Scenario Synthesis and Macroeconomic Risk

Domenico Giannone; Matteo Luciani; Mike West; Tobias Adrian

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Scenario Synthesis and Macroeconomic Risk

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the expected misclassification rate of a scenario mixture is a likelihood for the mixture weights, turning scenario synthesis into a Bayesian posterior-mode calculation.

desk verdict Useful framework with a real identification problem in the scenario weights: near-collinear scenarios are not identified by the EMR likelihood, so the reported small weights are regularization artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05193 v1 pith:4RG3EIIU submitted 2025-05-08 econ.EM stat.ME

Tobias Adrian , Domenico Giannone , Matteo Luciani , Mike West This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.EMstat.ME

keywords MacroeconomicForecastingMixturesofScenariosMisclassificationRatesEntropicTiltingBayesianPredictiveSynthesisJudgmentalForecastRiskAssessmentGrowth-at-Risk

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to give central banks a statistical way to reconcile judgmental narrative scenarios with a model-based reference forecast. It claims that the best mixture of baseline, alternative scenarios, and a synthetic backstop is the one whose expected misclassification rate is highest, meaning that a draw from the reference distribution would most easily be mistaken for a draw from the mixture. Because that misclassification rate acts as a likelihood, maximizing it with a tiny Dirichlet penalty yields a posterior mode whose weights measure each scenario's concordance with the reference. A low achievable misclassification rate and a large backstop weight signal that the scenario set itself does not span the risks in the reference; the authors apply the method to the December 2007 and 2018 Tealbook scenarios and read the results as showing the 2007 scenario set to be roughly 28–29 percent incomplete against the reference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the expected misclassification rate (EMR), defined as the probability that a draw from the reference density $p(y)$ is classified as coming from the scenario mixture $f(y|\alpha)$ under the optimal 50:50 Bayesian classifier. It is bounded above by 0.5, equals 0.5 only when $f\equiv p$, and is related to a symmetrized Kullback–Leibler divergence through the bound $\pi_{pf}\ge 1/[1+\exp\{\kappa_{pf}\}]$. Two further pieces of machinery carry the applied argument: entropic tilting converts partially specified scenarios (medians or percentiles) into full densities that are closest to the baseline in Kullback–Leibler divergence, and a Dirichlet$(1+\epsilon)$ prior over the simplex regularizes the boundary-sparse maximum likelihood solution into a unique posterior mode. The EMR supplies the likelihood, the tilting supplies the missing scenario densities, and the prior supplies stability.

