How well do Markov switching models describe actual business cycles? The case of synchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of using a Markov switching model to measure the synchronization of business cycles. We use a Bayesian, Gibbs sampling approach to estimate a multivariate Markov switching model of GDP growth for several countries. We look for evidence of synchronization across countries in the sense of common Markov states, covariance of impulses and a long‐run co‐integrating relationship. We then use the fitted data implied by the posterior distribution of the Markov switching VAR, in conjunction with a dating rule, to obtain the posterior distribution of binary business cycle states. We use these to investigate the posterior distributions of non‐parametric measures of synchronization described by Harding and Pagan ( 2003 ) and compare them with similar measures obtained from standard reference chronologies. As a point of reference, we repeat this exercise using simulated data from a linear VAR. We find no evidence of a common Markov state, but some evidence of the propagation of country‐specific disturbances across countries and of a co‐integrating relationship between the United States and Canada. Posterior odds ratios overwhelmingly favour the Markov switching model over the linear VAR and we find that the posterior distributions of the non‐parametric measures of synchronization produced by the Markov switching VAR match the data more closely than those produced by the linear VAR. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.012 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".