Single-Network Finite-Sample Inference in Strategic Network Formation Models

Ming Li; Wayne Yuan Gao

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Single-Network Finite-Sample Inference in Strategic Network Formation Models

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper develops finite-sample-valid confidence sets for the structural parameters of a strategic network formation model using only one observed network, without restricting network density, dependence, or equilibrium selection.

desk verdict Finite-sample inference for single-network strategic formation is real and new; the i.i.d. pairwise error assumption is the acknowledged price of the guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27505 v1 pith:FCIUH75B submitted 2026-07-29 econ.EM

Wayne Yuan Gao , Ming Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.EM

keywords finite-sampleinferencestrategicnetworkformationpairwisestabilitysingleendogenouscovariatesequilibriummultiplicitypartialidentificationbounding-by-c

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

The paper claims that a single observed network formed by strategically interdependent agents can support exact finite-sample inference on structural parameters, provided pair-level shocks are iid and exogenous. Its key device is a family of "bounding-by-c" inequalities: a formed link whose latent index falls below a threshold c certifies that its shock is below c, and an absent link whose index exceeds c certifies that its shock is above c. Averaging these certificates within cells of exogenous covariates sandwiches the unobserved shock CDF between two observable, endogenous frequencies. A test statistic built from this sandwich is dominated by a control statistic that involves only exogenous covariates and shocks, whose exact conditional distribution can be simulated even though the equilibrium is intractable. The payoff is confidence sets with coverage at least 1−α at every sample size, with no restriction on density, dependence, or equilibrium selection.

What carries the argument

The bounding-by-c inequalities are the load-bearing object: for any dyad and any real threshold c, Yij·1{δij ≤ c} ≤ 1{εij ≤ c} ≤ 1 − (1−Yij)·1{δij ≥ c}. This trades the endogenous, equilibrium-determined threshold δij for a deterministic scan threshold c, so all equilibrium complexity is pushed into observable indicator functions while the middle term involves only the exogenous shock. Averaged within cells of exogenous covariates, the inequalities sandwich the empirical CDF of the shocks; conditional on Z, the probability integral transform makes each cell's shock CDF an empirical CDF of iid uniforms, so the control statistic's exact distribution can be simulated from cell sizes alone.

What would settle it

Generate pairwise-stable networks from the same model but with a node-level random effect added to every dyad incident to that node, so dyad shocks are dependent; apply the semiparametric procedure to many such networks and measure empirical coverage. A drop below the nominal 1−α would show that the i.i.d. pairwise-error assumption, not the sandwich logic, is the operative ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: under i.i.d. agent covariates, i.i.d. dyadic shocks, and exogeneity, the semiparametric confidence set C_semi_n covers the true parameter with conditional probability at least 1−α at every finite n, even when the observed network is one draw from an equilibrium with arbitrary multiplicity and unknown selection. The argument rests on realization-wise "bounding-by-c" inequalities that hold for every primitive, every equilibrium, and every selection. Averaging within covariate cells sandwiches the exogenous shock CDF between two observable endogenous frequencies; the middle term is a purely exogenous statistic whose exact conditional distribution is simulable via

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 3: the idiosyncratic pair-specific shocks εij are i.i.d. across all dyads; if shocks sharing a node are correlated, the simulated critical values no longer reproduce the control statistic's conditional distribution and the coverage guarantee fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Confidence sets are exact in finite samples, so no weak-dependence, sparsity, or density assumptions are needed; coverage holds even when observable network frequencies fail to converge.
The sign of the strategic interdependence coefficient γ0 can be certified from a single network; simulations show 100% sign certification at n=400 in the parametric version and at larger n in semiparametric versions.
The hypothesis of no strategic interaction, γ0=0, is testable by checking whether zero lies in the confidence set, so the procedure delivers a no-interdependence test as a byproduct.
The same sandwich restrictions extend to many-network settings, nontransferable utility, and general subnetwork configurations, each yielding closed-form counting restrictions.
Computation scales with the number of dyads, O(n^2), rather than the size of the graph space, which is why networks of size 10,000 are routine in the simulations and applications.

