Slashdot Mirror
Machine Learning Could Solve Economists' Math Problem
An anonymous reader writes: Noah Smith argues that the field of economics frequently uses math in an unhealthy way. He says many economists don't use math as a tool to describe reality, but rather as an abstract foundation for whatever theory they've come up with. A possible solution to this, he says, is machine learning: "In other words, econ is now a rogue branch of applied math. Developed without access to good data, it evolved different scientific values and conventions. But this is changing fast, as information technology and the computer revolution have furnished economists with mountains of data. As a result, empirical analysis is coming to dominate econ. ... [Two economists pushing this change] stated that machine learning techniques emphasized causality less than traditional economic statistical techniques, or what's usually known as econometrics. In other words, machine learning is more about forecasting than about understanding the effects of policy. That would make the techniques less interesting to many economists, who are usually more concerned about giving policy recommendations than in making forecasts."
Isn't this the same as having economists doing the work, just faster? You are still using past data to predict the future,
>> the field of economics frequently uses math in an unhealthy way
Yikes, if you think that's bad, you'd better not look at the "social" sciences then.
Many aspects of economics, at least "real world" economics, are not based on logic but on emotions like greed or fear. As a result, they are difficult to describe with rigorous mathematical models. Machine learning may in fact be a more accurate way to predict such things, but as the old saying goes past performance may not guarantee future results, and since all machine learning algorithms have to go on are past performance, they too will be prone to surprises and the quirks of human nature.
Putting that stuff near "science" or "maths" is an insult to those fields of endeeavour.
Which economists predicted 2007/2008?
He says many economists don't use math as a tool to describe reality, but rather as an abstract foundation for whatever theory they've come up with.
Surely these aren't mutually exclusive; don't physicists use mathematics as an abstract foundation for whatever theory they've come up with to describe reality? And just like in physics, assumptions are made. The difference seems to be that while physicists are aware that their models are incomplete, economists (or, more likely, journalists, politicians, and the people who actually apply these models) etc. disregard these caveats and claim that this model describes the entire financial system in a few differential equations. The model works fairly well for a while, then something comes along to invalidate the assumptions and everyone is shocked when the theory collapses.
ORLY? Linguistics uses math in a much healthier way than economics.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
who are usually more concerned about giving policy recommendations than in making forecasts
What? Is this implying that they want to make suggestions about what to do in the present and future to change the future without being the least bit concerned with forecasting the future? I don't think I would listen to anyone who wants to make important changes/suggestions without them being very concerned with attempting to predict the future of the situation at hand.
Also,
the field of economics frequently uses math in an unhealthy way
As an EE having taken many econ classes, I can wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
Let's be clear: how you think economics is defined by your ideology, and most economics is bad math with unfounded assumptions arriving at un-supportable conclusions.
So, if you're the Chinese government and think you can manipulate markets to suit your beliefs, you'll be horribly mistaken. Likewise, if you subscribe to the ridiculous Austrian School of economics (which refuses to have empirical evidence), then you likewise believe your theory is so perfect it doesn't need to be validated.
Nobody has ever had any proof for "trickle down economics" other than they think it should work and it suits their ideology, but 30 years of actual real world data mostly shows it's utterly failed to work as planned.
Economics is useful to look at what came before, and understand some limited problems ... but in general many people believe once you try to use that to predict things, or influence outcomes you get into a level of complete bullshit and voodoo. Time and time again when people try to take action or set policy based on economics, it fails utterly.
And until economics is based on anything other than sketchy math and ideology, it can never be a real science or have much more meaning than something people use to defend their ideology. But since people never look at economics separated from their ideology, it will never happen.
Economics is mostly a tool to make it look like the things you believe should happen, based on how you want the system to behave, have any actual relationship with the outcomes you expect to achieve with policy. The problem is that is a lie.
But it sure as hell can't be called an objective science. First you have to believe in the ideology and then you believe in the methodology.
The problem is people like to believe that the ideology is objective reality, and that their observations are in fact rules. And that simply isn't true.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Via the Efficient Market Hypothesis: I can see this quickly degenerating in to the same sort of GPU/FPGA/ASIC arms race as altcoin/Bitcoin mining.
