MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508103239 · doi:10.34989/swp-2009-35

Estimating DSGE-Model-Consistent Trends for Use in Forecasting

2021· preprint· en· W1508103239 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Philippe Cayen, Marc‐André Gosselin, Sharon Kozicki

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic stochastic general equilibriumBusiness cycleEconometricsMonetary policyEconomicsComputer scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The workhorse DSGE model used for monetary policy evaluation is designed to capture business cycle fluctuations in an optimization-based format. It is commonplace to log-linearize models and express them with variables in deviation-from-steady-state format. Structural parameters are either calibrated, or estimated using data pre-filtered to extract trends. Such procedures treat past and future trends as fully known by all economic agents or, at least, as independent of cyclical behaviour. With such a setup, in a forecasting environment it seems natural to add forecasts from DSGE models to trend forecasts. While this may be an intuitive starting point, efficiency can be improved in multiple dimensions. Ideally, behaviour of trends and cycles should be jointly modeled. However, for computational reasons it may not be feasible to do so, particularly with medium- or large-scale models. Nevertheless, marginal improvements on the standard framework can still be made. First, pre-filtering of data can be amended to incorporate structural links between the various trends that are implied by the economic theory on which the model is based, improving the efficiency of trend estimates. Second, forecast efficiency can be improved by building a forecast model for model-consistent trends. Third, decomposition of shocks into permanent and transitory components can be endogenized to also be model-consistent. This paper proposes a unified framework for introducing these improvements. Application of the methodology validates the existence of considerable deviations between trends used for detrending data prior to structural parameter estimation and model-consistent estimates of trends, implying the potential for efficiency gains in forecasting. Such deviations also provide information on aspects of the model that are least coherent with the data, possibly indicating model misspecification. Additionally, the framework provides a structure for examining cyclical responses to trend shocks, among other extensions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.112 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207