Reading between the lines

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

The i.i.d. pairwise-shock assumption is untestable from a single network; correlated unobserved heterogeneity, such as node-specific effects, would invalidate the simulated critical values, so sensitivity analysis is advisable in empirical work.
Because the method deliberately avoids all dependence assumptions, it is conservative; combining its valid critical values with a central limit theorem under weak dependence could buy sharpness when such conditions are plausible.
The semiparametric critical value shrinks at the dyadic rate 1/n up to a log factor, so the cost of leaving the shock distribution nonparametric is visible in slower concentration relative to the parametric version, giving a practical ordering of assumptions against precision.
Since the identified set may remain random even in the large-network limit, the finite-sample confidence set—rather than a point estimate—may be the more honest inferential target for single large networks.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper is worth the read. It gives the first finite-sample valid confidence sets for strategic network formation from a single observed network, with no restrictions on density, equilibrium selection, or dependence. The key device is a bounding-by-c sandwich: the observable statistic is bracketed by a control statistic built only from the i.i.d. pair errors and exogenous covariates, whose exact distribution is simulable. That is a clean, non-obvious move, and the proofs check out. The pathwise identification framing (random identified sets in the limit) is also novel and theoretically interesting.

The main soft spot, as the paper itself says, is Assumption 3: the pair errors are i.i.d. across all dyads, including dyads that share a node. The finite-sample coverage guarantee rests on this. If the true errors carry an agent-level component, the control statistic's distribution is not the simulated one, and coverage can dip below 1−α. This is not an internal contradiction—the theorem is correct conditional on the assumption—but it is a genuinely untestable premise from a single network. The companion paper relaxing it to fixed effects drops node-level covariates, which is a real cost. So the headline guarantee is exact, but only under a strong exogeneity and homogeneity assumption.

The paper is also honest about what it is not: no sharpness, conservative sets, no asymptotic distribution. The simulations show the method scales to 10,000 nodes and certifies the sign of the strategic coefficient; the empirical applications are plausible though not a substitute for validation on data with known structure. Missing code is a minor concern.

The citation pattern is fine. The bounding-by-c technique is credited to Gao and Wang (2026), and the paper extends it to a game-theoretic setting rather than claiming it from scratch. The novelty is real: the single-network finite-sample result is new, and the pathwise identification idea is worth citing.

Who is this for? Anyone doing structural estimation of network formation with a single network. It gives a valid, computation-free inferential procedure under maintained assumptions, and it should be read carefully by the field. I'd send it to peer review, not desk reject. The stress-test point about Assumption 3 is the single most important thing for a referee to probe, but it is a limitation acknowledged in the paper, not a fatal flaw.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a finite-sample valid inference procedure for the structural parameters of a strategic network formation model with pairwise stability, using a single observed network. The key device is a set of realization-wise 'bounding-by-c' inequalities: a formed link with an index below c certifies that the pairwise shock is below c, and an absent link with an index above c certifies the reverse. Averaging these inequalities over exogenous covariate cells sandwiches the empirical CDF of the i.i.d. pairwise errors between two observable envelopes. The paper uses this sandwich to derive a pathwise large-network identified set (Theorem 1) and, more importantly, finite-sample confidence sets whose test statistics are dominated by a control statistic that depends only on exogenous covariates and errors. The conditional distribution of this control statistic is exactly simulable, yielding semiparametric (Theorem 2), parametric (Theorem 3), and generalized nondecreasing-aggregation (Theorem 4) confidence sets with guaranteed coverage under Assumptions 1–4. A closed-form DKW-based critical value is also provided (Proposition 1). The methods are implemented in simulations with networks up to n = 10,000 and in two empirical applications, where positive strategic coefficients are reported.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution: it appears to be the first finite-sample valid inference procedure for a single strategic network without solving, simulating, or enumerating equilibrium network structures, and without restricting density or equilibrium selection. The realization-wise sandwich argument is elegant and the proofs in Appendix A are complete and self-contained. The computational tractability is a genuine strength: the procedure reduces to counting dyads in covariate cells, avoiding the combinatorial explosion of equilibrium-based methods. The paper is also careful to discuss several extensions and improvements (constrained thresholding, studentization, Berk–Jones weights). The main limitation, acknowledged by the authors, is Assumption 3 (i.i.d. pairwise errors), which is load-bearing for the simulated critical values; the paper should make the consequences of relaxing this assumption more prominent.