What would settle it

Simulate from a known reference density that is exactly a mixture of known scenario densities with known weights, apply the EMR-posterior method with a small $\epsilon$, and check whether the recovered weights converge to the true mixture weights as the Monte Carlo sample grows; if they do not, the claim that $\pi_{pf}(\alpha)$ is the likelihood is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the expected misclassification rate $$\pi_{pf}(\$\alpha$)=\int_y \frac{f(y|\$\alpha$)p(y)}{f(y|\$\alpha$)+p(y)}dy$$ is a likelihood for the probability vector $\alpha$ in the scenario mixture $f(y|\alpha)=\sum_{j=0}^J\alpha_j p_j(y)$. Treating a hypothetical binary classification of a draw from the reference $p(y)$ as the observation, observing “classified as coming from the scenario mixture” gives likelihood $\pi_{pf}(\alpha)$; maximizing $$\$\lambda$(\$\alpha$)=\log\pi_{pf}(\$\alpha$)+\epsilon\sum_j\log\alpha_j$$ is therefore Bayesian posterior-mode estimation under a Dirichlet prior with each parameter $1+\epsilon$. The mode $\alpha^*$ gives scenario weights, the achievable value $\pi_{pf}(\alpha^*)$ measures the concordance of the whole scenario set with the reference, and the weight on the synthetic backstop scenario measures how much of the reference distribution the scenario set fails to cover. The paper proves convexity and uniqueness of the maximizer, uses entropic tilting to build full scenario densities from point forecasts, and demonstrates the method on the 2007 and 2018 Tealbook scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The reference density $p(y)$ is assumed to be a faithful representation of the true predictive distribution, because every scenario weight, concordance measure, and incompleteness statement is defined as closeness to $p(y)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Each scenario receives a weight $\alpha_j^*$ that quantifies its concordance with the statistical reference relative to the other scenarios, so a policymaker can rank narrative scenarios by a single number.
The maximum achievable EMR and the weight on the backstop provide a formal, quantitative measure of scenario-set incompleteness: a low effective sample size or a heavily used backstop indicates that the scenario list does not cover reference-supported risks.
Scenarios that only state a point forecast can be handled: entropic tilting turns the point into a median constraint and builds a full scenario density from the baseline.
In the case study, the 2007 Tealbook scenario set is roughly 28–29 percent incomplete relative to the NY Fed reference, while the 2018 set is roughly 9 percent incomplete; the 2018 baseline alone already achieves a high EMR, so the alternative scenarios add limited discrimination.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the EMR is symmetric in the two densities, the same machinery can be run with roles reversed—taking the scenario set as the reference and scoring a statistical forecast against it—which directly formalizes the reverse direction that Section 7 only discusses in general terms.
In stress-testing or portfolio applications, the backstop weight could be monitored over time as a red-flag statistic: a persistently high weight signals either that the statistical reference under-weights the tails or that the scenario list omits the relevant tail.
The authors' sparsity discussion implies that published scenario weights should be accompanied by a small perturbation analysis over both the reference density and the prior constant $\epsilon$; to the extent that reported weights flip, the stable ranking across scenarios is the policy-relevant output.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is worth a serious look. The genuinely new idea—treating the expected misclassification rate as a likelihood for scenario mixture weights—is clean and correct, and the convexity results plus the KL bound are a real contribution. The Tealbook application is a nice illustration of how to connect narrative scenarios to a statistical reference, and the authors are honest about taking the baseline, scenarios, and reference as given.

The soft spot is in the interpretation of the posterior weights. The stress-test note is right: near-collinear scenarios are not identified by the EMR likelihood. The likelihood is nearly flat in directions where two scenario densities are similar, so the individual small weights in Table 4 (0.02–0.04 for S1, S3, S5, S6) are essentially set by the epsilon barrier and the alpha0 constraint, not by data. That means the claim that each alpha*_j quantifies the relative concordance of S_j is overstated for scenarios that are close to the baseline or to each other. The paper's own discussion of MLE sparsity shows awareness of the flatness, but adding a Dirichlet prior with tiny epsilon does not make the individual weights data-determined; it just makes them positive and unique given epsilon. A sensitivity analysis around epsilon would show how much the small weights move. This is fixable—report uncertainty intervals for weights, or restrict interpretation to the mixture and to clearly separated scenarios—but it should be addressed before policy use.

Other soft spots are minor by comparison: the df=50 choice, the backstop construction, and the reading of 100-ESS as an absolute incompleteness measure are judgment calls. The KL lower bound is proved only for symmetric unimodal k(y), and the authors flag that. The absence of code is a practical inconvenience, not a flaw in the math.

Bottom line: the framework is sound, the EMR likelihood is a legitimate innovation, and the paper should go to peer review. It needs a major revision on the identification/interpretation issue, but a serious referee can help sort that out.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Bayesian framework for reconciling judgmental scenario forecasts with a statistical reference predictive density. Scenarios are turned into full densities by entropic tilting of a baseline; a synthetic backstop is added; and mixture weights are chosen so that the mixture best matches the reference in expected misclassification rate (EMR). The authors show that EMR is a likelihood for the weights, that maximizing the regularized objective in Eq. (5) is a convex optimization with a unique posterior mode under a Dirichlet(1+epsilon) prior, and that EMR is bounded above by 1/2. The methodology is illustrated on the December 2007 and 2018 Tealbook forecasts for one-year-ahead GDP growth, using NY Fed and Tealbook risk distributions as references. The paper also reports scenario weights, backstop weights, and an ESS-based measure of scenario set incompleteness.

