A Bibliometric Analysis of Machine Learning Econometrics in Asset Pricing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is a novel method that has applications in asset pricing and that fits well within the problem of measurement in economics. Unlike econometrics, ML models are not designed for parameter estimation and inference, but similar to econometrics, they address, and may be better suited for, problems of prediction. While some ML methods have been applied in econometrics for decades, their success in prediction has been limited, and examples of this abound in the asset pricing literature. In recent years, the ML literature has advanced new, more efficient, computation methods for regularization, modeling nonlinearity, and improved out-of-sample prediction. This article conducted a comprehensive, objective, and quantitative bibliometric analysis of this growing literature using Web of Science (WoS) data. We identified trends in the literature over the past decade, the geographical distribution of articles, authorship, and institutional contributions worldwide. The paper also identifies the dominant literature using citations in WoS and discusses computational algorithms that are expanding the econometric frontiers in asset pricing. The top cited papers were reviewed, highlighting their contribution. The limitations of ML learning methods and recent advances in ML were used to provide a conic view to future ML econometric practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.075 | 0.125 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".