major comments (1)

[Section 3.1 / Theorem 2] The abstract and introduction claim that the procedure restricts 'neither its density, nor the dependence structure induced by strategic interaction, nor the equilibrium selection mechanism.' This is accurate for the equilibrium-induced dependence, but it should be qualified: the finite-sample coverage guarantee rests on Assumption 3, i.i.d. pairwise errors. In the proof of Theorem 2, the probability integral transform is used to assert Fhat_n(c;z_D) = G_{z_D}(F_ε(c)), and this equality requires both independence of shocks across dyads and independence of shocks from Z. If the error process has an agent-level component, e.g., ε_ij = a_i + a_j + u_ij with a_i random, then within a cell the shocks are dependent, the simulated critical values are not the correct quantiles of R_n, and nominal coverage can fail. This is not an internal inconsistency, but the manuscript should explicitly flag

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1, after Eq. (17)] The definition of the semiparametric confidence set does not specify what happens when no cell meets the minimum sample size m, i.e., when \hat Z_D is empty. A convention such as setting \hat Q_n = 0 and the critical value to 0 (or requiring n large enough) would make the procedure fully well-defined for all n.
[Section 2.3 / Theorem 1] The 'pathwise identified set' Θ∞_I is a random object because p∞_L and p∞_U are limits along a realized sequence and may remain random. The paper explains this, but it would help to state explicitly that these limits are not consistently estimable from a single finite network, and that the role of Theorem 1 is to provide identifying restrictions along the path, whereas the finite-sample validity of Section 3 does not depend on this asymptotic object.
[Section 3.3] The constrained threshold set C(z_D; θ, Z) is defined using the support of X. In practice, researchers may use a finite grid even when the support is unbounded. It would be useful to state explicitly that using any subset of thresholds preserves validity (because the inequalities hold pointwise) but may affect power; this is implicit but not stated.
[Section 4.3, Table 3] The table reports 'width' entries that are contaminated by grid truncation at small n; the text acknowledges this, but a table note would help the reader avoid over-interpreting the early rows. The 'sign' rate is the cleaner metric there.
[General] There are several typographical issues: 'exploit use' in Section 1, 'sophisciated' in the introduction, 'certifies' in the abstract, and minor grammatical slips. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the finite-sample coverage derivation is self-contained conditional on Assumption 3, with only a provenance self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 2–4) rest on the realization-wise sandwich inequality (6), the dominance lemmas (Lemma 2 and Lemma 3), and the conditional simulation argument in the proof of Theorem 2. The sandwich inequality is proved directly in Section 2.2 from the threshold-crossing model, without invoking any prior result. Lemma 2 is an algebraic consequence of taking maxima and minima over cells. The simulation step uses only the probability integral transform: conditional on Z, each cell contains i.i.d. errors by Assumptions 3 and 4, so Fhat_n(c; zD) = G_zD(F_epsilon(c)) exactly, and the simulated R^(b) has the same conditional distribution as R*. No parameter is fitted to the data to force coverage; the critical values are computed from cell sizes (semiparametric) or from the assumed parametric F_epsilon (parametric). The bounding-by-c technique is attributed to Gao and Wang (2026), but the paper does not rely on that citation for the validity of its own inequalities; it proves them from the model. The companion citation (Gao, Li, Xu 2026) is also contextual, not load-bearing. The paper is transparent about the key maintained assumption: if pairwise errors are not i.i.d., the simulated control distribution would not match, but this is an assumption violation, not a circular derivation. The simulation study and empirical applications provide external benchmarks, and the coverage guarantee is not constructed by renaming fitted values or by a self-referential uniqueness theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four domain assumptions (single pairwise-stable network, i.i.d. agent covariates, i.i.d. pairwise errors, exogeneity) plus standard probabilistic facts (SLLN for dissociated arrays, DKW). No ad hoc entities or fitted constants are introduced: the control statistic's distribution is simulated from the assumed error distribution and cell sizes. The i.i.d. pairwise error assumption (A3) is the most fragile, since it rules out unobserved node-level heterogeneity that would correlate shocks across dyads.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Assumption 1: The observed network Y is pairwise stable and satisfies model (1) for some θ0.
Section 2.1; if no pairwise stable equilibrium exists for the realized primitives, the model is misspecified and the inequalities (6) may not hold.
domain assumption Assumption 2: Individual exogenous characteristics Zi are i.i.d.
Section 2.1; used to apply SLLN for exchangeable arrays (Lemma 1) and to guarantee cell sizes grow.
domain assumption Assumption 3: Pairwise shocks εij are i.i.d. across all dyads.
Section 2.1; the weakest assumption. It is essential for the control statistic's conditional distribution to be simulable from cell sizes alone. Correlated shocks (e.g., node-level heterogeneity) would break the finite-sample coverage guarantee.
domain assumption Assumption 4: Z is independent of ε.
Section 2.1; exogeneity gives the product form E[1{ε≤c}1{ZD=zD}] = Fε(c)q(zD) in Lemma 1 and underlies the probability integral transform argument in Theorem 2.
standard math SLLN for dissociated exchangeable arrays (Eagleson-Weber 1978).
Invoked in the proof of Lemma 1 to obtain uniform convergence of the exogenous middle term.
standard math Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality with Massart's constant.
Invoked in Proposition 1 to construct a closed-form critical value via a union bound over cells.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-Network Finite-Sample Inference in Strategic Network Formation Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCIUH75B

