MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968940936 · doi:10.1080/00137910600705210

Valuing Real Capital Investments Using The Least-Squares Monte Carlo Method

2006· article· en· W1968940936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Engineering Economist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceMathematical optimizationEconometricsEconomicsMathematicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently developed least-squares Monte Carlo (LSM) method provides a simple and efficient technique for valuing American-type options. The proposed method is applicable to the cases of compound real options, like the other numerical techniques such as finite difference and lattice methods, with the additional advantage to handle easily the cases of multiple uncertain state variables with different and complex stochastic processes. With this advantage, the LSM method is not only efficient for valuing multi-factor American options, but it can also be extended for valuing complex real investments having many embedded real options and involving multiple uncertain state variables. This article examines the applicability of the LSM method in valuing real capital investments. Two valuation examples have been provided to test the efficiency of the proposed method in both the valuation and the decision-making processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it