The equilibrium will settle in at the information advantage value vs the processing power required($$$) trending towards an asymptotic diminishing return(determined by the GFLOPS/Watt at X electricity cost).
Pretty soon the entire world will be buying up GPUs in order to pay tribute to the Tulip gods.
machine learning is more about forecasting than about understanding the effects of policy
And forecasting depends on some underlying behavioral model. Problem is, people keep changing the model. They try to anticipate or short markets to gain an advantage and very rapidly, this new response to market conditions replaces the previous behavior, invalidating previous relationships.
Have gnu, will travel.
Charlatans, that the so called 'main street economists' are will not go away with their nonsensical ideas about the need to 'guide' the economy in any way and their ways of 'guiding' the economy is what leads to the economic collapse. Of-course the economists are just mouthpieces of the government and of the Federal reserve, whose entire job is to justify the actions that politicians want to take anyway, actions that promise re-election rather than actions that promise a sound economy and a sound society.
A sound economy relies on the invisible hand of the market forces, directing scarce resources and re-allocating mis-allocated resources (and resources do get mis-allocated all the time, but in a free market economy the mis-allocation leads to lack of profits that eventually leads to ceasing of that particular activity and for a great reason n - resources that are mis-allocated hurt the economy).
Government routinely pushes policy designed to help politicians to get votes and not policy that makes any economic sense at all.
Money cannot be printed by government or pseudo-government agencies on the whim of a politician, who is promising 'free stuff'. Taxes on income and wealth are destructive to the economy because they reduce scarce savings and prevent economic activity from taking place. Government doesn't actually have anything of any value on its own, everything it doles out it has to take away first, and government doesn't "ask" for your taxes, government has guns.
Government economic policy is economic policy of a highway robber and the main stream economists are active cheerleaders to this highway robbery.
If actual empirical math model is created and it is used to forecast what will happen based on the money allocation, it may lead to a huge clash between the forces of evil (governments) and forces of science, and I don't think in that battle forces of science will win, because the mob chooses the evil, since the evil promises something for nothing.
Bernie Sanders is a force for evil, but so is Clinton, so is any politician who promises to do something for nothing, to take away from somebody to give to somebody else.
You can't handle the truth.
I'll fixed that for you:
Yikes, if you think that's bad, you'd better not look at the social "sciences" then.
Tweek a formula to make crappy Technical Analysis look like the holy grail to wheel in the suckers. A.I. trading today is about frontrunning your customers, why would traders expose themselves with a scientifically based tool?
... would be for them to establish sound and sane epistemological foundations for their works. For example they could stop trying to assert they can model human behavior, and instead limit themselves to observations of economical choices made by real, live humans only.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
My understanding of the difference is that this produces somewhat testable results WITHOUT requiring a theory of how and why those effects occur.
To give an extremely simplified example, assume that a certain coin is flipped every day. For the past 20,000 days, it has always come up heads. (Obviously not a fair coin). The machine will predict that it will probably come up heads tomorrow. Traditional economic theory will try to understand WHY it keeps coming up heads before making predictions. That's the first difference.
The requirement for a theory that explains how and why economic effects occur also means that the theory is subject to subject to be supported or decried based on political considerations or other irrelevant factors. A system which accurately predicts what will happen without comment on politically sensitive policy questions may be useful.
I agreee 100%. The whole POINT of making policy recommendations is to choose the policy that provides the most benefit. Whether that benefit is to stabilize markets or reduce unemployment you have to PREDICT THE EFFECT of the policy. Say your policy recommendation is based on a specific philosophy of economics, the assumption is that philosophy best models and can best predict future behavior. If you aren't interested in how those policies affect outcome then you just have your head up your ass like a libertarian.
That would make the techniques less interesting to many economists, who are usually more concerned about giving policy recommendations than in making forecasts.
Decision Maker: The opposition and the polls are beating me up over the jobs numbers. Give me some policy advice, economist.
Economist: I think you should implement this policy.
Decision Maker: Will it improve the jobs numbers?
Economist: I have no idea what the outcome of the policy will be, I just made some stuff up.