@misc{pith2026260727505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-Network Finite-Sample Inference in Strategic Network Formation Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCIUH75B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27505}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a finite-sample valid inference procedure for strategic network formation models in which linking decisions depend on endogenous network statistics (say, the number of common friends). Only a single network is required to be observed, and we restrict neither its density, nor the dependence structure induced by strategic interaction, nor the equilibrium selection mechanism. We exploit a bounding-by-c technique to construct a set of sandwich inequalities that are valid realization by realization, with the middle term involving only the i.i.d. pairwise error. We then average the sandwich inequalities over cells of exogenous covariates, and obtain identifying restrictions under a nonstandard pathwise limit formulation. For inference, we construct test statistics whose finite-sample uncertainty can be controlled by statistics of the exogenous covariates and errors alone, whose conditional distributions are exactly simulable in both semiparametric and parametric settings. Our proposed inference procedure is also computationally tractable, with no need to solve, simulate, or enumerate equilibrium network structures. In simulations, our procedure easily scales to networks of size 10,000, and yields confidence sets that certifies the sign of the strategic coefficient. In two empirical applications (with network size about 300~9500), we find statistical evidence for positive link interdependence at 95% confidence level.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Andrews, D. W. and X. Shi (2013): Inference based on conditional moment inequalities, Econometrica, 81, 609--666

2013
[2]

(2020): The econometrics of static games, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 135--165

Aradillas-L \'o pez, A. (2020): The econometrics of static games, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 135--165

2020
[3]

Eckles, and G

Athey, S., D. Eckles, and G. W. Imbens (2018): Exact p-values for network interference, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 230--240

2018
[4]

(2022): Testing for differences in stochastic network structure, Econometrica, 90, 1205--1223

Auerbach, E. (2022): Testing for differences in stochastic network structure, Econometrica, 90, 1205--1223

2022
[5]

