Estimation and testing of forecast rationality with many moments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We in this paper employ a penalized moment selection procedure to identify valid and relevant moments for estimating and testing forecast rationality within the flexible loss framework proposed by Elliott et al. (2005). We motivate the selection of moments in a high-dimensional setting, outlining the fundamental mechanism of the penalized moment selection procedure and demonstrating its implementation in the context of forecast rationality, particularly in the presence of potentially invalid moment conditions. The selection consistency and asymptotic normality are established under conditions specifically tailored to economic forecasting. Through a series of Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluate the finite sample performance of penalized moment estimation in utilizing available instrument information effectively within both estimation and testing procedures. Additionally, we present an empirical analysis using data from the Survey of Professional Forecasters issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia to illustrate the practical utility of the suggested methodology. The results indicate that the proposed post-selection estimator for forecaster’s attitude performs comparably to the oracle estimator by efficiently incorporating available information. The power of rationality and symmetry tests leveraging penalized moment estimation is substantially enhanced by minimizing the impact of uninformative instruments. For practitioners assessing the rationality of externally generated forecasts, such as those in the Greenbook, the proposed penalized moment selection procedure could offer a robust approach to achieve more efficient estimation outcomes.
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 | 0.028 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".