Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models

Open access
Tauchen, George·1985·Journal of Econometrics

Abstract

Abstract The paper develops a unified theory of likelihood specification testing based on M-estimators of auxiliary parameters. The theory is sufficiently general to encompass a wide class of specification tests including moment-based tests, Pearson-type goodness of fit tests, the information matrix test, and the Cox test. The paper also presents a framework based on Frechet differentiation for determining the effects of misspecification on the almost sure limits of parameter estimates and specification test statistics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-4076(85)90149-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Tauchen, G.
Venue
Journal of Econometrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1985-10
Volume
30
Issue
1-2
Pages
415-443
ISSN
0304-4076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051968669
Cited by
374
References
1
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90149-6
The paper
Tauchen, G. (1985). Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models. Journal of Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90149-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.