Significance. The paper's main theoretical contribution is sound: the proof that pi_pf <= 1/2 in Section 4.1 is correct, the observation in Section 5.2.1 that EMR is a likelihood for alpha is valid and gives a clean foundation for the optimization, and Appendix C correctly establishes convexity and uniqueness of the regularized mode under the stated support condition. These are genuine strengths, as is the authors' candor in flagging the conjectural status of the KL lower bound. The framework addresses a real and important problem in policy forecasting, and the computational flow in Appendix D is detailed enough to be reproducible. However, the practical value of the output depends on whether the reported scenario weights and incompleteness numbers are stable and have the interpretation claimed; at present that link is not demonstrated. The case-study conclusions are explicitly reference-relative, which is appropriate, but the sensitivity of the headline numbers to modeling choices needs to be quantified before the method can be used as a published policy tool.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.2.2 and Table 4] The claim that each element alpha*_j quantifies the extent to which scenario S_j is concordant with the reference is not supported for near-collinear scenarios. The likelihood pi_pf(alpha) in Eq. (4) is nearly flat in directions where two or more of the p_j(y) are almost equal, so the split of posterior mass among such scenarios is largely determined by the Dirichlet penalty epsilon sum_j log(alpha_j) and the constraint alpha_0 >= alpha_j rather than by the data. In the December 2007 row of Table 4, scenarios S1, S3, S5, and S6 have ET ESS between 84% and 99% and individual EMRs pi*_j between 0.40 and 0.41, yet receive posterior weights between 0.02 and 0.04. The manuscript itself documents the analogous instability of the unregularized MLE in Section 5.2.1, but it does not show that the regularized posterior mode is stable. I would ask for a sensitivity analysis over epsilon (for example c in {0.001, 0.01, 0.05} in the rule epsilon = c/(J+1)) and over the modal-scenario constraint, and for posterior uncertainty or profile diagnostics before interpreting individual alpha*_j as measures of scenario support.
[Section 6.4] The statement that 100 minus the ESS of the synthesis is an 'absolute measure of scenario set incompleteness' is not justified. ESS is a Monte Carlo efficiency diagnostic for importance sampling weights; it depends on the reference sample and is not a calibrated divergence between f(y|alpha*) and p(y). The interpretation that an ESS of 71-72% means the scenario set is 'about 28-29% incomplete' goes beyond what the displayed quantity supports. Either provide a formal link between ESS and a defined incompleteness functional, or present incompleteness through quantities with explicit interpretations, such as pi_pf(alpha*) and the backstop weight.
[Sections 6.3 and 6.4] The synthetic backstop is load-bearing, but its construction is arbitrary. Setting P50_B to the median of scenario medians and P15_B and P85_B to the minimum and maximum scenario percentiles is one of many possible choices, and in the December 2007 example the backstop receives alpha*_J = 0.27, comparable to the baseline and to S4. Because the backstop weight is then used to draw conclusions about scenario-set incompleteness, the paper should report how the conclusions change under alternative reasonable backstop specifications (for example a more dispersed backstop or one anchored to the reference tails), or should state explicitly that the incompleteness metric is defined only relative to this particular construction.

minor comments (5)

[Sections 4.2 and Appendix A.1] Section 4.2 states the lower bound pi_pf >= 1/(1 + exp(KL)) as if it were generally applicable, but Appendix A.1 proves it only for symmetric unimodal distributions of k(y) and flags the general case as conjectural; please add this qualification in the main text.
[Section 4.1] The term 'expected misclassification rate' corresponds to the error rate of a randomized classifier that labels according to the posterior probability P(H_f|y); this should be stated explicitly, since the usual hard 0-1 Bayes classifier has a different error rate.
[Notes to Tables 4-6] The table note defines a column ealpha* for syntheses without the backstop, but no such column appears in Tables 4, 5, or 6; either add the column or correct the note.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption uses illegible placeholders such as F(y|^,) for the fitted mixture; the estimated weights should be written as balpha and alpha* consistently in both the pdf and cdf panels.
[Section 6.4] The across-year comparison (2007 versus 2018) is made using the NY Fed reference; since Tables 4 and 5 show that the same 2018 scenarios produce substantially different weights under the Tealbook reference, the text should state more prominently that the incompleteness conclusions are reference-specific.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One self-definitional step: the EMR 'likelihood' is constructed so the posterior mode equals the chosen objective; otherwise the derivation is self-contained.

self definitional [Section 5.2.1, eqns. (4)-(5)]
"Now suppose you observe z= 1 but not y; EMR emerges via expectations over the “missing data” y, viz., p(z= 1|α) =π pf(α). Thus,π pf(α)is in fact a likelihood function for theparameterαbased on an hypothetical observationz= 1that classifies a random draw fromp(y)as coming fromf(y)under a 50:50 prior."

