MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198917765 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12556

Approximate maximum likelihood estimation for one‐dimensional diffusions observed on a fine grid

2021· article· en· W3198917765 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin W. Lu, Phillip J. Paine, Simon Preston, Andrew Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorStochastic differential equationApplied mathematicsTaylor seriesLikelihood functionGaussianProbability density functionGridEstimation theoryMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider a one‐dimensional stochastic differential equation that is observed on a fine grid of equally spaced time points. A novel approach for approximating the transition density of the stochastic differential equation is presented, which is based on an Itô‐Taylor expansion of the sample path, combined with an application of the so‐called ‐expansion. The resulting approximation is economical with respect to the number of terms needed to achieve a given level of accuracy in a high‐frequency sampling framework. This method of density approximation leads to a closed‐form approximate likelihood function from which an approximate maximum likelihood estimator may be calculated numerically. A detailed theoretical analysis of the proposed estimator is provided and it is shown that it compares favorably to the Gaussian likelihood‐based estimator and does an excellent job of approximating the exact, but usually intractable, maximum likelihood estimator. Numerical simulations indicate that the exact and our approximate maximum likelihood estimator tend to be close, and the latter performs very well relative to other approximate methods in the literature in terms of speed, accuracy, and ease of implementation.

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 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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207