---
abstract: |
    Identification of discrete outcome models is often established by using special covariates that have full support. This paper shows how these identification results can be extended to a large class of commonly used semiparametric discrete outcome models when all covariates are bounded. I apply the proposed methodology to multinomial choice models, bundles models, and finite games of complete information.

    Keywords: Discrete outcome, multinomial choice, random coefficients, games of complete information
author:
- |
    Nail Kashaev [^1]\
    lopezmelinda@example.com
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'This version: November 2018'
title: 'Identification of semiparametric discrete outcome models with bounded covariates[^2]'
---

Introduction
============

Covariates that have full support (i.e., supported on the whole Euclidean space) provide an elegant and powerful approach for establishing identification in many discrete outcome models.[^3] Existence of such covariates is often necessary for nonparametric identification of distributions of latent variables.[^4] "Identification-at-infinity" arguments are based on existence of covariates with full support.[^5] However, finding such covariates in applied work is often problematic.

In this paper, I show that common parametric assumptions about the distribution of *some* unobservables (e.g. one normally distributed random coefficient in a model with multiple random coefficients) can fully restore the identification power of covariates with full support, even if covariates are in fact bounded. I provide two results connecting semiparametric discrete outcome models with covariates that have bounded support and (non)parametric discrete outcome models with special covariates that have full support. The first result is general and can be applied to a large class of semiparametric models. However, it requires a preliminary identification of a finite-dimensional parameter by using some auxiliary arguments. The second result does not require any extra identification steps, and uses one of the most popular parametrizations in applied work – the Gaussian distribution. I apply the proposed approaches to three well-known models: multinomial choice models with random coefficients, bundles models, and finite games of complete information.

The results of this paper rest on two commonly used assumptions. First, I assume existence of excluded (special) covariates that affect the distribution over outcomes via a latent index. Second, I impose commonly used parametric restrictions on the distribution of this index (e.g., the Gumbel or the Gaussian distribution). If the distribution of the index is sufficiently "rich", then I show how to identify the distribution over outcomes conditional on the realization of the observed covariates and the latent index. Since the index distribution is usually assumed to have full support, I can treat the latent index as observed covariate with full support and apply *any* identification technique that requires existence of such covariates.

The index has different interpretation in different settings. For instance, in random coefficients model one of the random coefficients can be treated as the latent index. In games, the role of the index is played by a component of random utilities corresponding to different outcomes. "Richness" of the latent index distribution is formalized by a notion of bounded completeness.[^6]

This paper also contributes to the literature on partially identified models. I show that in many partially identified models the identified sets are "thin" in the following sense. The model parameters (including infinite-dimensional ones) are identified up to a finite-dimensional parameter of a lower dimension. This finding may lead to substantial computational gains in constructing confidence sets for partially identified parameters (e.g. @CTT) and sheds some light on the properties of identified sets in these models.

The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:binary example\] provides a motivating example. In Section \[sec:model\] I describe the setting and derive general identification results. Section \[sec: gaussian\] specializes the results from Section \[sec:model\] for widely used normally distributed latent variables. In Sections \[sec: applications\] I apply the result from Section \[sec:model\] to three different discrete outcome models. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes. All proofs can be found in Appendix \[app:proofs\].

Motivating Example: Binary Choice {#sec:binary example}
=================================

Consider a simple single agent binary choice problem.[^7] A utility maximizing agent has to choose ${y}\in{Y}=\{0,1\}$. The utility of alternative ${y}=0$ is normalized to $0$. The utility of option ${y}=1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:motivex 2}
{\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}{\mathbf{{v}}}_1+{\mathbf{g}}_1.\end{aligned}$$ Random variables ${\mathbf{v}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{g}}_1$ represent the random slope coefficient corresponding to covariate ${\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}\in{Z}_{2,1}\subseteq{{\mathds{R}}}$ and the random intercept, respectively.

The objective of the econometrician is to recover the c.d.f. of ${\mathbf{g}}_1$, $F_{{\mathbf{g}}_1}$, from observed distribution of choices ${\mathbf{{y}}}$ and covariates ${\mathbf{{z}}}$. Typically it is assumed that ${\mathbf{v}}_1=1\:{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}$, and ${\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}$ and ${\mathbf{g}}_1$ are independent. In this case the main identifying conditions is $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1})=1-F_{{\mathbf{g}}_1}(-{z}_{2,1}),$$ for all ${z}_{2,1}\in{Z}_{2,1}$. Hence, if ${\mathbf{g}}_1$ is supported on ${{\mathds{R}}}$, then nonparametric identification of its distribution can be achieved if and only if ${\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}$ has full support. Next I will show how another commonly used assumption about ${\mathbf{v}}_1$ can lead to identification of $F_{{\mathbf{g}}_1}$ even if all observed covariates have bounded support.

Assume that there exists a covariate ${\mathbf{{z}}}_1\in{Z}_1\subseteq{{\mathds{R}}}$ such that for ${\mathbf{{z}}}=({\mathbf{{z}}}_1,{\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}){^{{\sf T}}}\in{Z}={Z}_1\times{Z}_{2,1}$ $${\mathbf{v}}_1|({\mathbf{z}}={z})\sim N(\beta_0+\beta_1{z}_1,1),\quad \forall {z}\in{Z},$$ where $\beta_1\neq 0$ and $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ denotes the normal distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$. For this section only I assume that $\beta=(\beta_0,\beta_1){^{{\sf T}}}$ is known or can be identified. Later on I will show how one can pointidentify $\beta$. Assuming that ${\mathbf{g}}_1$ is independent of ${\mathbf{{z}}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_1$, we can rewrite (\[eq:motivex 2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}(\beta_0+\beta_1{\mathbf{z}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1)+{\mathbf{g}}_1,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{{e}}}_1$ is a standard normal random variable that is independent of ${\mathbf{{z}}}$.[^8]

The key step is to show that we can identify $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}={z},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1={v}_1)$$ for all $v_1\in{{\mathds{R}}}$ and ${z}\in{Z}$. If we can identify $\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}=\cdot,{\mathbf{{v}}}_1=\cdot)$, then we can analyze the model as if ${\mathbf{{v}}}_1$ is observed. In this case ${\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}{\mathbf{{v}}}_1$ becomes an observed special covariate with *full* support since ${\mathbf{v}}_1$ is supported on ${{\mathds{R}}}$. By using variation in ${\mathbf{{v}}}_1$ we can recover $F_{{\mathbf{g}}_1}$ even if the support of ${\mathbf{{z}}}$ is bounded. In other words, the above binary choice model with just one normally distributed random slope coefficient with bounded covariates, in terms of identification features, is equivalent to the binary choice model where the utility from choosing ${y}=1$ is equal to $$\label{eq:motiv22}
{\mathbf{r}}_{1}+{\mathbf{g}}_1,$$ where ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{g}}_1$ are independent, and ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ is observed covariate supported on $$\{r_1\in{{\mathds{R}}}\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:r_1=v_1{z}_{2,1}, v_1\in{{\mathds{R}}}, {z}_{2,1}\in{Z}_{2,1}\}={{\mathds{R}}}.$$

It is left to show that $\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}={z},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1=\cdot)$ can be identified. First, note that under independence condition $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_1={z}_1,{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1={v}_1)=\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1={v}_1).$$ Second, note that for any fixed ${z}_{2,1}$ we have the following integral equation $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_1={z}_1,{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1})=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}}{\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1={v})\phi(v-(\beta_0+\beta_1{z}_1))dv},$$ for all ${z}_1\in{Z}_1$. Since variation in $z_1$ does not affect $\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}={z}_{2,1},{\mathbf{{v}}}_1=\cdot)$, we can use this variation to identify it. In other words, if the family of normal distributions $\{\phi(\cdot-\beta_0-\beta_1{z}_1)\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:z_1\in{Z}_1\}$ is sufficiently "rich", then the integral equation has a unique solution. For discrete distributions the "richness" condition is usually characterized by the rank condition. For continuous distributions the "richness" condition is associated with a notion of "completeness". In our example, the "completeness" condition is satisfied since the family of $\{\phi(\cdot-\beta_0-\beta_1{z}_1)\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:z_1\in{Z}_1\}$ is complete if $\operatorname*{int}(Z_1)\neq\emptyset$.[^9] Since the choice of ${z}_{2,1}$ was arbitrary, we recover $\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=1|{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,1}=\cdot,{\mathbf{{v}}}_1=\cdot)$ and thus can work with well-known model (\[eq:motiv22\]).

