Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Machine-learning Growth at Risk

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Downside risk to US growth is driven mainly by labour-market, housing, and financial variables, with their importance shifting over time, and the paper's quantile partial correlation regression decomposes this risk into sector-specific…

desk verdict Solid applied GaR paper with a genuinely useful decomposition and sector-index product; the driver list leans on an unpublished selection-consistency result and the quantification lacks confidence intervals, but the external validation holds the story together. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00572 v1 pith:O7OKPCYD submitted 2025-05-31 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Tobias Adrian , Hongqi Chen , Max-Sebastian Dovì , Ji Hyung Lee This is my paper
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords GrowthatRiskquantilepartialcorrelationregressionvariableselectiondownsidefinancialconditionsindexindustrialproductionmachinelearningtimeseries
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 show that the lower tail of US industrial production growth, the 5 percent quantile used in policy, is not explained by a single financial conditions index but by a shifting mix of labour-market, housing, and financial variables. Using a selection-based machine-learning method called quantile partial correlation regression on 111 monthly predictors, it argues these three sectors are the primary drivers of downside risk, with financial variables mattering mainly during stress episodes. It then exploits the linearity of the method to decompose the predicted tail into per-variable contributions, constructing targeted financial, labour, and housing indices that predict downside risk while controlling for information in other sectors. A sympathetic reader would care because the results offer a way to monitor which specific sector is currently raising recession risk, and because the proposed indices avoid the look-ahead bias and non-financial contamination often found in aggregate financial conditions indices.

What carries the argument

Quantile Partial Correlation Regression (QPCR) is an iterative screening algorithm that, at each step, selects the predictor with the largest absolute quantile partial correlation with the outcome, conditional on the previously selected variables plus their strongest correlates. The paper invokes QPCR because it carries a variable-selection-consistency guarantee under time series and because its estimated linear quantile function can be decomposed into additive per-variable contributions, which is what makes the sector-specific targeted indices possible.

What would settle it

A permutation test would settle the matter: independently shuffle each predictor's time series to break any true link to future industrial production growth while preserving the outcome's own dynamics, and count how often QPCR still selects financial, labour, and housing variables in at least twelve consecutive months; if selection rates remain high, the claimed drivers are artifacts of the screening procedure rather than genuine predictors. A second check is to re-estimate the rolling-window selection on data ending before the pandemic and verify that the same variables keep being selected as the windows advance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that quantile partial correlation regression, applied to 111 monthly macro-financial predictors for the US over 1971-2024, identifies capacity utilisation, labour-market slack, and housing starts as the systematic drivers of the 5 percent lower tail of one-period-ahead industrial production growth, with financial variables such as the commercial paper spread and the VIX selected episodically around crises and tightening cycles. The method's linear quantile predictions allow the authors to write the predicted downside risk as a sum of contributions, one per predictor, and to aggregate those contributions into sector-specific indices: a financial conditions index, a labour-market index, and a housing index. These targeted indices track established benchmarks in their own sectors while being only weakly correlated with indicators from other sectors, whereas the authors find the NFCI is significantly correlated with labour and housing measures, suggesting it carries non-financial information. The paper also uses simulations to argue that monthly industrial production growth, with about 420 observations, is a necessary setting for tail-quantile variable selection, because at quarterly sample sizes all selection-based methods fail to recover the relevant predictors.

