The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 12 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
One-Step and Two-Step Estimation of the Effects of Exogenous Variables on Technical Efficiency Levels
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
## TL;DR
This paper compares one-step and two-step estimation for stochastic frontier models when exogenous variables affect technical inefficiency. In Monte Carlo simulations, the one-step estimator performs well, while the two-step procedure shows serious bias in both the first and second stages.
## Key findings
- In the base case simulation (200 replications, sample size \(N=200\)), the one-step estimator is close to unbiased: \(\hat\beta=-0.0010\), \(\hat\delta=1.0010\), and average estimated efficiency \(E(\hat e^{-u})=0.5141\) versus the true \(0.5165\).
- Under the same base case, the two-step estimator is badly biased: \(\hat\beta=-0.3064\), estimated efficiency \(E(\hat e^{-u})=0.4482\) versus true \(0.52\) (table reports \(0.5165\) in the design and about \(0.52\) in results discussion), and the second-step estimate of \(\delta\) is \(0.3539\) versus the true value \(1\).
- The paper reports that the two-step bias persists even when \(x\) and \(z\) are independent: for \(\rho=0\), the second-step estimate of \(\delta\) is still \(0.4069\), and the estimated efficiencies remain underdispersed and downward biased.
- Increasing sample size from \(N=200\) to \(N=500\) and \(N=1000\) lowers standard deviations but does not remove the two-step biases; for example, the two-step \(\hat\delta\) stays around \(0.35\)–\(0.36\) while the true value is \(1\).
## Methods
- The paper studies a stochastic frontier model in which inefficiency depends on exogenous variables \(z\), emphasizing a “scaling property” specification where the one-sided inefficiency term is a function of \(z\) times a basic one-sided error.
- It uses Monte Carlo simulations with 2,000 replications per design point. The base case sets \(\beta=0\), \(\delta=1\), \(\rho=0.5\), \(\gamma=1\), \(\sigma_v=1\), \(\mu=0\), and \(N=200\).
- One-step estimation is maximum likelihood under the correctly specified model; two-step estimation first sets \(\delta=0\) in the frontier MLE, then regresses \(\ln(\hat u)\) on \(z\) to estimate \(\delta\).
## Limitations
- The paper’s own simulation evidence is limited to one simple model with the scaling property and a specific truncated-normal basic distribution; results may not generalize beyond that setup.
- The text makes evident, though it does not frame it as a formal limitation, that some parameters (\(\mu\) and \(\gamma\)) are “hard” to estimate and produced outliers severe enough that the authors truncated the most extreme 0.3% of replications for those parameters.
- Not stated in the paper.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
39 Own interpretation · 37 Own result · 37 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 3 Own method · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our simulations strongly confirm the relevance of this observation, since the two-step estimates of the effect of z on efficiency levels are seriously biased downward in all cases.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We first note that the one-step estimates look pretty good. In particular, there is no evidence of significant bias.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The parameters of the truncated normal base distribution ( µ and γ ) have rather large variances (their standard deviations are definitely not small relative to the parameter values themselves)”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the one-step estimator, the true value of δ is not terribly important.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But this does not seem to cause any problems for the parameters of main interest ( β , δ and the individual ri).”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the estimates of the ri (the technical efficiencies) are biased downward (mean = 0.45, compared to the mean of the actual ri of 0.52).”
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changing β has no substantive effects on our results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the estimate of β is biased downward (mean = -0.31, compared to the true value = 0).”
