A New Application of Exact Nonparametric Methods to Long-Horizon Predictability Tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical results from long-horizon regression tests have been influential in the finance literature. Yet, it has come to be understood that traditional long-horizon tests may be unreliable in finite samples when regressors are persistent and when the horizon is long relative to sample size. Recent research has provided valid alternative inference procedures in long-horizon regression in the case for which the regressor follows a near-unit root autoregressive process. However, in small samples, such processes may sometimes be difficult to distinguish with confidence from other persistent data generating processes, such as those displaying long-memory or structural breaks. In this paper, we demonstrate a simple means by which existing nonparametric sign and signed rank tests may be applied to provide exact inference in long-horizon predictive tests, without requiring any modeling assumptions on the regressor. Employing this robust approach, we find evidence of stock return predictability at moderate horizons using short-term interest rates, but little evidence of either short or long-run predictability using dividend-price ratios.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it