Randomized structural models of credit spreads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose to randomize the initial condition of a generalized structural model, where the solvency ratio instead of the asset value is modeled explicitly. This initial randomization assumption is motivated by the fact that market players cannot observe the solvency ratio accurately. We find that positive short spreads can be produced due to imperfect observation of the risk factor. The two models we have considered, the Randomized Merton (RM) and the Randomized Black–Cox (RBC) models, both have explicit expressions for the Probability of Default (PD) and Credit Spreads (CS). In the RM model, both PD and LGD are found to be of order , as the maturity T approaches zero. It therefore provides an example that has no well-defined default intensity but still admits positive short spreads. In the RBC model, the positive short spread is generated through the positive default intensity of the model. Because explicit formulas are available, these two Randomized Structure (RS) models are easily implemented and calibrated to market data. This is illustrated by a calibration exercise on Credit Default Swap (CDS) spread data of the Ford Motor Corporation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".