Two important assumptions needed for the result to hold are: (i) existence of a parametric index ${\mathbf{v}}_1$ such that the choices are affected by some excluded covariates only through the index; and (ii) the distribution of the index conditional on excluded covariates is sufficiently rich (complete). The rest of the paper generalizes these key assumptions to environments with multiple agents and outcomes, and establishes identification of $\beta$.

General Model {#sec:model}
=============

Each instance of the environment is characterized by an endogenous outcome ${\mathbf{{y}}}$ from a known finite set ${Y}$, a vector of observed exogenous characteristics ${\mathbf{{x}}}\in{X}\subseteq{{\mathds{R}}}^{d_{x}}$, $d_{x}<\infty$, that can be partitioned into ${x}=({z}{^{{\sf T}}},{w}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$, and a vector of unobserved structural variables ${\mathbf{{v}}}\in{V}\subseteq{{\mathds{R}}}^{d_v}$.[^10] It is assumed that the econometrician observes the joint distribution of $({\mathbf{{y}}},{\mathbf{{x}}}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$.

\[Exclusion Restrictions\]\[ass:exclusion restriction general\] There exist ${Y}^*\subseteq{Y}$ and ${h}_0:{Y}^*\times{W}\times{V}\to[0,1]$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
    \Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}={y}|{\mathbf{{z}}}={z},{\mathbf{{w}}}={w},{\mathbf{{v}}}={v})={h}_0({y},{w},{v}),
    \end{aligned}$$ for all ${y}\in{Y}^*$, ${x}=({z}{^{{\sf T}}},{w}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}\in{X}$, and ${v}\in{V}$.

Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] is an exclusion restriction that requires covariates ${\mathbf{{z}}}$ to affect distribution over some outcomes only via the distribution of the latent ${\mathbf{{v}}}$. Note that the exclusion restriction does not need to be imposed on all outcomes. For instance, in single agent decision models one can identify the payoff parameters by observing only the probability of choosing the outside option (e.g., @thompson1989identification and @lewbel2000semiparametric). Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] does not rule out existence of other latent variables (different from ${\mathbf{v}}$) since exclusion restrictions are imposed on the distribution over outcomes conditional on ${\mathbf{{x}}}={x}$ and ${\mathbf{{v}}}={v}$.[^11]

The next assumption is a parametric restriction on the latent variable whose distribution is affected by the excluded covariates ${\mathbf{{z}}}$.

\[Bounded completeness\]\[ass:bounded completeness general\] For every ${w}\in{W}$, there exists ${Z}'\subseteq{Z}_{w}$ such that the family of distributions $\left\{F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{z}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{z},{w}),{z}\in{Z}'\right\}$ is boundedly complete. That is, $$\forall{z}\in{Z}',\:\int_{V}g(t)dF_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{z}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}}(t|{z},{w})=0\implies g({\mathbf{{v}}})=0 \:{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}.$$

Completeness assumptions have been widely used in econometric analysis. Completeness is typically imposed on the distribution of observables (e.g. @newey03). However, many commonly used parametric restrictions on the distribution of unobservables imply Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\]. For instance, it is satisfied for the Gaussian distribution and the Gumbel distribution. [^12] $$\mu({y}|{x})=\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}={y}|{\mathbf{{x}}}={x})$$ is known for every ${y}\in{Y}^*$ and ${x}\in{X}$.

\[prop:identification of h up to v\] Under Assumptions \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] and \[ass:bounded completeness general\], ${h}_0$ is identified from $\mu$ up to $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$.

Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] implies that under exclusion restrictions if one assumes that the latent variable has a known distribution belonging to a boundedly complete family, then one can work with the model as if the realizations of latent variables are observed in the data since we can identify $h_0({y},{w},\cdot)=\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}={y}|{\mathbf{{w}}}={w},{\mathbf{{v}}}=\cdot)$. Thus, if I know or can identify $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ (see Section \[sec: gaussian\]), for identification I can interpret *latent* variables (${\mathbf{{v}}}$) as *observed* covariates. If these latent variables have full support (e.g. normal errors), then all identification techniques that require existence of covariates with full support can be applied (e.g., @fox2016nonparametric in the context of random coefficients model and @BHR in the context of games). In other words, I can transform a model with covariates that have bounded support into the model with covariates that have full support, and then use existing methods to identify different objects of interest.

The following example demonstrates how knowing ${h}_0$ can help to identify some underlying aspects of the model.

Suppose that ${Y}={Y}^*=\{0,1\}$ and ${h}_0$ is identified.[^13] Assume that $\gamma({\mathbf{{w}}})+{\mathbf{v}}$ represents the utility agent gets from choosing ${y}=1$, where $\gamma$ is some unknown function of ${w}$. Assume, moreover, that the utility from choosing ${y}=0$ is normalized to zero. The identified ${h}_0$ is consistent with the utility maximizing behavior if and only if $${h}_0(1,{w},{v})={\mathds{1}\left(\,\gamma({w})+v\geq 0\,\right)}$$ for almost all ${v}\in{V}$ and ${w}\in{W}$. Thus, if ${V}={{\mathds{R}}}$, then one can test for utility maximizing behavior, and can identify $\gamma(\cdot)$ if the agent maximizes utility.

Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] establishes identification of $h_0$ only up to $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$. Typically $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ is known up to a finite-dimensional parameter. In Section \[sec: gaussian\] I show how one can identify this parameter and thus $h_0$ if $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ is assumed to be the Gaussian distribution. In Section \[subsec:binary games of comp info\] I show how Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] can be used to characterize the identified set of a partially identified game of complete information.

Gaussian Distribution {#sec: gaussian}
=====================

Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] can be applied with any known parametric distribution $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ as long as the family of the distributions generated by the variation in excluded covariates is complete. The most prominent example of such families is the exponential family of distributions. In this section I specialize the results from the previous section to probably one of the most common parametrization in applied work – Gaussian errors. I show how to identify $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ for such models. The following assumption is sufficient for Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\] to hold.

\[ass:normal errors\]

1.  The latent ${\mathbf{{v}}}$ satisfies $${\mathbf{{v}}}_i={\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,i}[\beta_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1,i}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{z}}_{1,i}+{\mathbf{{e}}}_i]\quad{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}$$ where $\beta_{0,i}(\cdot)$ and $\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)$, $i=1,\dots,d_{{v}}$, are some unknown measurable functions such that $\beta_{1,i}({w})\neq 0$ for all ${w}\in{W}$;

2.  $\{{\mathbf{{e}}}_i\}_{i=1,\dots,d_{v}}$ are independent identically distributed standard normal random variables that are independent of ${\mathbf{{x}}}$;