(2021): Nash equilibria on (un)stable networks, Econometrica, 89, 1179--1206

Badev, A. (2021): Nash equilibria on (un)stable networks, Econometrica, 89, 1179--1206

2021
[6]

Hong, and S

Bajari, P., H. Hong, and S. P. Ryan (2010): Identification and estimation of a discrete game of complete information, Econometrica, 78, 1529--1568

2010
[7]

Molchanov, and F

Beresteanu, A., I. Molchanov, and F. Molinari (2011): Sharp identification regions in models with convex moment predictions, Econometrica, 79, 1785--1821

2011
[8]

Berk, R. H. and D. H. Jones (1979): Goodness-of-fit test statistics that dominate the Kolmogorov statistics, Zeitschrift f \"u r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete , 47, 47--59

1979

Show all 59 references

[9]

Besag, J. and P. Clifford (1989): Generalized M onte C arlo significance tests, Biometrika, 76, 633--642

1989
[10]

Chandrasekhar, A. G. and M. O. Jackson (2025): A network formation model based on subgraphs, The Review of Economic Studies, 92, 3741--3787

2025
[11]

Lee, and A

Chernozhukov, V., S. Lee, and A. M. Rosen (2013): Intersection bounds: Estimation and inference, Econometrica, 81, 667--737

2013
[12]

Comola, M. and A. Dekel (2026): Estimating network externalities in undirected link formation games, Journal of Applied Econometrics, published online, DOI 10.1002/jae.70079; volume/pages not yet assigned

2026 doi
[13]

D'Haultf uille, and Y

Davezies, L., X. D'Haultf uille, and Y. Guyonvarch (2021): Empirical process results for exchangeable arrays, The Annals of Statistics, 49, 845--862

2021
[14]

(2020): Econometric models of network formation, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 775--799

de Paula, \'A . (2020): Econometric models of network formation, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 775--799

2020
[15]

Richards-Shubik, and E

de Paula, \'A ., S. Richards-Shubik, and E. Tamer (2018): Identifying preferences in networks with bounded degree, Econometrica, 86, 263--288

2018
[16]

Kiefer, and J

Dvoretzky, A., J. Kiefer, and J. Wolfowitz (1956): Asymptotic minimax character of the sample distribution function and of the classical multinomial estimator, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 642--669

1956
[17]

(2019): An empirical model of dyadic link formation in a network with unobserved heterogeneity, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 763--776

Dzemski, A. (2019): An empirical model of dyadic link formation in a network with unobserved heterogeneity, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 763--776

2019
[18]

Eagleson, G. K. and N. C. Weber (1978): Limit theorems for weakly exchangeable arrays, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 84, 73--80

1978
[19]

Epstein, L. G., H. Kaido, and K. Seo (2016): Robust confidence regions for incomplete models, Econometrica, 84, 1799--1838

2016
[20]

Galichon, A. and M. Henry (2011): Set identification in models with multiple equilibria, The Review of Economic Studies, 78, 1264--1298

2011
[21]

Gao, W. Y. (2020): Nonparametric Identification in Index Models of Link Formation, Journal of Econometrics, 215, 399--413

2020
[22]

Gao, W. Y., M. Li, and S. Xu (2023): Logical differencing in dyadic network formation models with nontransferable utilities, Journal of Econometrics, 235, 302--324

2023
[23]

Gao, W. Y., M. Li, and Z. Xu (2026): Tractable Identification of Strategic Network Formation Models with Unobserved Heterogeneity, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08634

2026
[24]

Gao, W. Y. and R. Wang (2026): Identification in nonlinear dynamic panel models under partial stationarity, Journal of Econometrics, 253, 106185

2026
[25]

Graham, B. S. (2017): An Econometric Model of Network Formation with Degree Heterogeneity, Econometrica, 85, 1033--1063

2017
[26]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2020): Network data, in Handbook of Econometrics, ed. by S. N. Durlauf, L. P. Hansen, J. J. Heckman, and R. L. Matzkin, Amsterdam: North-Holland, vol. 7A, 111--218

2020
[27]

Graham, B. S. and A. Pelican (2020): Testing for externalities in network formation using simulation, in The Econometric Analysis of Network Data, ed. by B. S. Graham and \'A . de Paula, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 63--82, pages per publisher chapter listing --- re-verify a...