The likelihood is not specified by an external sampling model; it is defined as the EMR objective itself. Because p(z=1|α) is set equal to π_pf(α) (eqn 4), the posterior mode in eqn (5) is, by construction, the maximizer of the EMR objective plus the log-Dirichlet penalty. The 'Bayesian foundation' is therefore an identity relabeling the chosen objective as a posterior; it does not independently constrain or validate α*. The method remains well-defined as an EMR optimization, but the claim that the weights are 'Bayesian posterior' support adds no evidential content beyond the stated objective.

full rationale

The derivation chain is largely self-contained. The reference density is an external statistical forecast (skew-t fitted to published percentiles); scenario densities are obtained from the baseline by entropic tilting subject to scenario moments; the synthesis weights optimize the expected misclassification rate with a Dirichlet penalty. Each of these steps is defined by explicit equations and does not reuse the output as an input. The convexity/uniqueness of the optimizer is proved in Appendix C, not imported. The many self-citations (BPS, ET, BPDS, backstop) are contextual: the essential tilting formula is standard (Robertson et al., 2005) and the backstop is explicitly one of several possible modelling choices. The paper itself flags the sparsity instability of the unregularized MLE and uses a prior to address it; this is a limitation, not a circularity. The only definitional tautology is in Section 5.2.1: the 'likelihood' is constructed by setting p(z=1|α)=π_pf(α), so the posterior mode is exactly the EMR-maximizer plus a log-Dirichlet penalty. This is transparent and does not corrupt the optimization, but it means the Bayesian framing is a relabeling of the objective rather than an independent source of support for the weights. Accordingly, no significant circularity is found beyond this one self-definitional step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework's central claim rests on a handful of modeling choices: the Dirichlet prior regularization epsilon, the baseline degrees of freedom, the backstop construction rule, and the assumptions that p(y) is a valid reference, that ET yields valid scenario densities, and that point forecasts are medians. These are disclosed but not independently verified, which is typical for a methods paper with an illustrative case study.

free parameters (3)

epsilon (Dirichlet regularization) = 0.005/(J+1)
Small positive prior parameter in eqn (5) that shrinks posterior-mode weights away from the simplex boundary. Calibrated in Appendix B via a heuristic argument comparing to a fractional multinomial observation.
baseline skew-t degrees of freedom = 50
Fixed at 50 in Section 6.2 to make the baseline 'close to normal'; affects all tilted scenario densities and the synthesis, since scenarios are ET perturbations of the baseline.
backstop percentile definition = P50 = median(P50_j), P15 = min(P15_j), P85 = max(P85_j)
Ad hoc rule in Section 6.3 for the synthetic backstop scenario; this choice changes the backstop p.d.f. and hence its weight in the synthesis.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The reference density p(y) is a valid statistical representation of the true predictive distribution of the outcome.
Section 2.1 defines p(y) as the reference; Section 5 ranks scenarios by concordance with p(y). If p(y) is misspecified, the weights and incompleteness measures lose meaning.
standard math For a baseline p0 and target moments m_j, entropic tilting yields a unique scenario density p_j(y) = k_j exp(tau_j' s_j(y)) p0(y) satisfying the constraints.
Section 3.2 invokes ET theory from Tallman and West (2022); used to construct scenario densities from medians and percentiles.
domain assumption Tealbook scenario point forecasts are medians of the scenario predictive densities.
Section 6.3 and footnote 2 choose medians; if they are means or modes, the tilted scenario densities and weights change.
domain assumption Expected misclassification rate is the appropriate utility for measuring concordance between distributions.
Section 4.1 motivates EMR as a Bayesian decision criterion; it is one of several possible concordance metrics, and the results depend on this choice.
ad hoc to paper The backstop scenario constructed from the inferred percentiles of the tilted scenarios is a sensible way to represent scenario-set incompleteness.
Section 6.3 defines the backstop by median, min and max of tilted scenario percentiles; this is paper-specific and not derived from external theory.