3.  For every ${w}\in{W}$ the support of ${\mathbf{{z}}}|({\mathbf{{w}}}={w})$, ${Z}_{{w}}$, contains an open ball;

4.  The sign of either $\beta_{0,i}({w})$ or $\beta_{1,i}({w})$ is known for every ${w}\in{W}$ and $i$.

Assumption \[ass:normal errors\](i) is motivated by random coefficient models. The covariate ${\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,i}$ can be interpreted as choice ("product") specific characteristic. The random coefficients $[\beta_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1,i}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{z}}_{1,i}+{\mathbf{{e}}}_i]$ captures agent specific heterogeneity in tastes. The only support restriction is imposed on ${\mathbf{z}}$ (Assumption \[ass:normal errors\](iii)). Non of the covariates are assumed to have full or unbounded support. Assumptions \[ass:normal errors\](i)-(iii) are sufficient for Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\] since the family of normal distributions indexed by the mean parameter is complete as long as the parameter space for the mean parameter contains an open ball.[^14]

Assumptions \[ass:normal errors\](iv) is a normalization. It requires that either the sign of the marginal effect of ${z}_{1,i}$ or the sign of the intercept (as long at it is not equal to zero) are known (or can be identified). In discrete outcome models with almost surely unique equilibrium (e.g. multinomial choice) the sign of $\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)$ can often be identified because of monotonicity of ${h}$ in utility indexes $v$. For instance, in multinomial choice models the probability of choosing an outside option is decreasing in mean utilities of other choices. Without additional restrictions the sign can not be identified as the following example demonstrates.

Suppose that Assumptions \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] and \[ass:normal errors\](i)-(iii) are satisfied with $d_v=1$ and $x=(z_{11},z_{21}){^{{\sf T}}}$. Take ${y}\in{Y}^*$ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
    \mu({y}|{x})&=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{h}_0(y,v_1)\phi(v_1/z_{2,1}-\beta_{0,1}-\beta_{1,1}z_{1,1})dv_1=\\
    &=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{h}_0(y,v_1)\phi(-v_1/z_{2,1}+\beta_{0,1}+\beta_{1,1}z_{1,1})dv_1=\\
    &=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{h}_0(y,-v_1)\phi(v_1/z_{2,1}+\beta_{0,1}+\beta_{1,1}z_{1,1})dv_1=\\
    &=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{h}_0(y,-v_1)\phi(v_1/z_{2,1}-(-\beta_{0,1})-(-\beta_{1,1})z_{1,1})dv_1,\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the symmetry of $\phi(\cdot)$ and the third equality follows from the change of variables. Hence, if ${h}_0$ and $(\beta_{0,1}, \beta_{1,1}){^{{\sf T}}}$ can generate the data, then $\tilde{h}_0$ and $(-\beta_{0,1}, -\beta_{1,1}){^{{\sf T}}}$ such that $\tilde{h}_0({y},{v})={h}_0({y},-{v})$ for all $y$ and ${v}$ can generate the data too.

Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] only identifies ${h}_0$ up to the distribution of unobservables. In particular, under Assumption \[ass:normal errors\], ${h}_0$ is identified up to $\{\beta_{0,i}(\cdot),\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^{d_{v}}$. The following assumption allows us to identify the distribution of unobservables and thus ${h}_0$.

Let $z_{1,-i}=({z}_{1,k})_{k\neq i}$. For a fixed ${y}^*\in{Y}^*$, ${z}_{1,-i}$ and ${z}_{2}$, let $\eta:{Z}_{1,i|{w},{z}_{1,-i},{z}_2}\to[0,1]$ be such that for ${x}=(({z}_{1,i},{z}_{1,-i}){^{{\sf T}}},{z}_2{^{{\sf T}}},{w}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$ $$\eta({z}_{1,i})=\mu({y}^*|{x}).$$

\[ass:support restriction\] For every ${w}\in{W}$ and $i=1,2,\dots,d_{{y}}$, there exists ${y}^*\in{Y}^*$ and $z_{2,i}\in{Z}_{2,i|{w}}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $\eta(\cdot)$ is neither an exponential nor an affine function of $z_{1,i}$.

Assumption \[ass:support restriction\] means that if we fix all covariates but one, then the probability of observing one excluded outcome conditional on covariates is neither affine nor exponential function of the non-fixed covariate. Assumption \[ass:support restriction\] is not very restrictive since it rules out only some exponential and linear probability models. Moreover, it is testable.

\[prop:identification of beta\] Suppose that Assumptions \[ass:exclusion restriction general\], \[ass:normal errors\], and \[ass:support restriction\] hold. Then ${h}_0$ and $\{\beta_{0,i}(\cdot),\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^{d_{v}}$ are identified.

Proposition \[prop:identification of beta\] establishes identification of ${h}_0$ and $F_{{\mathbf{{v}}}|{\mathbf{{x}}}}$ for normally distributed latent variables. Next I will show how one can use ${h}_0$ in different discrete outcome models.

Applications {#sec: applications}
============

Multinomial Choice {#subsec: multinomial}
------------------

Consider the following random coefficients model. The agent has to choose between $J$ inside goods and an outside option of no purchase. That is, $y\in{Y}=\{0,1,\dots,J\}$. I normalize the utility from alternative ${y}=0$ to $0$. The random utility from choosing an alternative ${y}\neq 0$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:random coeff parametrization}
    &{\mathbf{u}}_{y}={\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,{y}}\big[\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\big]+{\mathbf{g}}_{y}.\end{aligned}$$ The random coefficient $\big[\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\big]$ represents individual specific heterogeneous tastes associated with product characteristic ${\mathbf{z}}_{2,{y}}$. The latent random vector ${\mathbf{g}}=({\mathbf{g}}_{{y}})_{{y}\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}}$ captures other sources of unobserved heterogeneity which are different from $\big[\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\big]$. The observed covariates are ${\mathbf{{x}}}=({\mathbf{{z}}}_1, {\mathbf{z}}_{2}{^{{\sf T}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$, where ${\mathbf{{z}}}_2=({\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,{y}})_{{y}\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}}$. Assume that the agents are utility maximizers.[^15]

\[ass:normal error random coef\]

1.  ${\mathbf{{e}}}_1$ is an independent of $({\mathbf{g}}{^{{\sf T}}},{\mathbf{{x}}}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$ standard normal random variable;

2.  $\beta_1({\mathbf{{w}}})\neq 0\quad {\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}$;

3.  For every ${w}\in{W}$ the support of ${\mathbf{{z}}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}={w}$, ${Z}_{{w}}$, contains an open ball.

Similarly to the existing treatment of random coefficients model, I assume that the random coefficients in front of ${\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,{y}}$ are the same for each alternative ${y}$.[^16] However, I do not impose sign restrictions on $\big[\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\big]$. Note that $$\Pr(\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\geq 0|{\mathbf{{x}}}={x})=\Phi(\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_1),$$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the standard normal c.d.f. Thus, since there are no restrictions on $\beta_0(\cdot)$, the random coefficient $\big[\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\big]$ can be positive (negative) with probability that is arbitrarily close to $1$.

\[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\]

1.  Random shocks ${\mathbf{g}}$ are conditionally independent of ${\mathbf{{z}}}$ conditional on ${\mathbf{{w}}}={w}$. That is, for all ${x}=({z}{^{{\sf T}}},{w}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}\in{X}$ $$F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{z}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{z},{w})=F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{w}),$$ where $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{z}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{z},{w})$ and $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{w})$ are conditional c.d.fs of ${\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{z}}}={z},{\mathbf{{w}}}={w}$ and ${\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}={w}$, respectively;

2.  For every ${w}\in{W}$, there exists $z_2\neq 0$ such that it is contained in ${Z}_{2|{w}}$ with some open neighborhood and ${z}_{2,{y}}={z}_{2,{y}'}$ for any ${y},{y}'\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}$;

3.  For every ${w}\in{W}$ there exists ${z}_2\in{Z}_{2|{w}}$ such that $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}=0|{\mathbf{z}}_1=\cdot,{\mathbf{z}}_2={z}_2,{\mathbf{{w}}}={w})$$ is neither exponential nor affine function.

