2002,“Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dynamic Stochastic Theories with an Application to the NewKeynesian Pricing,” mimeo Université du Québec à Montreal, CIRPRÉ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel Maximum Likelihood (ML) strategy to estimate Euler equations implied by dynamic stochastic theories. The strategy exploits rational expectations cross-equation restrictions, but circumvents the problem of multiple solutions that arises in Sargent’s (1979) original work by imposing the restrictions on the forcing variable rather than the endogenous variable of the Euler equation. The paper then contrasts the proposed strategy to an alternative, widely employed method that avoids the multiplicity problem by constraining the ML estimates to yield a unique stable solution. I argue that imposing such a uniqueness condition makes little economic sense and can lead to severe misspecification. To illustrate this point, I estimate Gali and Gertler’s (1999) hybrid New Keynesian Phillips Curve using labor income share as the measure of real marginal cost. My ML estimates indicate that forward-looking behavior is predominant and that the model provides a good approximation of U.S. inflation dynamics. By contrast, if the same estimates are constrained to yield a unique stable solution, forward-looking behavior becomes much less important and the model as a whole is rejected.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".