Load-bearing premise

The whole list of selected drivers rests on the variable-selection-consistency theorem of Chen and Lee (2024), an unpublished companion manuscript by two of the authors; if that theorem does not hold for these 420 monthly observations with correlated predictors, some selected variables could be spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, monitoring frameworks for Growth at Risk should include labour-market slack and housing activity alongside financial conditions, rather than relying on a single aggregate financial conditions index.
  • The constructed sector-specific indices can be tracked and compared over time as targeted early-warning indicators: each index predicts the 5 percent IP-growth quantile while netting out information from other sectors, so a deterioration in one index points to a specific source of vulnerability.
  • The simulations imply that tail-quantile variable selection is unreliable at quarterly GDP sample sizes, so empirical GaR analyses using machine-learning selection should be run at monthly frequency (or with comparably large samples) before interpreting selected predictors as true drivers.
  • QPCR forecasts the 5 percent quantile competitively with quantile random forests, penalized quantile regressions, and a GARCH benchmark, so the interpretability of its linear structure does not come at a clear forecasting cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compare the targeted financial conditions index against the NFCI in a recession-probability model: if the targeted index adds predictive content after controlling for the NFCI, the paper's claim that it isolates financial information would be corroborated in a direct horse race.
  • Because the selection set changes over time, the authors' list of 'systematically selected' drivers is implicitly regime-dependent; an extension would formally test whether the selected variables align with narrative recession episodes, for instance whether the commercial paper spread from 2016 onward reflects a structural transmission channel or a prolonged stress regime.
  • The decomposition framework is not specific to IP growth or the US; the same QPCR-plus-decomposition recipe could be applied to other variables of policy interest, such as inflation tail risk or credit growth tail risk, though the selection-consistency guarantee would then need to be checked for those series.
  • The paper's evidence that the NFCI is correlated with labour and housing benchmarks suggests part of the NFCI's predictive content for downside risk may be non-financial; a natural follow-up is to quantify how much of that predictive content disappears once the QPCR labour and housing indices are included as controls.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper applies Quantile Partial Correlation Regression (QPCR) to a large panel of U.S. macro-financial variables to forecast the 5% lower tail of monthly industrial production growth in a rolling pseudo-out-of-sample exercise from 2006 to 2024. The authors report that QPCR is competitive with six alternative methods, identify a time-varying set of 'systematically selected' predictors concentrated in financial, labour-market, housing, and capacity-utilisation variables, and decompose the predicted quantile into sector-specific contributions that they aggregate into targeted financial, labour-market, and housing indices. The indices are shown to correlate with established benchmarks such as the NFCI, nonfarm payrolls, and the Case-Shiller index, and the paper argues that QPCR's selection-consistency guarantee justifies interpreting the selected drivers as the true drivers of downside risk.

Significance. The paper's value added is a transparent, interpretable ML-based GaR decomposition and an empirical mapping of the time-varying drivers of U.S. downside risk. The pseudo-out-of-sample design, the comparison with six alternative methods with Diebold-Mariano statistics, and the 1000-replication simulations are commendable and make the empirical strategy easy to follow. If the driver list is credible, the sector-level indices are a useful policy communication tool. The main caveats are that the selection-consistency guarantee is imported from an unpublished co-authored manuscript and is not stated or proved here, and that the sector indices are fitted contributions, so claims about their 'predictive' content need sharper validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 4.2 (Algorithm 1, Table 1)] The central claim that Figure 1 lists the systematically selected drivers rests on QPCR's model-selection consistency under time series, but this property is only asserted via a citation to Chen and Lee (2024), an unpublished manuscript by two of the co-authors, and no theorem or proof is reproduced. The paper's own Table 1 shows that at the configuration closest to the empirical application (T=500, p=110) QPCR selects each relevant predictor in only 88-90% of replications and adds on average 1.17 non-relevant predictors; the empirical sample has T=420 and p=111. The 12-consecutive-month filter in Section 4.2 removes isolated false positives but not persistent ones. In addition, Algorithm 1's final model size is chosen by the EBIC step in Step 8, and the cited consistency result is not shown to cover that step under the time-series dependence of the FRED-MD transformations. Please state the theorem and its conditions, or prove a version covering the implemented algorithm, and provide a sensitivity analysis of the Figure 1 driver list to hyperparameter choices or a stability-selection/FDR correction.
  2. [Section 4.3 (decomposition equation and Figure 4)] The sector-specific indices are defined as the fitted contributions \hat Q^{QPCR,G}_{Y_{T+2}}(τ | X_{G,T+1}) = Σ_{j∈G} \hat β^{QPCR}_j X_{T+1,j}. Because these are by construction linear components of the predicted quantile, the statement that the indices 'predict' downside risk is tautological: any linear model with nonzero coefficients would produce such indices. The non-circular content is the external validation against the NFCI, nonfarm payrolls, and the Case-Shiller index, and the out-of-sample performance of the overall QPCR. To substantiate the predictive claim for the indices themselves, please add an out-of-sample evaluation (for example, predictive regressions of realized lower-tail IP-growth events on lagged index values, or a comparison of index-based forecasts with the full-model forecast) or explicitly reframe the indices as decompositions rather than predictors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The displayed formulas for d*, Dmax, and md are garbled in the preprint (for example, 'd∗ = j T log T k 1 2'); please typeset these expressions cleanly and define all quantities precisely.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure 1] The text lists selected labour-market and housing variables as UNRATE, CLAIMSx, PAYEMS, USGOOD, SVPRD, AWHMAN, HOUST, HOUSTS, and PERMIT, but the Figure 1 note also includes USCONS, PERMITNE, PERMITMW, and PERMITS; please reconcile the lists.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 4.1] QRFM achieves a lower MPE than QPCR (1.449 vs 1.462) and the DM statistic is 0.114, so the statement that QPCR 'performs favorably' should be softened to 'competitive' or similar.
  4. [Section 4.3, footnote 5] The 'financial variables' group includes stock-market and money/credit variables such as S.P.500, S.P.PE.ratio, M2SL, and BUSLOANS; this should be acknowledged when interpreting the index as a pure financial-conditions measure.
  5. [Section 2.1] The claim that including the confounding set ensures that predictors highly correlated with previously selected predictors are not selected is not formally demonstrated; please clarify whether this is an algorithmic property or a consequence of the selection-consistency theorem.
  6. [General] The text repeatedly refers to an online appendix for GDP results and upside risk, but no appendix is included in this preprint; please state where it can be obtained or include it in the submission.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Driver list rests on a co-authored unpublished selection-consistency claim, and the 'predictive' sector indices are accounting identities.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract and Section 2.1 (Quantile Partial Correlation Regression), paragraph after Algorithm 1]
    "We analyse growth vulnerabilities in the US using quantile partial correlation regression, a selection-based machine-learning method that achieves model selection consistency under time series. ... First, as shown in Chen and Lee (2024) under suitable assumptions that allow for time series, QPCR is theoretically guaranteed to eventually select all relevant predictors even if the number of predictors outstrips the number of observations ( p > T)."

