Residential property prices’ modeling: evidence from selected European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to contribute to the relatively narrow existing residential real estate literature by developing and validating several univariate forecasting models, to reliably anticipate future house price dynamics across several European Union (EU) countries. Design/methodology/approach The research approach relies on the time series analysis, by using the Box–Jenkins autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) methodology to explore the trends of residential property prices in selected EU countries and to obtain a snapshot of the potential signs of change to be witnessed by domestic residential markets on a short time-period. The analysis has been performed distinctly for each country in the sample, to account for country-specific past and future trends as well as similarities in their house price growth rate evolutions. The models were estimated for a broad sample of quarterly observations during 1990-2015, while the forecast horizon ranged between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016. Findings The findings suggested that residential property prices’ real growth rate can be modeled through the Box–Jenkins method for France, The Netherlands, Sweden and UK. The pattern of Italy’s residential property prices’ real growth rate cannot be explained by means of univariate ARIMA models, being more suited for multivariate models. Originality/value The article subscribes to the need for timely, high-frequency and quality data about house price trends in Europe, to increase the accuracy of forecasts and prevent the appearance of bubbles on real estate market. It compares residential property prices’ dynamics across European countries to identify housing markets with similar patterns of their prices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".