Isn't the entire point of policy recommendations to achieve some kind of desired goal? Even if the policy recommendation is based on pure ideology, usually the alignment with the ideology is based on some notion that the ideology produces the best outcomes. There may not be data to prove any of it, but it's not like the policy was selected because it has a cool logo or you like Hayek's suits or something.
Well liguistics being just another form of math, this is unsurprising. It's barely a social science- only because without language social constructs cease to exist.
Linguistics is just assembly math for higher level communication.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
economists don't use math as a tool to describe reality
They can't. economic realities predicated upon hysteresis or long term analytical trends are constructed with touchstones of bogus equations founded on wild conjecture. a sizeable component of many modern economies are unquantifiable, having been intentionally obscured by human interest. Why did the fed hold reserve rates? what is the nature of a cyclical economy when infused with more than one trillion dollars of emergency funding to prevent an uncodifiable collapse? what factor or theorem transmogrifies and determines the value of liabilites as assets? So much of what economics seeks to do is undermined by the fact that most economies work by the rules of human nature. the Federal reserve practically has its own language to communicate change or lack thereof, and it is intentionally designed to avoid concrete resolution or effable transmission of meaningful information.
Marx as an economist is one of the few to provide a very broad overview of the concept as it applies to modern capitalism. he describes the capitalist economy as a cycle similar to a bird with a broken wing. it builds, booms, collapses and in turn affords a widely acceptable cycle of observed failure. From the great depression to the lincoln savings and loan scandal to the United States Failed leveraged buyout of United Airlines to the dotcom bubble and finally the great recession of 2007 we've all grown to accept this cycle as normative.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That's because economics is a blend of math and psychology. The math assumes a rational actor with all the necessary information. The psychology is rarely rational and involved decision making influenced by the decisions of others, highly varied interpretations of historical events which preclude deterministic mechanisms, and imperfect information viewed through personal biases and strengths. Inaccuracy results from improperly weighting the relative value of these two in economic outcomes and from difficulty in modeling the psychological elements. Bad math is the least of the challenges facing economics.
To illustrate, the summary could easily be restated this way:
"...field of [data science] frequently uses [machine learning] in an unhealthy way. Many [data scientists] don't use [machine learning] as a tool to describe reality, but rather as an abstract foundation for whatever theory they've come up with."
Replacing "math" with "machine learning" isn't going to make a difference if the practitioners don't understand how to use it properly. Machine learning models are much more subtle and complex than simple mathematical models and very easy to misuse. To use them properly, you really need a much stronger understanding of the math behind them than most people have.
See the entire field of psychology and most GWAS studies for an example of where over reliance on (simple) models can get you into a lot of trouble.
-Chris
I think you mean the other Social Sciences since Economics is one. It's the main reason the Left likes to trash the discipline as unscientific (whilst championing popular figures like Stiglitz, Krugman and Piketty). In truth they're all scientific: in part. They're equally comprised of philosophy.
Austrian economists have always discounted the use of math in economics because it is too complex and self referential, ie the things you are modelling can read your theories and adjust their behavior. Sounds like machine learning may finally bridge that gap, and take us out of the era of Voodoo Economics and into one where human action in aggregate is accurately modeled beyond the most basic "this policy will increase/decrease capital investment" used by the Austrians. Ever since I learned about AI and the potential upcoming technological Singularity, I have suspected that this will be the most important application of an ASI, because once you can accurately model human behavior on a massive scale, you can devise non-intrusive interventions a la the Butterfly Effect to maximize freedom and prosperity for everyone. Sort of like when something bad happens to you, like your family dies in a fiery car crash, or when a baby gets cancer, and some idiot tells you that "God has a plan". Well, now there is actually a real plan, and one that's actually GOOD for everyone involved.
Even if it doesn't run that far, hopefully this will finally bury the idiot Keynesian school. A school, I might add, that couldn't even COMPREHEND THE EXISTENCE of stagflation, nevermind model/predict it and hence should have been thrown into the dustbin of history in the 70's when it first appeared. Too bad it is so useful for justifying the government's eternal urge to spend more of the people's money buying votes.
Don't drink and derive!