Assumption \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\](i) together with utility maximizing behavior guarantees that Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] is satisfied. Assumption \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\](i) is the only restriction on ${\mathbf{g}}$. I allow ${\mathbf{g}}$ to be discrete or continuous random variable with unknown support. Assumptions \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\](ii)-(iii) are testable restrictions. Assumptions \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\](ii) imply that one can find ${z}_{2,1}={z}_{2,2}=\dots={z}_{2,J}\neq 0$ such that Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\] is satisfied for $v={z}_{2,1}(\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_1+{e}_1)$. Assumption \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\](iii) is sufficient for Assumption \[ass:support restriction\] to hold.

\[prop:random coefficients\] Suppose Assumptions \[ass:normal error random coef\] and \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\] hold. Then

1.  $\beta_0(\cdot)$ and $\beta_1(\cdot)$ are identified;

2.  The above model inherits all identifying properties of the following random coefficients model: $$\begin{aligned}
        &{\mathbf{u}}_{{y}}={\mathbf{r}}_{{y}}+{\mathbf{g}}_{{y}}, \quad {y}\neq 0,\\
        &{\mathbf{u}}_{y}=0,\quad y=0,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{r}}=({\mathbf{r}}_{{y}})_{{y}\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}}$ is an observed covariate independent of ${\mathbf{g}}=({\mathbf{g}}_{y})_{{y}\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}}$ conditional on ${\mathbf{{w}}}$ with the conditional support $$R_w=\left\{r\in{{\mathds{R}}}^J\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:r=\lambda {z}_2,\: \lambda\in{{\mathds{R}}},\:{z}_2\in{Z}_{2|{w}}\right\}.$$

Proposition \[prop:random coefficients\] implies that the original random coefficient model can be represented in the "special-covariate-with-full-support" framework without assuming existence of such covariates. Moreover, if the set of directions that ${z}_2/{\left\lVertz_2\right\rVert}$ can cover is sufficiently rich, then $R_{{w}}={{\mathds{R}}}^{J}$ and all the identification results that require existence of special covariates with full support (e.g., @lewbel2000semiparametric, @berry2009nonparametric, and @fox2016nonparametric) can be applied. For instance, if $\{z_2/{\left\lVertz_2\right\rVert}\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:z_2\in Z_{2|w}\}$ is equal to a unit sphere in ${{\mathds{R}}}^{J}$ for every ${w}$, then $R_{{w}}={{\mathds{R}}}^{J}$ and I can nonparametrically identify $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}$.[^17]

Bundles
-------

Consider the following bundles model motivated by @gentzkow2007valuing, @dunker2017nonparametric, and @fox2017note. There are $J$ goods and the agent can purchase any bundle consisting of these goods. The vector ${y}$ describes the purchasing decision of the agent. That is, $y\in{Y}=\{0,1\}^{J}$. For instance, $y=(0,1,0,1,0,\dots,0){^{{\sf T}}}$ corresponds to the case when the agent purchased a bundle of goods $2$ and $4$. I normalize the utility from "not buying", ${y}=0$, to $0$. The random utility from choosing an alternative ${y}\neq 0$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bundle parametrization}
    {\mathbf{u}}_{y}=(\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1)\sum_{j=1}^J{y}_j{\mathbf{{z}}}_{2,j}+{\mathbf{g}}_{y}.\end{aligned}$$

Although the model (\[eq:bundle parametrization\]) looks similar to the model (\[eq:random coeff parametrization\]), there is one important difference: there is no bundle specific covariate since ${z}_{2,j}$ affects not only the utility from buying good $j$ alone, but also every bundle that includes it.

\[prop:bundle\] Suppose Assumptions \[ass:normal error random coef\] and \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\] hold. Then

1.  $\beta_0(\cdot)$ and $\beta_1(\cdot)$ are identified;

2.  The above model inherits all identifying properties of the following bundles model: $$\begin{aligned}
        &{\mathbf{u}}_{y}=\sum_{j=1}^J {y}_j {\mathbf{r}}_{j}+{\mathbf{g}}_{y}\quad,\\
        &{\mathbf{u}}_0=0.\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{r}}=({\mathbf{r}}_{j})_{j=1,\dots,J}$ is an observed covariate independent of ${\mathbf{g}}=({\mathbf{g}}_{y})_{{y}\in{Y}\setminus\{0\}}$ conditional on ${\mathbf{{w}}}$ with the conditional support $$R_w=\left\{r\in{{\mathds{R}}}^J:r=\lambda {z}_2, \lambda\in{{\mathds{R}}},\:{z}_2\in{Z}_{2|{w}}\right\}.$$

Note that for $J=2$ if one assumes that $$\begin{aligned}
    {\mathbf{g}}_{(1,0)}&=f_1({\mathbf{{w}}})+{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}_1,\\
    {\mathbf{g}}_{(0,1)}&=f_2({\mathbf{{w}}})+{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}_2,\\
    {\mathbf{g}}_{(1,1)}&={\mathbf{g}}_{(1,0)}+{\mathbf{g}}_{(0,1)}+{\mathbf{\xi}}f_3({\mathbf{{w}}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $f_i(\cdot)$, $i=1,2,3$, are some unknown functions, and $({\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}_1,{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}_2,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}){^{{\sf T}}}\in{{\mathds{R}}}^2\times{{\mathds{R}}}_{+}$, then model (\[eq:random coeff parametrization\]) is equivalent to the one in @fox2017note, and one can apply their Theorem 1 to identify $f_i(\cdot)$, $i=1,2,3$, and the distributions of ${\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}_i|{\mathbf{{w}}}$, $i=1,2$, and ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}$.

Binary games of complete information {#subsec:binary games of comp info}
------------------------------------

In the multinomial choice and the bundles models I am able to establish identification of the objects of interest without requiring covariates with full support. The example that is considered in this section is different: the model is not pointidentified. However, the Lebesgue measure of the identified set is zero. In particular, all parameters of the model are identified up to a finite-dimensional parameter of lower-dimension.

There are ${\left\lVert{{I}}\right\rVert}<\infty$ players indexed by $i\in{{I}}$. Every player must choose ${y}_i\in\{0,1\}$. Thus, the outcome space is ${Y}=\{0,1\}^{{\left\lVert{{I}}\right\rVert}}$.[^18] Players $i$'s payoff from choosing action ${y}_i$ when the other agents are choosing ${y}_{-i}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
    {\mathbf{\pi}}_{0i}({y}) = \left[\alpha_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}})+[\beta_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_i+{\mathbf{{e}}}_i] + \sum_{j\in{{I}}\setminus\{i\}}\delta_{0,i,j}({\mathbf{{w}}}){y}_{j}\right]{y}_i,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{{e}}}_{i}$, ${{i}}\in{{I}}$, are observed by players but unobserved by the econometrician shocks; $\alpha_{0,i}(\cdot)$, $\beta_{0,i}(\cdot)$ and $\delta_{0,i,j}(\cdot)$ are unknown functions. The econometrician observes a joint distribution of $({\mathbf{{y}}},{\mathbf{{x}}}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}$, where ${\mathbf{{x}}}=({\mathbf{{z}}}{^{{\sf T}}},{\mathbf{{w}}}{^{{\sf T}}}){^{{\sf T}}}\in{X}$ with ${\mathbf{{z}}}=({\mathbf{{z}}}_i)_{i\in{{I}}}$, is a vector of observed covariates. Let $\beta_0(\cdot)=(\beta_{0,i}(\cdot))_{i\in{{I}}}$, $\alpha_0(\cdot)=(\alpha_{0,i}(\cdot))_{i\in{{I}}}$, and $\delta_{0}(\cdot)=(\delta_{0,i,j}(\cdot))_{i\neq j\in{{I}}}$.

