Predicting Inflation: Professional Experts Versus No-Change Forecasts
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Study compares forecasts of United States inflation from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) to predictions made by simple statistical techniques
- Economic expertise is persuasive in nowcasting
- Novel yet simplistic probabilistic no-change forecasts are equally competitive when projecting beyond the current quarter
- Surveys can be interpreted as ensembles of forecasts, similar to ensemble prediction systems in weather forecasting
- Statistical techniques borrowed from weather forecasting enhance the accuracy and reliability of the SPF forecast
- Findings hold true regardless of adjustments made to the SPF forecast through statistical techniques
- Both economic expertise and simplistic probabilistic no-change forecasts are effective in predicting inflation
- Ensemble approaches and postprocessing techniques can enhance forecast accuracy in economic forecasting, drawing parallels with advancements in weather forecasting methods.
Authors: Tilmann Gneiting, Thordis L. Thorarinsdottir
Abstract: We compare forecasts of United States inflation from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) to predictions made by simple statistical techniques. In nowcasting, economic expertise is persuasive. When projecting beyond the current quarter, novel yet simplistic probabilistic no-change forecasts are equally competitive. We further interpret surveys as ensembles of forecasts, and show that they can be used similarly to the ways in which ensemble prediction systems have transformed weather forecasting. Then we borrow another idea from weather forecasting, in that we apply statistical techniques to postprocess the SPF forecast, based on experience from the recent past. The foregoing conclusions remain unchanged after survey postprocessing.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.