2020
[28]

(2021): An econometric model of network formation with an application to board interlocks between firms, Journal of Econometrics, 224, 345--370

Gualdani, C. (2021): An econometric model of network formation with an application to board interlocks between firms, Journal of Econometrics, 224, 345--370

2021
[29]

Jackson, M. O. and A. Watts (2002): The evolution of social and economic networks, Journal of economic theory, 106, 265--295

2002
[30]

Jackson, M. O. and A. Wolinsky (1996): A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks, Journal of economic theory, 71, 44--74

1996
[31]

(2018): Semiparametric Analysis of Network Formation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 36, 705–713

Jochmans, K. (2018): Semiparametric Analysis of Network Formation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 36, 705–713

2018
[32]

Kaido, H. and Y. Zhang (2025): Universal Inference for Incomplete Discrete Choice Models, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17973

2025 arXiv
[33]

Linos, and S

Kasy, M., E. Linos, and S. Mobasseri (2026): Causal inference for social network formation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17952

2026 arXiv
[34]

Marmer, and K

Kojevnikov, D., V. Marmer, and K. Song (2021): Limit theorems for network dependent random variables, Journal of Econometrics, 222, 882--908

2021
[35]

Leung, M. P. (2015): Two-step estimation of network-formation models with incomplete information, Journal of Econometrics, 188, 182--195

2015
[36]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2019): A weak law for moments of pairwise-stable networks, Journal of Econometrics, 210, 310--326

2019
[37]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2022): Causal inference under approximate neighborhood interference, Econometrica, 90, 267--293

2022
[38]

Leung, M. P. and H. R. Moon (2026): Normal approximation in large network models, Review of Economic Studies, forthcoming

2026
[39]

Li, L. and M. Henry (2026): Finite Sample Inference in Incomplete Models, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00473 (v4, June 2026)

2026 arXiv
[40]

Shi, and Y

Li, M., Z. Shi, and Y. Zheng (2026): Bagging the Network, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23852 (v3, May 2026)

2026 arXiv
[41]

Manski, C. F. (1975): Maximum Score Estimation of the Stochastic Utility Model of Choice, Journal of Econometrics, 3, 205--228

1975
[42]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1985): Semiparametric Analysis of Discrete Response: Asymptotic Properties of the Maximum Score Estimator, Journal of Econometrics, 27, 313--333

1985
[43]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1987): Semiparametric Analysis of Random Effects Linear Models from Binary Panel Data, Econometrica, 55, 357--362

1987
[44]

(2026): The Econometrics of Utility Transferability in Dyadic Network Formation Models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25641

Marshall, J. (2026): The Econometrics of Utility Transferability in Dyadic Network Formation Models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25641

2026
[45]

(1990): The tight constant in the D voretzky-- K iefer-- W olfowitz inequality, Annals of Probability, 18, 1269--1283

Massart, P. (1990): The tight constant in the D voretzky-- K iefer-- W olfowitz inequality, Annals of Probability, 18, 1269--1283

1990
[46]

Fournet, and A

Mastrandrea, R., J. Fournet, and A. Barrat (2015): Contact Patterns in a High School: A Comparison between Data Collected Using Wearable Sensors, Contact Diaries and Friendship Surveys, PLOS ONE, 10, e0136497

2015
[47]

(2017): A Structural Model of Dense Network Formation, Econometrica, 85, 825--850

Mele, A. (2017): A Structural Model of Dense Network Formation, Econometrica, 85, 825--850

2017
[48]

(2026): Strategic network formation with many agents, Journal of Econometrics, 253, 106174

Menzel, K. (2026): Strategic network formation with many agents, Journal of Econometrics, 253, 106174

2026
[49]