The following two assumptions are sufficient for Assumptions \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] and \[ass:bounded completeness general\].

\[ass:binary game exclusion and support\]

1.  Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] is satisfied with ${\mathbf{{v}}}=(\beta_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_i+{\mathbf{{e}}}_i)_{i\in{{I}}}$;

2.  For every $i,j\in{{I}}$, $i\neq j$, the cardinality of $$\Big\{\big(0\big)_{k\in{{I}}},\:\big({\mathds{1}\left(\,k\in\{i,j\}\,\right)}\big)_{k\in{{I}}},\:\big({\mathds{1}\left(\,k=i\,\right)}\big)_{k\in{{I}}},\:\big({\mathds{1}\left(\,k=j\,\right)}\big)_{k\in{{I}}}\Big\}\bigcap{Y}^*$$ is at least $2$.

Assumption \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\](i) implies that excluded covariates affect the distribution of some outcomes via payoffs only. Assumption \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\](ii) imposes restrictions on the set of those outcomes. If one thinks of an entry game where ${y}_i=1$ corresponds to the entry decision, the outcomes in Assumption \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\](ii) have the following interpretation. The outcome $\big(0\big)_{k\in{{I}}}$ corresponds to the market where nobody enters. The outcome $\big({\mathds{1}\left(\,k\in\{i,j\}\,\right)}\big)_{k\in{{I}}}$ corresponds to the market where only players $i$ and $j$ enter. Similarly, $\big({\mathds{1}\left(\,k=i\,\right)}\big)_{k\in{{I}}}$ means that only players $i$ enters. Note that although the cardinality of ${Y}$ is $2^{{\left\lVertI\right\rVert}}$ , the cardinality of ${Y}^*$ can be as low as ${\left\lVertI\right\rVert}+1$.

\[ass:binary game normality\]

1.  The shocks $\{{\mathbf{{e}}}_i\}_{i\in{{I}}}$ are i.i.d. standard normal random variables and independent of ${\mathbf{{x}}}$;

2.  $\beta_{0,i}({\mathbf{{w}}})\neq 0\:{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}$ for all $i\in{{I}}$;

3.  For every ${w}\in{W}$, the support of ${\mathbf{{z}}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}={w}$, ${Z}_{{w}}$, contains an open ball.

Assumption \[ass:binary game normality\] is a parametric restriction on the distribution of payoffs. It is satisfied by the parametrization used in @BHR and @ciliberto09.

I consider three complete information equilibrium/solution concepts: (i) minimax play, (ii) "collusive" behavior, and (iii) rationalizability. Under minimax solution concept every player picks the action that maximizes her minimum possible payoff. Under "collusive" behavior players play the outcome that maximizes the sum of individual profits. Under rationalizability players play any action that survives iterated strict dominance elimination. The most commonly used solution concept of Nash equilibrium is nested within rationalizability. Hence, all identification results that are derived under rationalizability are valid for Nash equilibrium (both in pure and mixed strategies).

These three solution concepts have different implications for identification. For instance, in the two player case, if players display "collusive" behavior, then there is no hope of separate identification of "competition" effects $\delta_{0,i,j}$. At best, one can identify $\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,1}$. Fortunately, it is possible to distinguish between these three models up to $\beta_0(\cdot)$ since under Assumptions \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\] and \[ass:binary game normality\] I am able to nonparametrically recover ${h}_0$ up $\beta_0(\cdot)$.

(-4,-8)(10,6) (3,-7)<span>(a) minimax</span> (3,1)(8,5) (-2,-3)(3,1) (-2,1)(8,1) (3,-3)(3,5) <span> </span> (-4,1) (3,-4) (0.5,-1) (6,-1) (0,3) (5.5,3) <span> </span>

(-5,-8)(13,6) (3,-7)<span>(b) "collusion"</span> (6,2)(11,5) (-3,-3)(2,0) (-3,0)(2,0)(6,2)(6,5) (2,-3)(2,0)(6,2)(11,2) <span> </span> (-3,2)(6,2) (6,-3)(6,2) (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (8.5,3.5) (1,4) (7.5,-2) (-0.5,-1.5) <span> </span>

(-5,-8)(11,6) (3,-7)<span>(c) rationalizability</span> (2,0)(6,2) (6,2)(11,5) (-3,-3)(2,0) (-3,0)(6,0)(6,5) (2,-3)(2,2)(11,2) <span> </span> (-3,2)(6,2) (6,-3)(6,2) (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (8.5,3.5) (1,4) (7.5,-2) (-0.5,-1.5) (4,1)<span><span>mixture</span></span> <span> </span>

Figure \[fig:2player,all,main\] illustrates predictions in a two player binary game for different realizations of $v$ when $\delta_{0,1,2}<0$ and $\delta_{0,2,1}<0$. The thresholds $a_i,b_i,c_i$, $i=1,2$, are determined by $\alpha_{0,i}$ and $\delta_{0,i,j}$, $i,j=1,2$. If one can identify ${h}_0$ for two outcomes, say $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, then one can distinguish between all three equilibrium concepts as long as the following three conditions are satisfied. $$\begin{aligned}
    (a_1,a_2){^{{\sf T}}}&\neq (b_1,b_2){^{{\sf T}}}\quad(\text{minimax vs. collusion})\label{sep:mmvscol},\\
    (\tilde a_1,\tilde  a_2){^{{\sf T}}}&\neq (\tilde b_1,\tilde b_2){^{{\sf T}}}\quad(\text{minimax vs. rationalizability})\label{sep:mmvsrat},\\
    \dfrac{\tilde b_2-\tilde a_2}{\tilde b_1-\tilde a_1}&\neq \dfrac{b_2-a_2}{b_1-a_1}\quad(\text{rationalizability vs. collusion})\label{sep:colvsrat}.\end{aligned}$$ Conditions (\[sep:mmvscol\])-(\[sep:colvsrat\]) hold if $\delta_{0,1,2}^2({w})\neq \delta_{0,2,1}^2({w})$ for some ${w}\in{W}$. Thus, if I can identify the correct solution concept, then I can recover the threshold values. For instance, if I know that agents play rationalizable strategies, then I can identify $\tilde a_i, \tilde b_i$, $i=1,2$. Since $\tilde a_i=-\alpha_{0,i}$, and $\tilde b_i=-\alpha_{0,i}-\delta_{0,i,j}$, $i,j=1,2$, I also can identify $\alpha_0$ and $\delta_{0}$.

The above intuition generalizes to games with more than two players, more than two actions, and without any sign restrictions on $\delta_{0,i,j}$. The following result establishes identification in binary games.

\[prop:binary game\] Under Assumptions \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\] and \[ass:binary game normality\]

1.  If there exist $i,j\in{{I}}$, $i\neq j$, such that $\Pr(\delta_{0,i,j}^2({\mathbf{{w}}})\neq\delta_{0,j,i}^2({\mathbf{{w}}}))>0$, then one can determine whether players behave according to minimax play, "collusive" behavior, or rationalizability up to $\beta_{0}(\cdot)$;

2.  If players behave according to rationalizability, then $\alpha_0(\cdot)$ and $\delta_{0}(\cdot)$ are identified up to $\beta_{0}(\cdot)$;

3.  If players behave according to "collusive" behavior, then $\alpha_0(\cdot)$ and $\left\{\delta_{0,i,j}(\cdot)+\delta_{0,j,i}(\cdot)\right\}_{i\neq j\in{{I}}}$ are identified up to $\beta_{0}(\cdot)$;

4.  If players behave according to minimax play, then $\left\{\alpha_{0,i}(\cdot)+\min\{\delta_{0,i,j}(\cdot),0\}\right\}_{i\neq j\in{{I}}}$ are identified up to $\beta_{0}(\cdot)$.