    The paper's central empirical claim—that the variables in Figure 1 are the drivers of downside risk—depends on QPCR's variable-selection consistency. That consistency is not proved here; the only support is a citation to Chen and Lee (2024), an unpublished mimeo by two of the present co-authors. No proof is reproduced, and the paper's own Table 1 shows that at T=500, p=110 (close to the empirical T=420, p=111) QPCR selects each of five true predictors only about 88-90% of the time and adds about 1.17 false predictors on average. The asymptotic guarantee, even if correct, does not by itself validate the specific finite-sample driver list; the load-bearing premise is therefore imported from the authors' own unpublished work.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.3 (Growth at Risk decomposition and targeted indices), definition of group contribution and abstract claim]
    "Decomposing GaR into the contributions from individual variables also makes it possible to create easily trackable and comparable summaries of our ML analyses in the form of sector-specific indices. ... the total contribution of the predictors indexed in G ... as \q\Q^{QPCR,G}_{Y_{T+2}}(\tau|X_{G,T+1}) = \sum_{j \in G} \\beta^{QPCR}_j X_{T+1,j}."

    The sector-specific indices are defined as the fitted group contributions to the model's predicted quantile, and the predicted GaR is the sum of these contributions by construction (the paper writes \\Q = \sum_i \\Q^{G_i}). Therefore, the abstract's claim that the indices 'predict' downside risk is a restatement of the index definition: any index constructed this way inherits the model's prediction by construction. The external benchmark correlations (NFCI, payrolls, Case-Shiller) provide non-circular validation of their economic content, but the 'predictive' property itself is definitional rather than an independently tested prediction.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the rolling-window forecast comparison (Section 4.1) pits QPCR against independent benchmarks (l1-QR, SCAD, MCP, QRF, GARCH), and the targeted indices are externally correlated with NFCI, payrolls, and Case-Shiller (Figures 4-5). Those are non-circular checks. However, two load-bearing steps do reduce to their own inputs. First, the identification of the driver set in Figure 1 relies on QPCR's 'model selection consistency under time series,' which is imported solely from Chen and Lee (2024), an unpublished mimeo by two of the co-authors; the paper's own Table 1 shows finite-sample false selection at the empirical sample size, so the guarantee is doing real work and is not reproduced. Second, the sector-specific indices are defined as the fitted group contributions to the predicted quantile, and the predicted GaR is the sum of those contributions; calling the indices 'predictive' is therefore true by construction, though their correlation with external benchmarks is independent evidence. These two features make the paper partially circular in its headline claims, even though much of the empirical analysis is self-contained.

