Using Implied Probabilities to Improve Estimation with Unconditional Moment Restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we investigate the use of implied probabilities (Back and Brown, 1993) to improve estimation in unconditional moment conditions models. Using the seminal contributions of Bonnal and Renault (2001 Bonnal, H., Renault, E. (2001). Minimal Chi-Square Estimation with Conditional Moment Restrictions, Document de Travail, CESG, September 2001. [Google Scholar]) and Antoine et al. (2007 Antoine, B., Bonnal, H., Renault, E. (2007). On the efficient use of the informational content of estimating equations: Implied probabilities and euclidean empirical likelihood. Journal of Econometrics 138(2):461–487.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), we propose two three-step Euclidian empirical likelihood (3S-EEL) estimators for weakly dependent data. Both estimators make use of a control variates principle that can be interpreted in terms of implied probabilities in order to achieve higher-order improvements relative to the traditional two-step GMM estimator. A Monte Carlo study reveals that the finite and large sample properties of the three-step estimators compare favorably to the existing approaches: the two-step GMM and the continuous updating estimator.
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 | 0.019 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".