Efficient Market Hypothesis and the RMB-Dollar Rates: A Nonlinear Modeling of the Exchange Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses a SETAR model to determine threshold(s) in the RMB/US$ exchange rate from 1981 to 2016 using monthly data. Also, it compares the forecast performance of the univariate nonlinear model to a univariate linear model. We further analyze the forecast performance of the SETAR model to a multivariate linear model, e.g., a Reduced-form VAR. In addition, the research assesses the claim by Boero and Marrocu (2002) that the root mean square error masks the superiority of the nonlinear models.We found five significant thresholds in the RMB/US$ exchange rate, and this result reflects five major episodes of policy reforms or structural changes in the renminbi exchange rates from the period 1981 to 2016. We also found that the univariate nonlinear model out performs both the univariate and multivariate linear models in predicting the exchange rate movements. This finding is consistent with the results in Kyei and Gyamfi (2016), Boero and Marrocu (2002), Krager and Kugler (1993), Peel and Speight (1994) and Chappell et al. (1996). Furthermore, we did not find any evidence of the root mean square error masking the superiority of the nonlinear model.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".