Proposition \[prop:binary game\] states that if marginal effects of some excluded covariates on payoffs are known, then one can identify the solution concept, together with some (or sometimes all) payoff parameters. Assumption \[ass:binary game normality\](i) implies that the errors in payoffs are not correlated. I can allow for unknown variance covariance matrix $V$. In this case all objects in Proposition \[prop:binary game\] are identified up to $\beta_0(\cdot)$ and $V$.

Full identification in this binary game can be achieved if one can identify $\beta_0(\cdot)$. The standard identification-at-infinity argument requires existence of player-action-specific covariates that have full support (unbounded from above *and* below). However, the full support assumption is only needed to separately identify the intercepts of the mean utilities ($\alpha_{0}$ and $\delta_{0}$). In contrast, in order to identify $\beta_{0}$ one only needs to have player-action-specific covariates with unbounded support (e.g., unbounded from above only).[^19] In other words, full identification can be achieved in a substantially bigger set of applications (e.g., prices or income can potentially take arbitrary large positive values, but cannot be negative).[^20]

Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========

This paper shows that commonly used exclusion restrictions and parametric assumptions about the distribution of some unobservables may lead to identification in discrete outcome models. The proposed identification framework allows one to extend the results from a large literature that uses special covariates with full support to environments where such full-support covariates are not available.

The partial identification result can substantially decrease computational complexity of constructing confidence sets for partially identified parameters. For instance, the likelihood ratio statistic of @CTT is asymptotically $\chi^2$ distributed after profiling $\beta_0$ under the null hypothesis, since the model in this case is identified. Thus, there is no need to use bootstrap and one can take critical values from $\chi^2$ distribution.

Proofs {#app:proofs}
======

Proof of Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\]
---------------------------------------------------------

Fix some ${y}\in{Y}^*$ and ${w}\in{W}$ (for brevity I will drop ${w}$ in the notation below). Under Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] I have the following integral equation $$\forall {z}\in{Z}\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:\mu({y}|{z})=\int_{V}{h}({y}^*,v)dF_{v|z}(v|z).$$ Suppose that there exists ${h}$ with ${h}({y}^*,v)\neq{h}_0({y}^*,v)$ for all $v$ in some nonzero measure set $V'$ such that $$\forall {z}\in{Z}\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:\mu({y}|{z})=\int_{V}{h}({y}^*,v)dF_{v|z}(v|z)=\int_{V}{h}_0({y}^*,v)dF_{v|{z}}(v|{z}).$$ Which implies that the nonzero function ${h}({y},\cdot)-{h}_0({y},\cdot)$ integrates to $0$ for all $z\in{Z}'$. The latter contradicts to Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\]. The fact that the choice of ${y}$ and ${w}$ was arbitrary completes the proof.

Proof of Proposition \[prop:identification of beta\]
----------------------------------------------------

Note that Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] implies that ${h}_0$ is identified up to $\{\beta_{0,i}(\cdot),\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^{d_{v}}$. Hence, I only need to show that $\{\beta_{0,i}(\cdot),\beta_{1,i}(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^{d_{v}}$ is identified.

Fix some ${w}$, $i\in\{1,2,\dots,d_{v}\}$, $z_{2,-i}$, $z_{1,-i}$, and take ${y}^*$ from Assumption \[ass:support restriction\]. To simplify notation let $F_0:{{\mathds{R}}}\to{{\mathds{R}}}$ and $\eta:{{\mathds{R}}}^2\to{{\mathds{R}}}$ such that $$F_0(v_i)=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}^{d_v-1}}{h}_0(y^*,{w},v)\prod_{k\neq i}\dfrac{\phi\left(v_k/z_{2,k}-\beta_{0,k}({w})-\beta_{1,k}({w})z_{1,k}\right)}{z_{2,k}}dv_{k},$$ where $\phi(\cdot)$ is the standard normal p.d.f., and $\eta(z_{1,i},z_{2,i})=\mu({y}^*|{z},{w})$.

Assumptions \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] and \[ass:normal errors\] imply that $$\eta(z_{1,i},z_{2,i})=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}} F_0(v_i)\dfrac{\phi(v_i/z_{2,i}-\beta_{0,i}-\beta_{1,i}z_{1,i})}{z_{2,i}}dv_i,$$ After dropping index $i$ from the notation and some rearrangements I get $$\label{eq:rc 1}
\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}} F_0(t)\phi(t/z_{2}-\beta_{0}-\beta_{1}z_{1})dt,$$ where $\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})=z_2\eta(z_{1},z_{2})$.

Next, note that since $\phi''(x)=-\phi(x)-x\phi'(x)$ the following system of equations holds $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})&=-\beta_1\int F_0(t)\phi'(t/z_2-\beta_0-\beta_1z_1)dt,\\
\partial^2_{z_1^2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})&=\beta^2_1\int F_0(t)\phi''(t/z_2-\beta_0-\beta_1z_1)dt
=-\beta^2_1\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})-\beta_1(\beta_0+\beta_1z_1)\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_1,z_2)-\\
&-\beta_1^2\int tF_0(t)\phi'(t/z_2-\beta_0-\beta_1z_1)dt/z_2;\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z_2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})&=-\int F_0(t)t\phi'(t/z_2-\beta_0-\beta_1z_1)dt/z_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^2_{z_1^2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})&=-\beta^2_1\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})-\beta_1(\beta_0+\beta_1z_1)\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_1,z_2)+\beta_1^2z_2\partial_{z_2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2});\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\beta_0}{\beta_1}=\dfrac{z_2\partial_{z_2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})-\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}{\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}-z_1 -\dfrac{\partial^2_{z^2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}{\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}\dfrac{1}{\beta_1^2}.    \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\beta_0/\beta_1$ is identified up to $\beta^2_1$. Moreover, the last equality implies that $\beta_1^2$ is identified if for some $z_2$ and $z_1$ $$\partial_{z_1}\left(\dfrac{\partial_{z_1^2}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}{\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})}\right)\neq0.$$ Suppose this is not the case. That is, for all $z_2$ and $z_1$ $$\partial^2_{z_1^2}\left(\log(\partial_{z_1}\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2}))\right)=0.$$ The latter would imply that either $$\tilde\eta(z_{1},z_{2})=K_1(z_2)e^{K_2(z_2)z_1}+K_3(z_2)$$ or $$\tilde\eta(c,z)=K_4(z_2)z_1+K_3(z_2)$$ for some functions $K_i(\cdot)$, $i=1,2,3,4$. Since it is assumed that $\tilde\eta(\cdot,z_2)=z_2\eta(\cdot,{z}_2)$ is neither exponential nor affine function, I can conclude that $\beta^2_1$ is identified (hence, ${\left\lvert\beta_1\right\rvert}$ is also identified). Hence, I identify $\beta_0/\beta_1$. If $\beta_0/\beta_1=0$, then the sign of $\beta_1$ is identified from Assumption \[ass:normal errors\](iv). If $\beta_0/\beta_1\neq 0$, then the sign of either $\beta_1$ or $\beta_0$ is identified from Assumption \[ass:normal errors\](iv). Knowing the sign of, say, $\beta_0$ and $\beta_0/\beta_1$ identifies $\beta_1$ and $\beta_0$.