invented entities (1)

synthetic backstop scenario S_J
purpose: To represent risk in the reference distribution not covered by the baseline and alternative scenarios; its weight quantifies scenario set incompleteness.
Section 2.2 and 6.3: the backstop percentiles are derived from the tilted scenario distributions themselves via a specified rule, so it has no external or falsifiable evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scenario Synthesis and Macroeconomic Risk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RG3EIIU

@misc{pith2026250505193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scenario Synthesis and Macroeconomic Risk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RG3EIIU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05193}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce methodology to bridge scenario analysis and model-based risk forecasting, leveraging their respective strengths in policy settings. Our Bayesian framework addresses the fundamental challenge of reconciling judgmental narrative approaches with statistical forecasting. Analysis evaluates explicit measures of concordance of scenarios with a reference forecasting model, delivers Bayesian predictive synthesis of the scenarios to best match that reference, and addresses scenario set incompleteness. This underlies systematic evaluation and integration of risks from different scenarios, and quantifies relative support for scenarios modulo the defined reference forecasts. The framework offers advances in forecasting in policy institutions that supports clear and rigorous communication of evolving risks. We also discuss broader questions of integrating judgmental information with statistical model-based forecasts in the face of unexpected circumstances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05193 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** p.d.f. and c.d.f of scenario synthesis and NY Fed reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Predictive Concordance Example: EMR, ESS and KL-based lower bound when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

[1]

Adams, P. A., T. Adrian, N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2021). Forecasting macroeconomic risks. International Journal of Forecasting\/ 37\/ (3), 1173--1191

work page 2021
[2]

Adrian, T. and N. Boyarchenko (2012). I ntermediary leverage cycles and financial stability. Staff R eport 567, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

work page 2012
[3]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2016). Vulnerable growth. Staff R eport 794, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

work page 2016
[4]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2019). Vulnerable growth. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (4), 1263--1289

2019
[5]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2021). Multimodality in macrofinancial dynamics. International Economic Review\/ 62\/ (2), 861--886

work page 2021
[6]

Grinberg, N

Adrian, T., F. Grinberg, N. Liang, S. Malik, and J. Yu (2022). The term structure of G rowth-at- R isk. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics\/ 14\/ (3), 283--323

work page 2022
[7]

Morsink, and L

Adrian, T., J. Morsink, and L. B. Schumacher (2020). Stress testing at the IMF : A framework for macroprudential analysis. Departmental Paper 2020/016, International Monetary Fund

work page 2020
[8]

Bridges, S

Aikman, D., J. Bridges, S. H. Hoke, C. O’Neill, and A. Raja (2019). Credit, capital and crises: a GDP-at-Risk approach. Staff W orking P aper 824, Bank of England

work page 2019

Show all 70 references

[9]

Alessandri, P., L. D. Vecchio, and A. Miglietta (2019). Financial conditions and G rowth at R isk' in I taly. Economic Working Paper 1242, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area

2019
[10]

Andrews, D. F. and C. L. Mallows (1974). Scale mixtures of normal distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Ser. B)\/ 36\/ (1), 99--102

1974
[11]

Garofalo, S

Anesti, N., M. Garofalo, S. Lloyd, E. Manuel, and J. Reynolds (2023). Unknown measures: A ssessing uncertainty around UK inflation using a new I nflation-at- R isk model. Bank U nderground, Bank of England

2023
[12]

Petrella, and J

Antol \'i n-D \'i az, J., I. Petrella, and J. F. Rubio-Ram \'i rez (2021). Structural scenario analysis with SVAR s. Journal of Monetary Economics\/ 117\/ ( C ), 798--815

2021
[13]

Azzalini, A. and A. Capitanio (2003). Distributions generated by perturbation of symmetry with emphasis on a multivariate skew t-distribution. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Ser. B)\/ 65\/ (2), 367--389

2003
[14]

Azzalini, A. and A. Capitanio (2013). The Skew-Normal and Related Families . Institute of Mathematical Statistics Monographs. Cambridge University Press

2013
[15]

Bernanke, B. (2023). Forecasting for monetary policy making and communication at the B ank of E ngland: A review. Report to the BoE Independent Evaluation Office , Bank of England