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the second-step estimator of δ is very significantly biased downward (mean = 0.35, compared to the true value = 1).”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changing δ makes very little difference to the properties of the estimates of β , δ or σ v.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bias of the estimate of β and of the two-step estimate of δ increases, and the estimates of the ri are also more biased, and less correlated with the true ri, compared to Case 1.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, the bias of the first-step estimate of β is effectively zero when δ = 0, and it grows with δ .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these biases are in the expected direction, and the size of the biases is definitely not small.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are less strongly correlated with the true ri and they are underdispersed, compared to the estimates from the one-step model.”
plaincorrelationaln = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The individual ri are seriously biased for δ = 1 but not for the smaller values of δ .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-step estimator of δ is biased for both δ = 1 and δ = 0.5, but the bias disappears as δ → 0.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An interesting curiosity is the bias in the two-step estimator of δ based on the estimates of ui from the one-step model (mean estimate = 0.92, compared to the true value of δ = 1). This is not just finite-sample bias (it persists with larger sample sizes).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean of the estimate (both one-step and two-step) of β changes by the same amount that β is changed, so that the bias, standard deviation and MSE of the estimates of β are unchanged.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this set of parameters, average technical efficiency is E(e -u ) = 0.5165.”
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As δ → 0, our ability to estimate µ (and γ , to a lesser extent) deteriorates seriously.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimates of the individual ri become slightly more biased, and noticeably less strongly correlated with the true ri, when δ is small.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find serious bias at all stages of this procedure. The size of the bias is very substantial and should argue strongly against two-step procedures.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the two-step estimates, surprisingly, imposing µ = 0 makes things worse (even though µ = 0 is a correct restriction).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As γ increases, the bias of the estimate of β increases, but the bias of the second-step estimate of δ decreases quite noticeably.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the second-step estimate of δ is seriously biased even when ρ = 0, though its bias does grow with ρ .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standard deviations of the estimators fall as N increases, but nothing else changes much.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the mean of the two-step estimator of δ is 0.35 for σ v = 1, 0.12 for σ v = 3, and 0.05 for σ v = 5.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 9 | µ = 1 | ˆ β | -0.0013 | 0.0963 | 0.0093 | | -0.3914 | 0.1191 | 0.1674 | |”
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
“| 17 | N=500 | ˆ β | -0.0005 | 0.0572 | 0.0033 | | -0.3062 | 0.0661 | 0.0981 | |”
plainn = 500- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 9 | | E ( ˆ e - u ) | 0.3850 | 0.0294 | 0.0285 | 0.8387 | 0.3499 | 0.0197 | 0.0513 | 0.6891 |”
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
“| 17 | N=500 | E ( ˆ e - u ) | 0.5160 | 0.0220 | 0.0338 | 0.8145 | 0.4470 | 0.0146 | 0.0615 | 0.6591 |”
plain- Asserted: unclear — It is unclear whether the authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the two-step estimators, we see more differences as µ changes, but they are still not really important or striking.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The true value of δ is one, so these are large biases indeed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 9 | E ( e - u ) | ˆ µ | 1.0591 | 0.3951 | 0.1595 | | -37.2499 | 1.1759 | 1464.4405 | |”
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
“| 13 | E ( e - u ) | ˆ µ | 0.0429 | 0.4471 | 0.2016 | -37.2787 | 0.1688 | 1389.7299 | |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 9 | | ˆ δ | 1.0002 | 0.0850 | 0.0072 | | - | - | - | |”
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
“| 17 | N=500 | ˆ δ | 0.9995 | 0.0724 | 0.0052 | | - | - | - | |”
plainn = 500- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results are quite consistent with these expectations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 9 | | ˆ δ -2S | 0.9317 | 0.0888 | 0.0125 | 0.8025 | 0.4986 | 0.0566 | 0.2546 | 0.3469 |”
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
“| 17 | N=500 | ˆ δ -2S | 0.9134 | 0.0736 | 0.0129 | 0.7911 | 0.3520 | 0.0336 | 0.4210 | 0.2375 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 17 | N=500 | ˆ γ | 1.0208 | 0.2393 | 0.0577 | | 53.4005 | 4.3493 | 2764.7151 | |”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the one-step estimators, the value of ρ is not important. The results are essentially identical across all these cases.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For larger γ , we estimate β a little worse, but we estimate δ and the individual ri a little better.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As µ moves from plus one to negative one, the estimates of β improve a little, and the estimates of the individual ri perhaps improve a little.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As is often the case in simulations that involve numerical maximization, there were some problems with outliers, especially in estimation of γ and µ (the parameters of the truncated normal distribution).