Neural network versus econometric models in forecasting inflation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural network modelling has recently attracted much attention as a new technique for estimation and forecasting in economics and finance. The chief advantages of this new approach are that such models can usually find a solution for very complex problems, and that they are free from the assumption of linearity that is often adopted to make the traditional methods tractable. In this paper we compare the performance of Back-Propagation Artificial Neural Network (BPN) models with the traditional econometric approaches to forecasting the inflation rate. Of the traditional econometric models we use a structural reduced-form model, an ARIMA model, a vector autoregressive model, and a Bayesian vector autoregression model. We compare each econometric model with a hybrid BPN model which uses the same set of variables. Dynamic forecasts are compared for three different horizons: one, three and twelve months ahead. Root mean squared errors and mean absolute errors are used to compare quality of forecasts. The results show the hybrid BPN models are able to forecast as well as all the traditional econometric methods, and to outperform them in some cases. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it