2023
[16]

Black, F. and R. B. Litterman (1991). Asset allocation: C ombining investor views with market equilibrium. The Journal of Fixed Income\/ 1\/ (2), 7--18

1991
[17]

Boyarchenko, N., R. K. Crump, L. Elias, and I. L. Gaffney (2023). Look out for O utlook-at- R isk. Liberty Street Economics 20230517, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

2023
[18]

Boyd, S. and L. Vandenberghe (2004). Convex Optimization (additional exercises) . Cambridge University Press

2004
[19]

Fisher, and J

Britton, E., P. Fisher, and J. Whitley (1998). The inflation report projections: U nderstanding the fan chart. Quarterly Bulletin Q1 , Bank of England

1998
[20]

Daubechies, C

Brodie, J., I. Daubechies, C. De Mol, D. Giannone, and I. Loris (2009). Sparse and stable M arkowitz portfolios. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 106\/ (30), 12267--12272

2009
[21]

Brunnermeier, M. K. and Y. Sannikov (2014). A macroeconomic model with a financial sector. American Economic Review\/ 104\/ (2), 379--421

2014
[22]

Cascaldi-Garcia, P

Caldara, D., D. Cascaldi-Garcia, P. Cuba-Borda, and F. Loria (2021). Understanding G rowth-at- R isk: A M arkov switching approach. SSRN Electronic Journal . doi:10.2139/ssrn.3992793

2021 doi
[23]

Carriero, A., T. E. Clark, and M. Marcellino (2024). Capturing macro-economic tail risks with B ayesian vector autoregressions. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking\/ 56\/ (5), 1099--1127

2024
[24]

Chernis, T., G. Koop, E. Tallman, and M. West (2024). Decision synthesis in monetary policy. Bank of Canada, Staff Working Paper 2024-30. arXiv:2406.03321

2024 arXiv
[25]

Clark, T. E., G. Ganics, and E. Mertens (2022). What is the predictive value of SPF point and density forecasts? Working paper no. 22-37, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. doi:10.26509/frbc-wp-202237

2022 doi
[26]

De Mol, and D

Conflitti, C., C. De Mol, and D. Giannone (2015). Optimal combination of survey forecasts. International Journal of Forecasting\/ 31\/ (4), 1096--1103

2015
[27]

Croushore, D. (1993). Introducing: T he survey of professional forecasters. Business Review 3/1993, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

1993
[28]

Crump, R. K., S. Eusepi, D. Giannone, E. Qian, and A. M. Sbordone (2025). A large B ayesian VAR of the U nited S tates economy. International Journal of Central Banking\/ - , --

2025
[29]

Crump, R. K., M. Everaert, D. Giannone, and C. S. Hundtofte (2024). Changing risk-return profiles. In M. Barigozzi, S. Hörmann, and D. Paindaveine (Eds.), Recent Advances in Econometrics and Statistics: Festschrift in Honour of Marc Hallin , pp.\ 283--302. Springer

2024
[30]

De Mol, C. (2024). Multiplicative algorithms for density combination and deconvolution. In Recent Advances in Econometrics and Statistics: Festschrift in Honour of Marc Hallin , pp.\ 493--510. Springer

2024
[31]

Bassetti, and R

Del Negro, M., F. Bassetti, and R. Casarin (2023). Inference on probabilistic surveys in macroeconomics with an application to the evolution of uncertainty in the S urvey of P rofessional F orecasters during the COVID pandemic. In W. van der Klaauw, G. Topa, and R. Bachmann (E...

2023
[32]

Diebold, F. X., M. Shin, and B. Zhang (2023). On the aggregation of probability assessments: R egularized mixtures of predictive densities for E urozone inflation and real interest rates. Journal of Econometrics\/ 237\/ (2), 105321

2023
[33]

Kösem, G

Eguren-Martin, F., S. Kösem, G. Maia, and A. Sokol (2024). Targeted financial conditions indices and G rowth-at- R isk. Staff W orking P aper 1084, Bank of England

2024
[34]

Engstrom, E. and M. Gonzalez-Astudillo (2017). Time variation in upside and downside risks to the staff baseline forecast. Staff Memo to the Federal Open Market Committee , Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