Sounds like Michael Chrichton's ranting about aliens and global warming, pointing out that a lot of our mathematical equations are [Unknowable] = [Bunch of unknowable variables multiplied together]. The Drake Equation, for example, says there's as much a chance of us finding aliens or aliens existing or whatever based on how many planets there are, how many are inhabited by aliens, etc., just a pile of quantities we can't know.
I actually considered hanging lampshades on this when I described wealth and buying power--pointing out that certain relationships exist, but that they don't imply any ability to calculate any sort of meaningful metric.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Machine learning won't 'solve' the economics problem (a problem which the TFA doesn't really define). The problem with math in economics is that economic time-series is extremely chaotic -- a practically infinitesimal change in initial conditions vastly changes the outcome of the system. Hey, remember how we can only predict the weather out 15 days *max* (using big ass supercomputers along with lots of soil moisture content, temperature, wind and other seasonal data)?... well the weather is just one of the tiny effects that propagate through economic time-series. Don't forget about psychology, trading strategies, oh yeah, and the fact that people are actively trying to trick your trading strategies into losing money.
No, machine learning is only natural to takeover a human's limited computational ability, but it doesn't solve the problem of unpredictability. In fact, it will make the market harder to predict for joe blow.
That said, TFA did rightly point out that economics is filled with lots of bullshit conjecture and over-rigorized high-brow nonsense.
Economics is not scientific in the mathematical sense. It takes no account of the irrational human animal.
That's entirely and demonstrably untrue. In 2002 the Nobel prize was awarded to Daniel Kahneman "for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty". Much recent economic study has been explicitly examining the irrationality of people and their economic decisions. Economics is a science but it is one where it is challenging to design experiments and so much of the data comes from empirical analysis.
That is why it is more like the weather than mathematics.
Mathematics is a language to describe things. Economics isn't a branch of mathematics any more or less than any other science. It is however a bit like studying the weather in that the forecasting models are trying to make predictions about a very complex and chaotic system. The models get their data from historical real world events but perfect accuracy in the models is nigh unacheivable.
Once upon a time it was 'political economy'. That means policies to benefit one's values and interests, which is what we get from economists. That's not really useful. Fools can figure out which policy of several supports their own beliefs and vested interests, that's what voters do in elections.
Forecasting and explanatory models that actually tended to fit reality, going both backwards and forwards, would be very useful. High time.
Economics could only be considered a social science to the extent it deals with the interactions of trade between people, and the objective results of people with different subjective desires.
Economics can also be one of the hardest sciences there is, on par with kinematics: Economics invented game theory, and has many mathematical theorems, like the Law of Supply and Demand, the Law of Comparative Advantage, and the Black-Scholes model.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Yeah, Economists (and I'm an avid amateur) use a language that is not precise to describe behavior that is not able to be precisely measured. Take the word "rational" for instance: Rationality in psychological terms implies something on the order of optimization in general, while rational in economic terms is optimization for individual behavior. Yes, an individual may change to the faster moving line or lane, but that only has a cumulative effect on the mass of behavior, and does not add to strategy as a whole. Individual behavior does not advance knowledge of the subject; it is only the accumulated effects of individual behaviors that reveal Economic behavior and may reveal Economic principles.
The closest thing we have in in tech terms is "emergent systems" and economics actually closely resembles an experiment in complex systems.
The other imprecision is to generalize about Economists. Some Economists are idealists or philosophers and deal in theory only, trying to determine "the way things should be." Some Economists are technologists and are mostly concerned about using the information to manipulate outcomes. (Many negative effects are a result of Economists who do both of these!) Somewhere in between these two types is the Economic Scientist whose main concern is finding out what is going on, proving that it is valid, and who can use the information to actually predict Economic behavior. It seems to me that machine learning actually serves the Economic Scientist.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Putting that stuff near "science" or "maths" is an insult to those fields of endeeavour.
Not any more than meteorology or ecology or geology or any other field that gets its data from complex and chaotic empirical sources.
Which economists predicted 2007/2008?
