Forecasting Exchange Rate in a Large Bayesian VAR Model: The Case of Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the out-of-sample forecasting performance of 32 exchange rates vis-a-vis the New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) in a 32-variable vector autoregression (VAR) model. The Bayesian approach is applied to a large-scale VAR model (LBVAR) and its forecasting performance is compared to the random-walk model in terms of both Diebold-Mariano and the Giacomini-Rossi fluctuation tests. Several results are found in the paper when we pay attention to the top three trading partner for Taiwan, particularly the China, U.S. and Japan, in which the corresponding bilateral exchange rates forecasts are denoted as CNY-NTD, USD-NTD and JPY-NTD respectively. First, a LBVAR model has a relatively better forecasting performance of CNY-NTD exchange rate in both medium-run and long-run. Second, a LBVAR model performs better than the random-walk model only in the short-run when forecasting USD-NTD exchange rate. Lastly, the random-walk model outperforms a LBVAR model all the time on forecasting JPY-NTD exchange rate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".