Proof of Propositions \[prop:random coefficients\] and \[prop:bundle\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(i). Note that under Assumption \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\].(ii) there exists $z_2$ with some open neighbourhood such that $z_{2,y}=z_{2,{y}'}$ for all ${y},{y}'\in{Y}$. Let $${\mathbf{v}}_1=-{\mathbf{z}}_{2,1}(\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1)\:{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}.$$ Assumption \[ass:normal error random coef\] implies that Assumptions \[ass:normal errors\](i)-(iii) are satisfied for the above ${\mathbf{v}}_1$. Moreover, $$\Pr({\mathbf{y}}=0|{\mathbf{x}}={x})=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}}F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(-z_{2,1}(\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_1+{e}_1),\dots,-z_{2,1}(\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_1+{e}_1)|{w})\phi(e_1)de_1$$ identifies the sign of $\beta_{1}({w})$ since $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{w})$ is weakly monotone. Thus, Assumption \[ass:normal errors\](iv) is also satisfied.

Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] is satisfied for ${Y}^*=\{0\}$ and for $h(0,w,v)=F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(v,v,\cdot,v|{w})$. Assumption \[ass:support restriction\] is implied by Assumption \[ass:random coefficients support and exclusion\]. Hence, by Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] $\beta_0(\cdot)$ and $\beta_{1}(\cdot)$ are identified.

(ii). Since $\beta_0(\cdot)$ and $\beta_{1}(\cdot)$ are identified I can redefine the index $v$. Let $${\mathbf{v}}=\beta_0({\mathbf{{w}}})+\beta_{1}({\mathbf{{w}}}){\mathbf{{z}}}_1+{\mathbf{{e}}}_1\:{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a.s.}}}.$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr({\mathbf{y}}=0|{\mathbf{x}}={x})&=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}}F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(-z_{2,1}v,\dots,-z_{2,J}v|{w})\phi(v-\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_1)dv=\\
&=\int_{{{\mathds{R}}}}h(z_2,w,v)\phi(v-\beta_0({w})+\beta_{1}({w}){z}_2)dv\end{aligned}$$ Since assumption of Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] are satisfied I pointidentify $$h(z_2,w,v)=F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(-z_{2,1}v,\dots,-z_{2,Y}v|{w})$$ for all $z_2,w,v$. Note that since $v$ can take any value in ${{\mathds{R}}}$ for any direction $-z_2/{\left\lVertz_2\right\rVert}$ in the support of $z_2$ I can recover $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(g|w)$ for any $g$ such that $g=-z_2v/{\left\lVertz_2\right\rVert}$ for some $v\in{{\mathds{R}}}$. That is, I identify $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{w})$ over the set $$R_w=\left\{r\in{{\mathds{R}}}^J\8b7c:f320:99b9:690f:4595:cd17:293a:c069\:r=\lambda {z}_2,\: \lambda\in{{\mathds{R}}},\:{z}_2\in{Z}_{2|{w}}\right\}.$$

Proof of Proposition \[prop:binary game\]
-----------------------------------------

First, I fix some ${w}\in{W}$ and for notation simplicity I drop dependence on ${w}$. Since assumptions of Proposition \[prop:identification of h up to v\] are satisfied, I identify $$\Pr({\mathbf{{y}}}={y}|{\mathbf{v}}=\cdot)={h}_0({y},\cdot)$$ for all ${y}\in{Y}^*$. Since $v\in{{\mathds{R}}}^{{\left\lVertI\right\rVert}}$ and $v_i$ enters only payoffs of player $i$, I can make a payoff of any player arbitrary small ("close" to $-\infty$). Hence, under all solution concepts under consideration I can force any player to choose ${y}_i=0$. Take any two players $i\neq j$ and consider $${h}_{0,i,j}({y},v_i,v_j)=\lim_{v_k\to-\infty,k\in{{I}}\setminus\{i,j\}}{h}_0({y},v)$$ for all ${y}\in{Y}^*$ and $v_{i},v_j$. Note that ${h}_{0,i,j}$ corresponds to a two player binary game with payoffs $$\left[\alpha_{0,i} + \delta_{0,i,j}{y}_{j} + v_i\right]{y}_i$$ and $$\left[\alpha_{0,j} + \delta_{0,j,i}{y}_{i} + v_j\right]{y}_j.$$ Moreover, by Assumption \[ass:binary game exclusion and support\](ii), in this two player game at least two outcomes from $$\{(0,0),(1,0),(0,1),(1,1)\}$$ satisfy exclusion restrictions. Assume that $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ satisfy the exclusion restriction (the proof for any other case, e.g., $(0,0)$ and $(1,0)$, is almost the same).

To discriminate between solution concepts I analyze their predictions about outcomes $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$. Without loss of generality let $i=1$ and $j=2$.

Case 1. Suppose that agents are behaving according to minimax play. Then for any $\alpha_{0,1}$, $\alpha_{0,2}$, $\delta_{0,1,2}$, and $\delta_{0,2,1}$, the predictions about outcomes $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ depending on the value of $(v_1,v_2){^{{\sf T}}}\in{{\mathds{R}}}^2$ can be depicted as in Figure \[fig:2player,mm\], where $c_1=-\alpha_{0,1}-\min\{\delta_{0,1,2},0\}$ and $c_2=-\alpha_{0,2}-\min\{\delta_{0,2,1},0\}$

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (3,1)(8,5) (-2,-3)(3,1) (-2,1)(8,1) (3,-3)(3,5) <span> </span> (-4,1) (3,-4) (0.5,-1) (6,-1) (0,3) (5.5,3) <span> </span>

Case 2. Suppose that agents are behaving according to "collusive" solution concept. Then for any $\alpha_{0,1}$, $\alpha_{0,2}$, $\delta_{0,1,2}$, and $\delta_{0,2,1}$, the predictions about outcomes $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ depending on the value of $v\in{{\mathds{R}}}^2$ can be depicted as in figures \[fig:2player,col1\]-\[fig:2player,col2\], where $a_1=-\alpha_{0,1}$, $a_2=-\alpha_{0,2}$, $b_1=-\alpha_{0,1}-(\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,1})$, and $b_2=-\alpha_{0,2}-(\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,1})$.

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (6,2)(11,5) (-3,-3)(2,0) (-3,0)(2,0)(6,2)(6,5) (2,-3)(2,0)(6,2)(11,2) <span> </span> (-3,2)(6,2) (6,-3)(6,2) (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (8.5,3.5) (1,4) (7.5,-2) (-0.5,-1.5) <span> </span>

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (2,5)(2,2)(6,0)(11,0)(11,5) (-3,2)(2,2)(6,0)(6,-3)(-3,-3) (-3,2)(2,2)(6,0)(6,-3) (2,5)(2,2)(6,0)(11,0) <span> </span> (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (6,2) (-1,4) (9,-2) (1,0) <span> </span>

Case 3. Suppose that agents are playing rationalizable strategies. Then for any $\alpha_{0,1}$, $\alpha_{0,2}$, $\delta_{0,1,2}$, and $\delta_{0,2,1}$, the predictions about outcomes $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ depending on the value of $v\in{{\mathds{R}}}^2$ can be depicted as in figures \[fig:2player,ltr1\]-\[fig:2player,ltr4\], where $a_1=-\alpha_{0,1}$, $a_2=-\alpha_{0,2}$, $b_1=-\alpha_{0,1}-\delta_{0,1,2}$, and $b_2=-\alpha_{0,2}-\delta_{0,2,1}$.