Quite a few of them. Some didn't get their timing right but I can introduce you to economists and financial analysts that I know personally that were warning about a likely crash in the housing market and knock on effects as far back as 2003. They obviously couldn't predict the exact outcome because that is basically impossible in a large chaotic system. (especially when you cannot perfectly model the initial state)
People have this naive idea that economists ought to be able to predict the future perfectly or it isn't a science. Predicting the recession of 2008 was something akin to a geologist trying to predict exactly when and where an earthquake will hit. There are too many unknowns to make anything better than a probabilistic analysis. They can tell you there is an X% chance of an event happening within time period Y. Asking for something more accurate than that is simply unrealistic expectations.
The difference seems to be that while physicists are aware that their models are incomplete, economists (or, more likely, journalists, politicians, and the people who actually apply these models) etc. disregard these caveats and claim that this model describes the entire financial system in a few differential equations.
Economists don't disregard the limitations of their models at all. If you would spend some time speaking with actual economists (I have) you'd quickly find out that they are exquisitely aware of the limitations of their models.
Where things tend to go off the rails is when financial analysts with a profit motive try to stretch the economists models beyond what they can actually explain. A great example of this is Long Term Capital Management which was described in the book When Genius Failed. They took some models with a long list of assumptions and limitations and tried to apply the models to areas well beyond the limitations of the model. Early success begat hubris which led to greed and ultimately their downfall.
I agree. But the basis or driver of these theorems is still social/psychological given the need for narrowly defined rational self-interest.
And all the breakthroughs are being done by psycholgists like Dan Kahneman who are showing that people and markets are anything but rational. The Austrian and Chicago schools are turning out to be mostly wrong.
It seems most economists have 'cet par' on the tips of their forked tongues. Ceteris Paribus meaning 'other things being equal', which is rarely ever true in meat space.
However, to truly model economist behavior, I think quantum machines should be used, so they can offer two conflicting opinions at the exact same time.
That is they appear to work without giving you a deep understanding of they work. I am talking about neural networks and their most recent incarnation in deep learning. I would consider this approach to be engineering rather than science.
Economics is not a science, no matter how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves that it is.
A science is a formal method of examining and describing the world around us. This method requires hypothesis regarding empirical data which are testable and repeatable. This process is called the scientific method. Economics follows the scientific method and any field of study that follows the scientific method can accurately be called a science. Ergo economics is a science by definition. Some sciences are easier to study than others but that has no bearing on their validity as a science.
That's not a real Nobel prize either, it's a self-aggrandizing fraud that was purchased by the banking industry in an attempt to convince the public that their twisted methods were legitimate and not just common crime.
Since the Nobel organization recognizes the Economics prize it is as real as any other Nobel prize. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
Faced Painting Homer Alarmists Mods at it again.
What's the matter? You pussies can't stand for you errors to be pointed out?
You must be a Climate Scientist.
and many saw it coming long before it folded.
Hell, I saw it coming. Like I said, not an economist and thus I wasn't about to try to peg when it'd happen. For that matter, I didn't even know how bad it was underneath.
My metric was incredibly simple: comparing median salary of home purchasers with median home price. When that started getting out of whack, combined with news like how the average home purchaser was in more debt than ever(student loans), my realization was that the prices were unsustainable.
I ended up buying a $15k house and living through the bursting in it. Then sold it for $15k.
I knew it was in beanie-baby territory when banks were handing out loans because they were counting on things like even if they didn't get ONE payment from the borrower they'd still get their money back in appreciation by the time they repossessed it and sold it. Even as the incomes of those that would like to move into said homes was stagnant.
I don't read AC A human right
If economics involves a method for the distribution of wealth I simply do not believe that the US or many other nations actually have an economy at all. In essence in the US the economy is a dog pile of nonsense. There is no system of logic behind it at all. We can compare it to our justice system. Supposedly justice has to do with a code of behavior and the application of judgement and remedies to various situations designed to support that code. But that is not the truth. Our laws are nothing more than a ritual that in reality does nothing more than support the combined prejudices of the public. Economics seems to act as some sort of justification for a totally irrational system in which people rarely get what they deserve out of a system. Economics can allow either the public, the government or both to act in totally immoral ways. For example if the nation needed a railroad then it became ok to apply starvation wages and brutal working conditions because supposedly economic demanded cheap labor.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. - Friedrich August von Hayek
Instead of A coin flipped for 20000 days, they take data on... say... 100 coins.