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This bias in the second-step regression, due to underdispersion in the estimates of u that do not take into account the effect of z on u, does not seem to be systematically discussed in the literature.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kumbhakar and Lovell (2000, p. 119) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, if the estimates of u are constructed ignoring the effect of z on σ u 2 , they will show less dependence on z than they should, and we should expect the second-step regressions to give downward biased estimates of the effect of z on u.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some but not all of the models in the literature have this property.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The one-step MLE will be based on the correctly specified model, and will therefore be consistent and asymptotically efficient.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Caudill and Ford (1993) provide evidence on the bias of the estimated technological parameters, but not on the efficiency levels themselves or their relationship to the explanatory variables z.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caudill and Ford (1993) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if h(z, δ ) = exp(z' δ ) and δ > 0, then large z will on average be associated with large u and also with large σ u 2”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presumably this is so because when δ is large, z correlates with u and is useful to help estimate u.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Saying the same thing, if we ignore the dependence of σ u 2 on z, we will shrink the observations with large u too much, and the observations with small u too little, and our estimates of u will be underdispersed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is widely appreciated that the severity of the bias in estimation of the technological parameters (coefficients of x) depends on the magnitude of the correlation between x and z.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second and less widely recognized problem is that the first-step technical efficiency measures are likely to be seriously underdispersed, so that the results of the second-step regression are likely to be biased downward. This is true regardless of whether x and z are correlated.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first of these is that it captures the idea, which we find intuitively reasonable and appealing, that the shape of the distribution of u is the same for all firms.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, the second-step estimator of δ may be able to tell us whether or not z affects u (whether or not δ = 0) 3 but it cannot accurately estimate the effect of z on u when this effect exists.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models based on some other simple distributions, such as exponential, would also have the scaling property.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our summary statistics are averages and are very sensitive to extreme outliers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, this is true whether or not x and z are correlated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One important implication of this viewpoint, which is sometimes missed, is that the variables z that determine inefficiency must not be functions of y.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This truncation of the results made very little difference for the parameters other than µ and γ .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increasing σ v increases the amount of statistical noise in the model, and should increase the bias and/ or variance for each of the estimated parameters.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as long as δ is non-zero, this argument may be less than compelling, because the distribution of u depends on z whereas the distribution of v does not, and this is another way to distinguish u from v.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The distribution of u depends on z whereas the distribution of v does not.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increasing γ while holding σ v constant has the effect of increasing the size of inefficiency relative to noise, and should tend to make it easier to estimate technical inefficiency precisely.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, when µ is large and positive, the degree of truncation is very small, and the shape of the distribution (if it can be separated from that of v) contains a lot of information about the parameters µ and σ 2 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case the first-step estimator of β is unbiased, and we then estimate the ri under the correct assumption that they do not depend on the zi, so we ought to do well in this case.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As µ → ∞ , the distribution of u becomes normal and presumably becomes confounded with the normal distribution of v (statistical noise).”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When µ is large (in absolute value) but negative, on the other hand, we observe only the extreme right tail of the distribution, whose shape may not be very informative about µ and σ 2 , and the estimation problem may be harder just on that basis.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All in all, the two-step estimator performs well when the second step is not needed ( δ = 0) but is otherwise unreliable.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These biases are substantial enough that we would recommend against using two-step procedures in any circumstances that we can envision.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the theoretical exploration of underdispersion, x and z are independent.
“To explore this point more precisely, suppose that x and z are independent, so that the first-step regression is unbiased.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The distribution of u depends on z whereas the distribution of v does not.
