Bayesian VARs: Specification Choices and Forecast Accuracy (replication data)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we discuss how the point and density forecasting performance of Bayesian vector autoregressions (BVARs) is affected by a number of specification choices. We adopt as a benchmark a common specification in the literature, a BVAR with variables entering in levels and a prior modeled along the lines of Sims and Zha (International Economic Review 1998; 39: 949-968). We then consider optimal choice of the tightness, of the lag length and of both; evaluate the relative merits of modeling in levels or growth rates; compare alternative approaches to h-step-ahead forecasting (direct, iterated and pseudo-iterated); discuss the treatment of the error variance and of cross-variable shrinkage; and assess rolling versus recursive estimation. Finally, we analyze the robustness of the results to the VAR size and composition (using also data for France, Canada and the UK, while the main analysis is for the USA). We obtain a large set of empirical results, but the overall message is that we find very small losses (and sometimes even gains) from the adoption of specification choices that make BVAR modeling quick and easy, in particular for point forecasting. This finding could therefore further enhance the diffusion of the BVAR as an econometric tool for a vast range of applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".