Mixed‐frequency models with moving‐average components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Temporal aggregation in general introduces a moving‐average (MA) component in the aggregated model. A similar feature emerges when not all but only a few variables are aggregated, which generates a mixed‐frequency (MF) model. The MA component is generally neglected, likely to preserve the possibility of ordinary least squares estimation, but the consequences have never been properly studied in the MF context. In this paper we show, analytically, in Monte Carlo simulations and in a forecasting application on US macroeconomic variables, the relevance of considering the MA component in MF mixed‐data sampling (MIDAS) and unrestricted MIDAS models (MIDAS–autoregressive moving average (ARMA) and UMIDAS‐ARMA). Specifically, the simulation results indicate that the short‐term forecasting performance of MIDAS‐ARMA and UMIDAS‐ARMA are better than that of, respectively, MIDAS and UMIDAS. The empirical applications on nowcasting US gross domestic product (GDP) growth, investment growth, and GDP deflator inflation confirm this ranking. Moreover, in both simulation and empirical results, MIDAS‐ARMA is better than UMIDAS‐ARMA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".