Benchmarking Econometric and Machine Learning Methodologies in Nowcasting
即时预测中计量经济学与机器学习方法的基准比较AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确以美国季度 GDP 增长的即时预测及不同预测方法的表现比较为核心。
即时预测中计量经济学与机器学习方法的基准比较AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Nowcasting can play a key role in giving policymakers timelier insight to data published with a significant time lag, such as final GDP figures. Currently, there are a plethora of methodologies and approaches for practitioners to choose from. However, there lacks a comprehensive comparison of these disparate approaches in terms of predictive performance and characteristics. This paper addresses that deficiency by examining the performance of 12 different methodologies in nowcasting US quarterly GDP growth, including all the methods most commonly employed in nowcasting, as well as some of the most popular traditional machine learning approaches. Performance was assessed on three different tumultuous periods in US economic history: the early 1980s recession, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID crisis. The two best performing methodologies in the analysis were long short-term memory artificial neural networks (LSTM) and Bayesian vector autoregression (BVAR). To facilitate further application and testing of each of the examined methodologies, an open-source repository containing boilerplate code that can be applied to different datasets is published alongside the paper, available at: github.com/dhopp1/nowcasting_benchmark.