Anticipating critical transitions of the housing market: new evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a novel quantitative methodology to detect real estate bubbles and forecast their critical end time, which we apply to the housing markets of China's metropolises. Building on the Log-Periodic Power Law Singularity (LPPLS) model of self-reinforcing feedback loops, we use the quantile regression calibration approach recently introduced by two of us to build confidence intervals and explore possible distinct scenarios. We propose to consolidate the quantile regressions into the arithmetic average of the quantile-based LPPLS Confidence indicator, which accounts for the robustness of the calibration with respect to bootstrapped residuals. We make three main contributions to the literature of real estate bubbles. First, we verify the validity of the arithmetic average of the quantile-based LPPLS Confidence indicator by studying the critical times of historical housing price bubbles in the U.S., Hong Kong, U.K. and Canada. Second, the LPPLS detection methods are applied to provide early warning signals of the housing markets in some metropolises in China. Third, we determine the possible turning points of the markets in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and Chengdu and anticipate critical transitions of China's housing markets via our multi-scales and multi-quantiles analyses. Finally, given these projections performed in February 2017, the price trajectories from March 2017 to January 2018 that became available from the time of submission to the time of revision of the present article offer quite unique genuine out-of-sample tests of the performances of our indicators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".