2017
[35]

Report to the FOMC on Economic Conditions and Monetary Policy

Federal Reserve Board (2007). Report to the FOMC on Economic Conditions and Monetary Policy. Part 1-- Current Economic and Financial Conditions: Summary and Outlook . December 5, 2007, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

2007
[36]

Report to the FOMC on Economic Conditions and Monetary Policy

Federal Reserve Board (2018). Report to the FOMC on Economic Conditions and Monetary Policy. Book A-- Economic and Financial Conditions: Outlook, Risks, and Policy Strategies . December 7, 2018, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

2018
[37]

Guerr \'o n-Quintana, J

Fern \'a ndez-Villaverde, J., P. Guerr \'o n-Quintana, J. F. Rubio-Ram \'i rez, and M. Uribe (2011). Risk matters: T he real effects of volatility shocks. American Economic Review\/ 101\/ (6), 2530--2561

2011
[38]

Hurtado, and G

Fern \'a ndez-Villaverde, J., S. Hurtado, and G. Nuno (2023). Financial frictions and the wealth distribution. Econometrica\/ 91\/ (3), 869--901

2023
[39]

Mandelman, Y

Fern \'a ndez-Villaverde, J., F. Mandelman, Y. Yu, and F. Zanetti (2024). Search complementarities, aggregate fluctuations, and fiscal policy. Review of Economic Studies . rdae053

2024
[40]

Figueres, J. M. and M. Jarociński (2020). Vulnerable growth in the E uro area: M easuring the financial conditions. Economics Letters\/ 191\/ ( C ), 109--126

2020
[41]

Lenza, and G

Giannone, D., M. Lenza, and G. E. Primiceri (2021). Economic predictions with big data: The illusion of sparsity. Econometrica\/ 89\/ (5), 2409--2437

2021
[42]

Gruber, L. F. and M. West (2016). GPU -accelerated B ayesian learning and forecasting in simultaneous graphical dynamic linear models. Bayesian Analysis\/ 11\/ (1), 125--149

2016
[43]

Gruber, L. F. and M. West (2017). Bayesian forecasting and scalable multivariate volatility analysis using simultaneous graphical dynamic linear models. Econometrics and Statistics\/ 3\/ ( C ), 3--22

2017
[44]

Hafemann, L. (2023). House prices at risk: A framework for assessing vulnerabilities in the G erman housing market. Technical P aper 7/2023, Deutsche Bundesbank

2023
[45]

He, Z. and A. Krishnamurthy (2012). A model of capital and crises. Review of Economic Studies\/ 79\/ (2), 735--777

2012
[46]

Global financial stability report: I s growth a risk? International Monetary Fund

IMF (2017). Global financial stability report: I s growth a risk? International Monetary Fund

2017
[47]

Johnson, M. C. and M. West (2025). Bayesian predictive synthesis with outcome-dependent pools. Statistical Science\/ 40\/ (1), 109--127

2025
[48]

Poncet, and C

Jondeau, E., P. Poncet, and C. Rebillard (2022). Are financial variables useful to complement GDP nowcasting? Eco N otepad, Banque de France

2022
[49]

Justiniano, A. and G. E. Primiceri (2008). The time-varying volatility of macroeconomic fluctuations. American Economic Review\/ 98\/ (3), 604--641

2008
[50]

Kiley, M. T. (2022). Unemployment risk. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking\/ 54\/ (5), 1407--1424

2022
[51]

McIntyre, and J

Koop, G., S. McIntyre, and J. Mitchell (2019). UK regional nowcasting using a mixed frequency vector auto-regressive model with entropic tilting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Ser. A)\/ 183\/ (1), 91--119

2019
[52]

Kr \"u ger, F., T. E. Clark, and F. Ravazzolo (2017). Using entropic tilting to combine BVAR forecasts with external nowcasts. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics\/ 35\/ (3), 470--485

2017
[53]

Leeper, E. M. and T. Zha (2003). Modest policy interventions. Journal of Monetary Economicss\/ 50\/ (8), 1673--1700

2003
[54]

Moutachaker, and J

Lenza, M., I. Moutachaker, and J. Paredes (2023). Density forecasts of inflation: A quantile regression forest approach. Working Paper Series 2830, European Central Bank

