Using Implied Probabilities to Improve Estimation with Unconditional Moment Restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the information content of implied probabilities (Back and Brown, 1993) to improve estimation in unconditional moment conditions models. We propose and evaluate two 3-step euclidian empirical likelihood estimators and their bias-correction versions for weakly dependant data. The first one is the time series extension of the 3S-EEL proposed by Antoine, Bonnal and Renault (2007). The second one is new and uses in contrast only an estimator of the weighting matrix at an efficient 2-step GMM estimator, while leaving unrestricted the Jacobian matrix. Both estimators use implied probabilities to achieve higher-order improvements relative to the traditional GMM estimator. A Monte-Carlo study reveals that the finite and large sample properties of the (bias-corrected) 3-step estimators compare very favorably to the existing approaches: the 2-step GMM and the continuous updating estimator. As an application, we re-assess the empirical evidence regarding the New Keynesian Phillips curve in the US.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".