Predicting Aggregate and State-Level US House Price Volatility: The Role of Sentiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the predictive ability of housing-related sentiment on housing market volatility for 50 states, District of Columbia, and the aggregate US economy, based on quarterly data covering 1975:3 and 2017:3. Given that existing studies have already shown housing sentiment to predict movements in aggregate and state-level housing returns, we use a k-th order causality-in-quantiles test for our purpose, since this methodology allows us to test for predictability for both housing returns and volatility simultaneously. In addition, this test being a data-driven approach accommodates the existing nonlinearity (as detected by formal tests) between volatility and sentiment, besides providing causality over the entire conditional distribution of (returns and) volatility. Our results show that barring 5 states (Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska), housing sentiment is observed to predict volatility barring the extreme ends of the conditional distribution. As far as returns are concerned, except for California, predictability is observed for all of the remaining 51 cases.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".