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

The central empirical claims rest on the assumptions that QPCR's selection-consistency theory (cited to an unpublished paper by two co-authors) holds for the actual data, that the conditional quantile is linear, and that monthly IP growth adequately represents aggregate growth. No free parameters are fit to a target index; the indices are linear combinations of the estimated model, so their predictive content is partly by construction, and the external validation against benchmarks is what makes the isolation claim substantive.

free parameters (3)
  • md (confounding set size) = floor((T/log T)^(1/2))
    Chosen by hand following Ma et al. (2017); affects the conditioning set and hence which variables are selected.
  • Dmax (max iterations) = floor(T/log T)
    Chosen following Ma et al. (2017); caps the number of selected predictors.
  • C in EBIC = 1
    Standard EBIC constant; affects the final model size.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The predictor sequence {X_t} is stationary and beta-mixing, allowing time-series selection consistency.
    Stated in Section 2: 'a sequence of stationary β-mixing predictors'.
  • domain assumption The conditional quantile function Q_{Y_{t+1}}(τ|X_t) is linear in X_t.
    Section 2 models the quantile as X_t' β_τ; all QR-based methods rely on this.
  • domain assumption QPCR achieves variable selection consistency for sparse models with p > T under the stated conditions (Chen and Lee, 2024).
    The central guarantee is cited to an unpublished manuscript; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Monthly IP growth is a valid proxy for quarterly GDP growth for tail-risk analysis.
    Justified in Section 1 by a 0.75 correlation and by simulations; qualitative appendix results on GDP are said to hold.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulation DGP (absolute-value normal predictors, location-scale form) adequately reflects the difficulty of tail selection in real macro data.
    The DGP is stylized and chosen to demonstrate the sample-size issue, not to match actual GaR dynamics; the paper acknowledges this.
invented entities (1)
  • Targeted sector-specific indices (financial conditions index, labour-market index, housing-market index) independent evidence
    purpose: Summarise each sector's contribution to the predicted 5% quantile of IP growth, isolating sector-specific information from other sectors.
    The indices are constructed from the fitted QPCR model and are validated against external benchmarks (NFCI, nonfarm payrolls, Case-Shiller) and shown to track crisis episodes. They have a falsifiable handle: they are observable linear combinations of public data and can be used for out-of-sample forecasting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine-learning Growth at Risk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7OKPCYD

@misc{pith2026250600572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine-learning Growth at Risk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7OKPCYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00572}
}
read the original abstract

We analyse growth vulnerabilities in the US using quantile partial correlation regression, a selection-based machine-learning method that achieves model selection consistency under time series. We find that downside risk is primarily driven by financial, labour-market, and housing variables, with their importance changing over time. Decomposing downside risk into its individual components, we construct sector-specific indices that predict it, while controlling for information from other sectors, thereby isolating the downside risks emanating from each sector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00572 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selected variables for τ = 0.05 Note. Variables selected for at least 12 consecutive months. Each row represents a selected vari￾able, and blue cells indicate periods of selection. CUMFNS: capacity utilisation; UNRATE: unemploy￾ment rate; CLAIMSx: initial claims; PAYEMS: total nonfarm employees; USGOOD: goods-producing employees; USCONS: construction employees; SRVPRD: service-producing employees; AWHMAN: average we… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coefficients of selected variables for τ = 0.05 over time. Note. Solid blue dots indicate periods of selection and show the corresponding value of the estimate. Hollow dots represent periods in which the variable was not selected. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Decomposition of GaR into Fred-MD groups, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Targeted indices and commonly-used benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pairwise correlations of indices and commonly-used benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adrian, M. T., F. Duarte, and T. Iyer (2023). The market price of risk and macro-financial dynamics. IMF Working Paper\/ (23/199), 1--87