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (2,0)(6,2) (6,2)(11,5) (-3,-3)(2,0) (-3,0)(6,0)(6,5) (2,-3)(2,2)(11,2) <span> </span> (-3,2)(6,2) (6,-3)(6,2) (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (8.5,3.5) (1,4) (7.5,-2) (-0.5,-1.5) (4,1)<span><span>multiple</span></span> <span> </span>

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (2,0)(6,2) (2,5)(2,2)(6,2)(6,0)(11,0)(11,5) (-3,2)(2,2)(2,0)(6,0)(6,-3)(-3,-3) (-3,2)(2,2)(2,0)(6,0)(6,-3) (2,5)(2,2)(6,2)(6,0)(11,0) <span> </span> (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (7,3) (-1,4) (9,-2) (0,-1) <span> </span>

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (2,0)(6,2) (2,5)(2,2)(6,2)(11,2)(11,5) (-3,0)(2,0)(6,0)(6,-3)(-3,-3) (-3,0)(6,0)(6,-3) (2,5)(2,2)(11,2) <span> </span> (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (7,3) (-1,4) (9,-2) (0,-1) <span> </span>

(-9,-6.5)(13,6) (-8.5,3)(-8.5,5) (-8.5,5.4)<span>${v}_2$</span> (-9,3.5)(-7,3.5) (-6.8,3.5)<span>${v}_1$</span> <span> </span> (2,0)(6,2) (6,5)(6,0)(11,0)(11,5) (-3,2)(2,2)(2,-3)(-3,-3) (-3,2)(2,2)(2,-3) (6,5)(6,0)(11,0) <span> </span> (-3.5,2) (-3.5,0) (6,-3.5) (1.5,-3.5) (8,3) (-1,4) (9,-2) (0,-1) <span> </span>

As a result, minimax is consistent with the data if and only if ${h}_{0,i,j}((0,0),\cdot)$ and ${h}_{0,i,j}((1,1),\cdot)$ match Figure \[fig:2player,mm\]. If ${h}_{0,i,j}((0,0),\cdot)$ and ${h}_{0,i,j}((1,1),\cdot)$ match Figure \[fig:2player,ltr3\] or Figure \[fig:2player,ltr4\], then only rationalizability can explain the data. There is still a possibility that ${h}_{0,i,j}((0,0),\cdot)$ and ${h}_{0,i,j}((1,1),\cdot)$ match Figure \[fig:2player,col1\] and Figure \[fig:2player,ltr1\], or Figure \[fig:2player,col2\] and Figure \[fig:2player,ltr2\]. Hence, one might think that rationalizability and "collusive" behavior both can explain the data. However, since in Proposition \[prop:binary game\](i) I assume that there exist two players such that $\delta_{0,i,j}^2\neq\delta_{0,j,i}^2$, the "multiplicity" region under rationalizability is never a square (the lengths of the region are $\|\delta_{0,1,2}\|$ and $\|\delta_{0,2,1}\|$). In contrast, under "collusive" behavior the "multiplicity" region is always a square (the lengths of the region are $\|\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,1}\|$ and $\|\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,1}\|$). Thus by analyzing these two "asymmetric" players I can determine the correct solution concept.

If I determined that the correct solution concept is minimax, then at most I can identify $\alpha_{0,1}+\min\{\delta_{0,1},0\}$ and $\alpha_{0,2}+\min\{\delta_{0,2},0\}$. If the correct solution concept is "collusive" behavior, then I can pointidentify $\alpha_{0,1}$, $\alpha_{0,2}$, and $\delta_{0,1,2}+\delta_{0,2,2}$. If agents play rationalizable strategies, then I can pointidentify all payoff parameters.

The result then follows from the fact that the choice of players $i,j$ and ${w}\in{W}$ was arbitrary.

[^1]: Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario.

[^2]: I would like to thank Roy Allen, Victor H. Aguiar, Tim Conley, Salvador Navarro, David Rivers, and Bruno Salcedo for useful comments and discussions.

[^3]: See, for example, @manski1985semiparametric, @matzkin1992nonparametric, @ichimura1998maximum, @lewbel1998semiparametric, @lewbel2000semiparametric, @tamer03, @matzkin2007heterogeneous, @berry2009nonparametric, @BHR, @gautier2013nonparametric, @fox2016nonparametric, @dunker2017nonparametric, @fox2017note, and @fox2018unobserved.

[^4]: Full support assumption is not necessary if it is assumed that latent variables have bounded support. In this case the support of the special covariates have to be large enough to cover the support of unobservables.

[^5]: For example, @manski1988identification, @heckman1990varieties, and @tamer03.

[^6]: Completeness of a family distribution is a well-known concept both in the Statistics and Econometrics literature. See for example @mattner1993some, @newey03, @chernozhukov2005iv, @blundell07, @chernozhukov2007instrumental, @hu2008instrumental, @andrews11, @darolles11, and @d2011completeness.

[^7]: Throughout the paper, deterministic vectors and functions are denoted by lower-case regular font Latin letters (e.g., ${x}$), random objects by bold letters (e.g., ${\mathbf{x}}$). Capital letters are used to denote supports of random variables (e.g., ${\mathbf{{x}}}\in{X}$). I denote the support of a conditional distribution of ${\mathbf{x}}$ conditional on ${\mathbf{z}}=z$ by $X_z$. Also, given a family $x = (x_k)_{k\in K}$ and a particular index value $k\in K$, I use the notation $x_{-k}$ for $(x_j)_{j\in K\setminus\{k\}}$. $F_{{\mathbf{{x}}}}(\cdot)$ ($f_{{\mathbf{{x}}}}(\cdot)$) and $F_{{\mathbf{{x}}}|{\mathbf{{z}}}}(\cdot|{z})$ ($f_{{\mathbf{{x}}}|{\mathbf{{z}}}}(\cdot|{z})$) denote the c.d.f. (p.d.f.) of ${\mathbf{{x}}}$ and ${\mathbf{{x}}}|{\mathbf{{z}}}=z$, respectively.

[^8]: Assumption that the variance of ${\mathbf{{e}}}_1$ is $1$ is a scale normalization.

[^9]: $\operatorname*{int}(Z_1)$ denotes the interior of $Z_1$.

[^10]: My analysis allows for countable sets of outcomes, but for the exposition purposes I focus on finite sets.

[^11]: I consider a model with unobserved heterogeneity that is not fully captured by ${\mathbf{v}}$ in Section \[subsec: multinomial\].

[^12]: For testability of the completeness assumptions see @canay13.

[^13]: For binary outcome models assuming that both outcomes satisfy the exclusion restriction is equivalent to assuming that just one of them does.

[^14]: Any distribution from the exponential family of distributions (e.g., the Gumbel distribution) would be sufficient for Assumption \[ass:bounded completeness general\] to hold.

[^15]: The results below hold even if utility maximizing behavior is not assumed as long as Assumption \[ass:exclusion restriction general\] is satisfied for at least one outcome.

[^16]: The model extends to the case when the random slope coeffcient is choice specific as in Assumption \[ass:normal errors\]. But in this case one would need to find more excluded covariates.

[^17]: In general, I can identify $F_{{\mathbf{g}}|{\mathbf{{w}}}}(\cdot|{w})$ over $R_{{w}}$ only.

[^18]: I work with binary action spaces for ease of exposition. The result can be extended to multiple players and actions games.

[^19]: See, for instance, @tamer03, @BHR, and @kashaev17.

[^20]: One may argue that it is always possible to transform any covariate into a covariate with full support. For instance, one can always treat logarithm of income or price as a covariate. Thus, when price goes to $0$ the logarithm of price goes to $-\infty$. However, in order to interpret linear parametrization of a payoff function in this case, one would need to explain why prices that are close to zero would lead to extremely negative (or positive) profits.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1811'}