---

name: geb-data-analysis description: Use when a Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) manuscript involves experimental data or numerical illustration — analyzing strategic-game experiments and building verified worked examples. Adapts analysis to GEB's game-theory nature, where data supports the theory rather than carrying a causal claim.

Data & Numerical Analysis (geb-data-analysis)

When to trigger

• You ran a lab/online game experiment and need to analyze choices and play paths
• You want numerical examples or simulations to illustrate a theorem
• A referee may question your experimental inference or example construction
• You are fitting a behavioral model (QRE, level-k, social preferences) to choices

How analysis works at GEB

GEB is primarily a theory journal that also publishes experimental and computational work advancing game theory. So data analysis here is usually in service of a strategic claim — does observed play match an equilibrium prediction, distinguish solution concepts, or illustrate a mechanism — rather than estimating a treatment effect for its own sake. Keep it lighter and tightly tied to the model.

A. Experimental game data

• Unit of observation = the session. Subjects within a session interact and are not independent; cluster standard errors at the independent-session level, or use session-level summaries for nonparametric tests.
• Describe play, then test. Report distributions of actions, convergence over rounds, and deviations from the predicted equilibrium before running tests.
• Match tests to the design. Wilcoxon/Mann–Whitney or permutation tests across sessions for treatment comparisons; mixed/random-effects models for repeated play.
• Behavioral structural fits. Quantal response equilibrium, level-k / cognitive hierarchy, or social-preference models — report fit and identification, and compare to the equilibrium benchmark.
• Power and pre-registration. Justify cells' sample sizes; reference any pre-analysis plan and report deviations. Under-powered interactive experiments are a standard referee objection.

B. Numerical examples & simulation (for theory papers)

• Examples illustrate, never substitute for, proofs. Use a solver (e.g., Gambit, nashpy) to exhibit the equilibria your theorem describes and to make an abstract construction concrete.
• Boundary / counterexamples. A clean numerical counterexample showing an assumption is necessary is high-value.
• Reproducible computation. Set and report seeds; pin solver and library versions; ship a script that regenerates every example and figure (see geb-replication-and-data-policy — sharing is encouraged but not required at GEB).

Anti-patterns

• Treating individual subjects as independent observations (ignoring session clustering)
• Presenting a few simulations as evidence a theorem is "probably true"
• Running treatment comparisons with no power justification
• A behavioral structural fit with no comparison to the equilibrium prediction
• Over-interpreting an experiment as a general causal claim — GEB rewards the strategic insight

Evidence pass for Games and Economic Behavior

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.

• Do the pass: Audit the research design before polishing prose: unit of analysis, comparison set, uncertainty, sensitivity, missingness, and reproducibility must be visible.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Mode】experimental data / numerical examples / both
【(Exp) clustering】session-level? [Y/N] — tests used
【(Exp) power & pre-reg】justified / referenced? [Y/N]
【(Exp) structural fit】model + comparison to equilibrium? [Y/N / NA]
【(Num) role】illustrates which result; counterexample? 
【Reproducibility】seeds + pinned versions + run_all? [Y/N]
【Next step】geb-tables-figures