MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098931317

Updating Forecasts in Vector Autoregression Models with an Application to the Canadian Banking Industry

2009· article· en· W7098931317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVector autoregressionEarningsOrder (exchange)Time seriesMultivariate statisticsAutoregressive modelConsensus forecast
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting firms ’ earnings has long been an interest of market participants and academics. Traditional forecasting studies in a multivariate time series setting do not take into account that the timing of data release for a specific time period of observation is often spread over several days or weeks. This paper focuses on the separation of announcement timing or data release and the use of econometric real-time methods, which we refer to as an updated vector autoregression (VAR) forecast, to predict data that have yet to be released. In comparison to standard time series forecasting, we show that the updated forecasts will be more accurate the higher the correlation coefficients among the standard VAR innovations are. Forecasting with the sequential release of information has not been studied in the VAR framework, and our approach to the six Canadian banks shows its value. By using the updated VAR forecast, we find that the relative efficiency gain is 33 % in the one-step-ahead forecast compared to the ordinary VAR forecast, and 7 % compared to professional consensus forecasts. Thought experiments suggest that if banks ’ order of information release were to change, forecast errors could be substantially reduced. These experiments emphasize that evaluating the release ordering is crucial in determining forecast accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhytochemistry and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207