“because the distribution of u depends on z whereas the distribution of v does not”
The paper relies on this without support.
The biases identified above are expected to persist asymptotically.
“the biases we have identified above are expected to persist asymptotically”
The paper relies on this without support.
The one-step estimators are based on a correctly specified model and are asymptotically optimal.
“The one-step estimators are based on a correctly specified model and are asymptotically optimal.”
Citations
Cites
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995) · Empirical Economics · doi:10.1007/bf01205442 · Cited by 5,978
Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174411 · Cited by 4,358
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. (1988) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(88)90053-x · Cited by 1,919
Kumbhakar, S. C., Ghosh, S., & McGuckin, J. T. (1991) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.1991.10509853 · Cited by 1,162
Systematic Departures from the Frontier: A Framework for the Analysis of Firm Inefficiency
Reifschneider, D. L., & Stevenson, R. (1991) · International Economic Review · doi:10.2307/2527115 · Cited by 686
Estimation of a non-neutral stochastic frontier production function
Huang, C. J., & Liu, J.-T. (1994) · Journal of Productivity Analysis · doi:10.1007/bf01073853 · Cited by 593
Frontier Estimation and Firm-Specific Inefficiency Measures in the Presence of Heteroscedasticity
Caudill, S. B., Ford, J. M., & Gropper, D. M. (1995) · Journal of Business and Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.1995.10524583 · Cited by 390
Biases in frontier estimation due to heteroscedasticity
Caudill, S. B., & Ford, J. M. (1993) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/0165-1765(93)90104-k · Cited by 256
Pitfalls of Normal-Gamma Stochastic Frontier Models
Ritter, C., & Simar, L. (1997) · Journal of Productivity Analysis · doi:10.1023/a:1007751524050 · Cited by 174
Frontier Estimation and Firm-Specific Inefficiency Measures in the Presence of Heteroscedasticity
Caudill, S. B., Ford, J. M., & Gropper, D. M. (1995) · Journal of Business and Economic Statistics · doi:10.2307/1392525 · Cited by 116
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model
Greene, W. H. (2004) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.05.003 · Cited by 1,682
“If there are other variables, git, which do ‘explain’ uit, then they should have appeared in the model at the first stage, and estimates computed without them are biased in unknown directions (the ‘left out variable’ problem) (see Wang and Schmidt, 2002). There are two motivations for proceeding in this fashion noneth…”
BackgroundEvaluating Contextual Variables Affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis
Banker, R. D., & Natarajan, R. (2007) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.1070.0460 · Cited by 789
“Wang and Schmidt (2002) explain that the problem is due to the estimator of technical efficiency u, derived from the first stage residual, having a “shrinkage” towards the mean and as a result showing less dependence on the contextual variables z than it should.”
BackgroundInfluentialOutreach and Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions
Hermes, N., Lensink, R., & Meesters, A. (2011) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.10.018 · Cited by 724
“Wang and Schmidt (2002) show that a two-step approach suffers from the assumption that the efficiency term is independent and identically truncated, normally distributed in the first step, while in the second step the efficiency terms are assumed to be normally distributed and dependent on the…”
BackgroundAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Hill, B., Greer, A., Heckelei, T., & Witze, P. (2004) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230522756_17 · Cited by 641
Greene, W. H. (2004) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.938 · Cited by 499
“[See Wang and Schmidt (2002).] There are two important restrictions built into this model.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, H.-J., & Schmidt, P.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica (TW)
- Michigan State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Productivity Analysis
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-144
- ISSN
- 0895-562X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0441
- OpenAlex
- W1524136776
- Semantic Scholar
- 0ba29f8abcbf8683e8286f2af42fa42ac20b1c6f
- Cited by
- 1,045
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Productivity Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Efficiency Analysis Using DEA
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Keywords
- stochastic frontier analysis, technical efficiency, firm characteristics, one-step estimation, maximum likelihood estimation, Monte Carlo simulation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
