Misspecified heteroskedasticity in the panel probit model: A small sample comparison of GMM and SML estimators
面板 Probit 中的异方差误设:GMM 与模拟最大似然的小样本比较AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确研究面板 Probit 这一面板离散响应模型,并应用于企业产品创新决策。
面板 Probit 中的异方差误设:GMM 与模拟最大似然的小样本比较AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This paper compares generalized method of moments (GMM) and simulated maximum likelihood (SML) approaches to the estimation of the panel probit model. Both techniques circumvent multiple integration of joint density functions without the need to restrict the error term variance-covariance matrix of the latent normal regression model. Particular attention is paid to a three-stage GMM estimator based on nonparametric estimation of the optimal instruments for given conditional moment functions. Monte Carlo experiments are carried out which focus on the small sample consequences of misspecification of the error term variancecovariance matrix. The correctly specified experiment reveals the asymptotic efficiency advantages of SML. The GMM estimators outperform SML in the presence of misspecification in terms of multiplicative heteroskedasticity. This holds in particular for the three-stage GMM estimator. Allowing for heteroskedasticity over time increases the robustness with respect to misspecification in terms of multiplicative heteroskedasticity. An application to the product innovation activities of German manufacturing firms is presented.