(2016): Structural estimation of pairwise stable networks with nonnegative externality, Journal of Econometrics, 195, 224--235

Miyauchi, Y. (2016): Structural estimation of pairwise stable networks with nonnegative externality, Journal of Econometrics, 195, 224--235

2016
[50]

Pelican, A. and B. S. Graham (2022): An Optimal Test for Strategic Interaction in Social and Economic Network Formation between Heterogeneous Agents, NBER Working Paper 27793; arXiv:2009.00212 (rev.\ May 2022)

2022 arXiv
[51]

Basse, A

Puelz, D., G. Basse, A. Feller, and P. Toulis (2022): A graph-theoretic approach to randomization tests of causal effects under general interference, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84, 174--204

2022
[52]

Ridder, G. and S. Sheng (2025): Two-Step Estimation of a Strategic Network Formation Model with Clustering, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2001.03838

2025 arXiv
[53]

Rosen, A. M. and T. Ura (2025): Finite sample inference for the maximum score estimand, The Review of Economic Studies, 92, 4117--4151

2025
[54]

Allen, and R

Rozemberczki, B., C. Allen, and R. Sarkar (2021): Multi-Scale Attributed Node Embedding, Journal of Complex Networks, 9, cnab014

2021
[55]

(2020): A structural econometric analysis of network formation games through subnetworks, Econometrica, 88, 1829--1858

Sheng, S. (2020): A structural econometric analysis of network formation games through subnetworks, Econometrica, 88, 1829--1858

2020
[56]

(2003): Incomplete simultaneous discrete response model with multiple equilibria, The Review of Economic Studies, 70, 147--165

Tamer, E. (2003): Incomplete simultaneous discrete response model with multiple equilibria, The Review of Economic Studies, 70, 147--165

2003
[57]

(2024): Two-step Estimation of Network Formation Models with Unobserved Heterogeneities and Strategic Interactions, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12581

Wu, S. (2024): Two-step Estimation of Network Formation Models with Unobserved Heterogeneities and Strategic Interactions, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12581

2024 arXiv
[58]

Yanchenko, E., J. P. Williams, and R. Martin (2026): Universal Inference for Model Selection on Networks, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2606.30981

2026 arXiv
[59]

(2026): Identification and Estimation of Network Models with Nonparametric Unobserved Heterogeneity, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06885

Zeleneev, A. (2026): Identification and Estimation of Network Models with Nonparametric Unobserved Heterogeneity, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06885

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Andrews, D. W. and X. Shi (2013): Inference based on conditional moment inequalities, Econometrica, 81, 609--666

2013

[2] [2]

(2020): The econometrics of static games, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 135--165

Aradillas-L \'o pez, A. (2020): The econometrics of static games, Annual Review of Economics, 12, 135--165

2020

[3] [3]

Eckles, and G

Athey, S., D. Eckles, and G. W. Imbens (2018): Exact p-values for network interference, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 230--240

2018

[4] [4]

(2022): Testing for differences in stochastic network structure, Econometrica, 90, 1205--1223

Auerbach, E. (2022): Testing for differences in stochastic network structure, Econometrica, 90, 1205--1223

2022

[5] [5]

(2021): Nash equilibria on (un)stable networks, Econometrica, 89, 1179--1206

Badev, A. (2021): Nash equilibria on (un)stable networks, Econometrica, 89, 1179--1206

2021

[6] [6]

Hong, and S

Bajari, P., H. Hong, and S. P. Ryan (2010): Identification and estimation of a discrete game of complete information, Econometrica, 78, 1529--1568

2010

[7] [7]

Molchanov, and F

Beresteanu, A., I. Molchanov, and F. Molinari (2011): Sharp identification regions in models with convex moment predictions, Econometrica, 79, 1785--1821

2011

[8] [8]

Berk, R. H. and D. H. Jones (1979): Goodness-of-fit test statistics that dominate the Kolmogorov statistics, Zeitschrift f \"u r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete , 47, 47--59

1979