MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125688599

Estimating Merton's Model by Maximum Likelihood with Survivorship Consideration

2004· article· en· W3125688599 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Gauthier, Sophia Zaanoun, Jin‐Chuan Duan, Jean‐Guy Simonato

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers du GERADSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207