Exchange rate forecasting using economic models and technical trading rules
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
The use of technical analysis by practitioners in the foreign exchange market contrasts with the ongoing debate among academics on the poor predictive ability of macroeconomic variables. This paper compares these two methods by constructing pools of economic models and technical trading rules and evaluates their in-sample and out-of-sample performance both locally and globally. Results suggest the presence of local forecastability that is overlooked when relying on global measures of predictability. The local predictability is captured using a rolling model selection approach to generate aggregate forecasts across separate pools of economic models and technical trading rules as well as both combined. The out-of-sample results for our aggregate forecasts using pools of economic models fail to beat the random walk as do pools of technical trading models. However combining the two pools of models results in forecasts that beat the random walk for four out of the six sample currencies. This result suggests that exchange rate forecasts can be improved by pooling both sets of models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it