2023
[55]

Chan, and M

Lin, L., C. Chan, and M. West (2016). Discriminative variable subsets in B ayesian classification with mixture models, with application in flow cytometry studies. Biostatistics\/ 17\/ (1), 40--53

2016
[56]

López-Salido, D. and F. Loria (2024). Inflation at risk. Journal of Monetary Economics\/ 145\/ ( S ), 103570

2024
[57]

Matlab O ptimization T oolbox (version 24.1, r2024a)

Matlab (2024). Matlab O ptimization T oolbox (version 24.1, r2024a). https://www.mathworks.com

2024
[58]

McAlinn, K. and M. West (2019). Dynamic B ayesian predictive synthesis in time series forecasting. Journal of Econometrics\/ 210\/ (1), 155--169

2019
[59]

Pettenuzzo, and A

Metaxoglou, K., D. Pettenuzzo, and A. Smith (2018). Option-implied equity premium predictions via entropic tilting. Journal of Financial Econometrics\/ 17\/ (4), 559--586

2018
[60]

Reichlin, G

Plagborg-Moller, M., L. Reichlin, G. Ricco, and T. Hasenzagl (2020). When is growth at risk? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity\/ 51\/ (1), 167--229

2020
[61]

Pujadas, A. M., L. Hospido, and J. M. Montero (2022). House prices at risk: A n empirical approach to downside risks in the S panish housing market. Working Paper 2244, Banco de Espa\ n a

2022
[62]

Robertson, J. C., E. W. Tallman, and C. H. Whiteman (2005). Forecasting using relative entropy. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking\/ 37\/ (3), 383--401

2005
[63]

Tallman, E. and M. West (2022). On entropic tilting and predictive conditioning. Supporting material for Tallman and West (2023). arxiv:2207.10013

2022 arXiv
[64]

Tallman, E. and M. West (2023). Bayesian predictive decision synthesis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Ser. B)\/ 86\/ (2), 340--363

2023
[65]

Tallman, E. and M. West (2025). Predictive decision synthesis for portfolios: B etting on better models. In S. Mazur and P. \" O sterhol (Eds.), Recent Developments in Bayesian Econometrics and Their Applications . Springer. arXiv:2405.01598

2025 arXiv
[66]

West, M. (1987). On scale mixtures of normal distributions. Biometrika\/ 74\/ (3), 646--648

1987
[67]

West, M. (2024). Perspectives on constrained forecasting. Bayesian Analysis\/ 19\/ (4), 1013--1039

2024
[68]

West, M. and P. J. Harrison (1986). Monitoring and adaptation in B ayesian forecasting models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 81\/ (395), 741--750

1986
[69]

West, M. and P. J. Harrison (1989). Subjective intervention in formal models. Journal of Forecasting\/ 8\/ (1), 33--53

1989
[70]

West, M. and P. J. Harrison (1997). Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models\/ (2nd ed.). Springer

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adams, P. A., T. Adrian, N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2021). Forecasting macroeconomic risks. International Journal of Forecasting\/ 37\/ (3), 1173--1191

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Adrian, T. and N. Boyarchenko (2012). I ntermediary leverage cycles and financial stability. Staff R eport 567, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2016). Vulnerable growth. Staff R eport 794, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2019). Vulnerable growth. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (4), 1263--1289

2019

[5] [5]

Boyarchenko, and D

Adrian, T., N. Boyarchenko, and D. Giannone (2021). Multimodality in macrofinancial dynamics. International Economic Review\/ 62\/ (2), 861--886

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Grinberg, N

Adrian, T., F. Grinberg, N. Liang, S. Malik, and J. Yu (2022). The term structure of G rowth-at- R isk. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics\/ 14\/ (3), 283--323

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Morsink, and L

Adrian, T., J. Morsink, and L. B. Schumacher (2020). Stress testing at the IMF : A framework for macroprudential analysis. Departmental Paper 2020/016, International Monetary Fund

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Bridges, S

Aikman, D., J. Bridges, S. H. Hoke, C. O’Neill, and A. Raja (2019). Credit, capital and crises: a GDP-at-Risk approach. Staff W orking P aper 824, Bank of England

work page 2019