Inflation Forecasting: LSTM Networks vs. Traditional Models for Accurate Predictions
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
This study investigates the effectiveness of neural network models, particularly LSTM networks, in enhancing the accuracy of inflation forecasting. We compare LSTM models with traditional univariate time series models such as SARIMA and AR(p) models, as well as machine learning approaches like LASSO regression. To improve the standard LSTM model, we apply advanced feature selection techniques and introduce data augmentation using the MBB method. Our analysis reveals that LASSO-LSTM hybrid models generally outperform LSTM models utilizing PCA for feature selection, particularly in datasets with multiple features, as measured by RMSE. However, despite these enhancements, LSTM models tend to underperform compared to simpler models like LASSO regression, AR(p), and SARIMA in the context of inflation forecasting. These findings suggest that, for policymakers and central bankers seeking reliable inflation forecasts, traditional models such as LASSO regression, AR(p), and SARIMA may offer more practical and accurate solutions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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