MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172812884 · doi:10.1515/snde-2023-0052

Quasi-Maximum Likelihood for Estimating Structural Models

2025· article· en· W3172812884 on OpenAlexafffund
Malek Ben-Abdellatif, Hatem Ben‐Ameur, Rim Chérif, Tarek Fakhfakh

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersCanadian Statistical Sciences InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEconometricsSeniorityBankruptcyStructural estimationAsset (computer security)Likelihood functionEconomicsMaximum likelihoodValue (mathematics)Markov chainEquity (law)DebtBellman equationPaymentActuarial scienceMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical economicsFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of the structural model poses a major challenge because its underlying asset (the firm asset value) is not directly observable. We consider an extended structural model that accommodates alternative underlying Markov processes, arbitrary debt payment schedules, several seniority classes, multiple intangible assets, and various intangible corporate securities. We derive the likelihood function given the observed time series of the firm equity values. Then, we use dynamic programming to solve the model and, simultaneously, extract the associated time series of the firm asset values (the pseudo-observations). Finally, the likelihood function is approximated and optimized, which results in the quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) estimates of the model's unknown parameters. QML is highly flexible and effective. To assess our construction, we perform an empirical investigation, highlight the credit-spread puzzle, and discuss a partial remedy via jumps and bankruptcy costs.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Nonlinear Dynamics and EconometricsSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207