VARIOUS data. Weight, color, date on coin, number of scratches, source of coin, air temperature, does flipper of coins like dogs or cats...
Then they flip those coins for some number of times and write all that data down too.
Including the sequence of results - heads, heads, heads, tails, tails, heads...
They get a BIG pile of data to mine.
Then, and this is a clincher, they "Distinguish between causal effects and attributes".
In other words - they come up with a theory of "what" influences the results and "how".
They don't go into why just yet - they only look for nice regressions between their independent variables and their dependent ones.
Anyway, now they have all that data and outcomes based on various attributes.
They can cherry pick those results they like and build their coin-flipping models based on attributes which fit to desired results.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc + confirmation bias? Nah man... Regression analysis.
Then, based on that, they build a model and plug into it new data from a new sample of coins.
Then they dump all that into regression trees and go looking for "predictions" of results they would like to see - thus providing the "why".
http://www.nasonline.org/progr...
I.e. Make a lot of guesses "based on" previous "maybes" - then pick ones you like.
Now... someone get me a 20-something blonde female, dog lover with a degree in flower arrangement and a 1956 Australian penny with a bluish-greenish tint.
My model predicts a 50% chance of getting either head or tail under those conditions.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Economics is a subset of history, data from the past, and therefore it is based entirely on correlations. There can be no cause and effect derived from correlations, so 'science' is not possible. Science requires experiments, controlled for 1 variable at a time.
History has worked very far toward understanding dealing with real-world historical data, read "Historian's Fallacies" by David Hackett Fischer. Economics is not even close in its rigor.
Big data is just 'big correlations'. Not science.
I've been reading a lot of economics the last few years, trying to figure out why it's so full of shit.
It seems mainstream (neoclassical/keynesian synthesis) economists believe in mathematics but don't believe in reality.
Their close kin the Austrians don't believe in mathematics either.
They both believe economies are in equilibrium, this is a fundamental assumption, and other nonsense like 'people behave rationally', 'people have perfect information' etc.
These are not a priori assumptions like a physicist might make but come out of their theories and without which they do not work. This does not phase them.
Along the way I have discovered System Dynamics, a way of modeling complex dynamic systems which seems well suited to studying economics. There is an economist using this, he has designed his own System Dynamics software called Minsky, and unlike Krugman, Rogoff et al. he makes a lot of sense.
His name is Steve Keen and you can get Minsky from here: Windows, Mac or here: Linux.
He has an excellent book: Debunking Economics and you will find him on YouTube too.
Hmmm. Not necessarily. You can apply economics to any situation where multiple, scarce resources must be allocated to autonomous consumers based on some criteria.
Suppose I have resources A and B. To accomplish task Y I'd need 2 A or 3 B; and to accomplish task Z I'd need 3 A and 5 B.
It doesn't matter if A/B is RAM/HDD or doctors/nurses. Economics says that, even though A is better at both tasks than B, it'll actually be cheapest to deploy B to task Y if and deploy A to task Z.
It's really no different than saying to get from point M to N, I'd need 10 Joules of energy based on some physics calculations.
Human economics happens to be the hardest because because there's no rational basis for our wants, they're completely arbitrary and can't be measured. I'm not sure if there's a name that makes a distinction between human wants and other wants, though.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Black-Scholes is a perfect example of the problem discussed in the article: mathematically it is a nice model, but it fails to describe the economy correctly. Search for "Long-Term Capital Management" if you want to know how well Scholes and Merton did in the real world. I bet that neural networks can do a better job.
And came up with Noam Chomsky, whose math is as sophisticated, as consistent, and as relevant to any experimental results as his politics..
Economics is a subset of history, data from the past, and therefore it is based entirely on correlations. There can be no cause and effect derived from correlations, so 'science' is not possible. Science requires experiments, controlled for 1 variable at a time.
So there's a big difference between "observational science" and "historical science"...
Ken Ham, is that you?
How are human wants arbitrary? We want sex with attractive people, good food, luxury, entertainment etc..., all defined by our biology...not arbitrary at all.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
The reasons why we have certain desires don't have any impact the actual laws of economics.
Also, none of those are necessarily true. They might be true for 90-99.99% of the population, but not as a matter of definite fact.
Wonder what the public key field is for?