MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125688599

Estimating Merton's Model by Maximum Likelihood with Survivorship Consideration

2004· article· en· W3125688599 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

VenueLes Cahiers du GERAD · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsMaximum likelihoodEstimatorPortfolioAsset (computer security)Volatility (finance)Principle of maximum entropyEconomicsContext (archaeology)StatisticsQuasi-maximum likelihoodMaximum likelihood sequence estimationActuarial scienceLikelihood functionMathematicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One critical difficulty in implementing Merton’s (1974) credit risk model is that the underlying asset value cannot be directly observed. The model requires the unobserved asset value and the unknown volatility parameter as inputs. The estimation problem is further complicated by the fact that typical data samples are for the survived firms. This paper applies the maximum likelihood principle to develop an estimation procedure and study its properties. The maximum likelihood estimator for the mean and volatility parameters, asset value, credit spread and default probability are derived for Merton’s model. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to address the survivorship issue as well as the first to apply the maximum likelihood method to credit risk assessment in a portfolio context. A Monte Carlo study is conducted to examine the performance of this maximum likelihood method. An application to real data is also presented.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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