How is machine learning useful for macroeconomic forecasting? (replication data)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We move beyond Is Machine Learning Useful for Macroeconomic Forecasting? by adding the how. The current forecasting literature has focused on matching specific variables and horizons with a particularly successful algorithm. To the contrary, we study the usefulness of the underlying features driving ML gains over standard macroeconometric methods. We distinguish four so-called features (nonlinearities, regularization, cross-validation, and alternative loss function) and study their behavior in both the data-rich and data-poor environments. To do so, we design experiments that allow to identify the treatment effects of interest. We conclude that (i) nonlinearity is the true game changer for macroeconomic prediction, (ii) the standard factor model remains the best regularization, (iii) K-fold cross-validation is the best practice, and (iv) the $$ {L}_2 $$ is preferred to the $$ \overline{\epsilon} $$-insensitive in-sample loss. The forecasting gains of nonlinear techniques are associated with high macroeconomic uncertainty, financial stress and housing bubble bursts. Furthermore, ML nonlinearities are helpful when considering density forecasts.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".