Wiley Online Library

    2026

  33. [41]

    Hsieh, C.-S., and Lee, L. F. (2016), ``A social interactions model with endogenous friendship formation and selectivity,'' Journal of Applied Econometrics, Wiley Online Library, 31, 301--319

    2016

  34. [42]

    (1993), ``Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 58, 71--120

    Ichimura, H. (1993), ``Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 58, 71--120

    1993

  35. [43]

    M., and Loury, L

    Ioannides, Y. M., and Loury, L. D. (2004), ``Job information networks, neighborhood effects, and inequality,'' Journal of economic literature, American Economic Association, 42, 1056--1093

    2004

  36. [44]

    Johnsson, I., and Moon, H. R. (2021), ``Estimation of peer effects in endogenous social networks: Control function approach,'' Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA journals-info , 103, 328--345

    2021

  37. [45]

    (2018), ``Community detection toolbox,'' MATLAB Central File Exchange

    Kehagias, A. (2018), ``Community detection toolbox,'' MATLAB Central File Exchange

    2018

  38. [46]

    H., and Piras, G

    Kelejian, H. H., and Piras, G. (2014), ``Estimation of spatial models with endogenous weighting matrices, and an application to a demand model for cigarettes,'' Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, 46, 140--149

    2014

  39. [47]

    H., and Prucha, I

    Kelejian, H. H., and Prucha, I. R. (1998), ``A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances,'' The journal of real estate finance and economics, Springer, 17, 99--121

    1998

  40. [48]

    H., and Prucha, I

    Kelejian, H. H., and Prucha, I. R. (2010), ``Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances,'' Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 157, 53--67

    2010

  41. [49]

    (2020), ``Econometric analysis of models with social interactions,'' in The econometric analysis of network data, Elsevier, pp

    Kline, B., and Tamer, E. (2020), ``Econometric analysis of models with social interactions,'' in The econometric analysis of network data, Elsevier, pp. 149--181

    2020

  42. [50]

    (2010), ``Specification and estimation of social interaction models with network structures,'' The Econometrics Journal, Oxford University Press Oxford, UK, 13, 145--176

    Lee, L., Liu, X., and Lin, X. (2010), ``Specification and estimation of social interaction models with network structures,'' The Econometrics Journal, Oxford University Press Oxford, UK, 13, 145--176

    2010

  43. [51]

    P., and Chih, Y.-Y

    LeSage, J. P., and Chih, Y.-Y. (2016), ``Interpreting heterogeneous coefficient spatial autoregressive panel models,'' Economics Letters, Elsevier, 142, 1--5

    2016

  44. [52]

    P., and Chih, Y.-Y

    LeSage, J. P., and Chih, Y.-Y. (2018), ``A bayesian spatial panel model with heterogeneous coefficients,'' Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, 72, 58--73

    2018

  45. [53]

    P., and Pace, R

    LeSage, J. P., and Pace, R. K. (2009), Introduction to spatial econometrics, Chapman; Hall/CRC

    2009

  46. [54]

    P., and Parent, O

    LeSage, J. P., and Parent, O. (2007), ``Bayesian model averaging for spatial econometric models,'' Geographical Analysis, Wiley Online Library, 39, 241--267

    2007

  47. [55]

    Leung, M. P. (2022), ``Causal inference under approximate neighborhood interference,'' Econometrica, Wiley Online Library, 90, 267--293

    2022

  48. [56]

    Lin, X. (2010), ``Identifying peer effects in student academic achievement by spatial autoregressive models with group unobservables,'' Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, 28, 825--860

    2010

  49. [57]

    (2014), ``Endogenous peer effects: Local aggregate or local average?'' Journal of economic behavior & organization, Elsevier, 103, 39--59

    Liu, X., Patacchini, E., and Zenou, Y. (2014), ``Endogenous peer effects: Local aggregate or local average?'' Journal of economic behavior & organization, Elsevier, 103, 39--59

    2014

  50. [58]

    Masten, M. A. (2018), ``Random coefficients on endogenous variables in simultaneous equations models,'' The Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, 85, 1193--1250

    2018

  51. [59]

    (2010), ``Control functions,'' in Microeconometrics, Springer, pp

    Navarro, S. (2010), ``Control functions,'' in Microeconometrics, Springer, pp. 20--28

    2010

  52. [60]

    (2017), ``Heterogeneous peer effects in education,'' Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, 134, 190--227

    Patacchini, E., Rainone, E., and Zenou, Y. (2017), ``Heterogeneous peer effects in education,'' Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, 134, 190--227

    2017

  53. [61]

    (2019), ``Heterogeneous endogenous effects in networks,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.00663

    Peng, S. (2019), ``Heterogeneous endogenous effects in networks,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.00663

    2019

  54. [62]

    W., Koput, K

    Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), ``Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology,'' Administrative science quarterly, JSTOR, 116--145

    1996

  55. [63]

    (2015), ``Estimating a spatial autoregressive model with an endogenous spatial weight matrix,'' Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, 184, 209--232

    Qu, X., and Lee, L. (2015), ``Estimating a spatial autoregressive model with an endogenous spatial weight matrix,'' Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, 184, 209--232

    2015

  56. [64]

    O., and Rosenthal, J

    Roberts, G. O., and Rosenthal, J. S. (2009), ``Examples of adaptive MCMC,'' Journal of computational and graphical statistics, Taylor & Francis, 18, 349--367

    2009

  57. [65]

    A., and Wong, W

    Tanner, M. A., and Wong, W. H. (1987), ``The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation,'' Journal of the American statistical Association, Taylor & Francis, 82, 528--540

    1987

  58. [66]

    Tincani, M. M. (2018), ``Heterogeneous peer effects in the classroom.''

    2018

  59. [67]

    (2022), ``Bayesian inference with adaptive markov chain monte carlo,'' in Computational statistics in data science, eds

    Vihola, M. (2022), ``Bayesian inference with adaptive markov chain monte carlo,'' in Computational statistics in data science, eds. W. W. Piegorsch, R. A. Levine, H. H. Zhang, and T. C. M. Lee, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

    2022

  60. [68]

    (2023), ``Beyond homophilic dyadic interactions: The impact of network formation on individual outcomes,'' Statistics and Computing, Springer, 33, 43

    Weng, H., and Parent, O. (2023), ``Beyond homophilic dyadic interactions: The impact of network formation on individual outcomes,'' Statistics and Computing, Springer, 33, 43

    2023

  61. [69]

    Wilson, D. J. (2009), ``Beggar thy neighbor? The in-state, out-of-state, and aggregate effects of r&d tax credits,'' The Review of Economics and Statistics, The MIT Press, 91, 431--436. CSLReferences

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed June 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.