‘Lean' versus ‘Rich' Data Sets: Forecasting during the Great Moderation and the Great Recession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate forecasts for the euro area in data-rich and ‘data-lean' environments by comparing three different approaches: a simple PMI model based on Purchasing Managers' Indices (PMIs), a dynamic factor model with euro area data, and a dynamic factor model with data from the euro plus data from national economies (pseudo-real time data). We estimate backcasts, nowcasts and forecasts for GDP, components of GDP, and GDP of all individual euro area members, and examine forecasts for the ‘Great Moderation' (2000-2007) and the ‘Great Recession' (2008-2009) separately. All models consistently beat naïve AR benchmarks. More data does not necessarily improve forecasting accuracy: For the factor model, adding monthly indicators from national economies can lead to more uneven forecasting accuracy, notably when forecasting components of euro area GDP during the Great Recession. This suggests that the merits of national data may reside in better estimation of heterogeneity across GDP components, rather than in improving headline GDP forecasts for individual euro area countries. Comparing factor models to the much simpler PMI model, we find that the dynamic factor model dominates the latter during the Great Moderation. However, during the Great Recession, the PMI model has the advantage that survey-based measures respond faster to changes in the outlook, whereas factor models are more sluggish in adjusting. Consequently, the dynamic factor model has relatively more difficulties beating the PMI model, with relatively large errors in forecasting some countries or components of euro area GDP.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".