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Boyarchenko, and D

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

    2019

  3. [3]

    Amburgey, A. J. and M. W. McCracken (2023). On the real-time predictive content of financial condition indices for growth. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/ 38\/ (2), 137--163

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Tibshirani, S

    Athey, S., J. Tibshirani, S. Wager, et al. (2019). Generalized random forests. The Annals of Statistics\/ 47\/ (2), 1148--1178

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Giannone, and L

    Ba \'n bura, M., D. Giannone, and L. Reichlin (2010). Large bayesian vector auto regressions. Journal of applied Econometrics\/ 25\/ (1), 71--92

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Belloni, A. and V. Chernozhukov (2011). l1-penalized quantile regression in high-dimensional sparse models. Annal of Statistics\/

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Brave, S. and D. Kelley (2017). Introducing the chicago fed’s new adjusted national financial conditions index. Chicago Fed Letters\/ (386)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Brownlees, C. and A. B. Souza (2021). Backtesting global growth-at-risk. Journal of Monetary Economics\/ 118 , 312--330

    work page 2021

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Carriero, A., T. E. Clark, and M. Marcellino (2022). Nowcasting tail risk to economic activity at a weekly frequency. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/ 37\/ (5), 843--866

    2022

  2. [10]

    Carriero, A., T. E. Clark, and M. Marcellino (2024). Specification choices in quantile regression for empirical macroeconomics. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chen, H. and J. Lee (2024). Predictive quantile regression with high-dimensional predictors: The variable screening approach. mimeo\/

    2024

  4. [12]

    Clark, T. E., F. Huber, G. Koop, M. Marcellino, and M. Pfarrhofer (2023). Tail forecasting with multivariate bayesian additive regression trees. International Economic Review\/ 64\/ (3), 979--1022

    2023

  5. [13]

    Clark, T. E., F. Huber, G. Koop, M. Marcellino, and M. Pfarrhofer (2024). Investigating growth-at-risk using a multicountry nonparametric quantile factor model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ , 1--16

    2024

  6. [14]

    Financial Stability Review, May 2019

    ECB (2019). Financial Stability Review, May 2019 . European Central Bank

    2019

  7. [15]

    K \"o sem, G

    Eguren-Martin, F., S. K \"o sem, G. Maia, and A. Sokol (2024). Targeted financial conditions indices and growth-at-risk. Technical report, Bank of England

    2024

  8. [16]

    Improvements to the ESRB macroprudential stance framework

    ESRB (2024). Improvements to the ESRB macroprudential stance framework . European Systemic Risk Board

    2024

  9. [17]

    Estrella, A. and F. S. Mishkin (1998). Predicting us recessions: Financial variables as leading indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 80\/ (1), 45--61

    1998

  10. [18]

    Fan, J. and R. Li (2001). Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 96\/ (456), 1348--1360

    2001

  11. [19]

    Gertler, M. and C. S. Lown (1999). The information in the high-yield bond spread for the business cycle: evidence and some implications. Oxford Review of economic policy\/ 15\/ (3), 132--150

    1999

  12. [20]

    Lenza, and G

    Giannone, D., M. Lenza, and G. E. Primiceri (2015). Prior selection for vector autoregressions. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 97\/ (2), 436--451

    2015

  13. [21]

    Gilchrist, S. and E. Zakraj s ek (2012). Credit spreads and business cycle fluctuations. American economic review\/ 102\/ (4), 1692--1720

    2012

  14. [22]

    Global Financial Stability Report, October 2017: Is Growth at Risk?

    IMF (2017). Global Financial Stability Report, October 2017: Is Growth at Risk?. International Monetary Fund

    2017

  15. [23]

    Global Financial Stability Report, October 2024: Macrofinancial Stability and High Global Economic Uncertainty

    IMF (2024). Global Financial Stability Report, October 2024: Macrofinancial Stability and High Global Economic Uncertainty. International Monetary Fund

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kock, A. B., M. Medeiros, and G. Vasconcelos (2020). Penalized Time Series Regression , Chapter 7, pp.\ 193 -- 228. Springer

    2020

  17. [25]

    Leroux, and D

    Kotchoni, R., M. Leroux, and D. Stevanovic (2019). Macroeconomic forecast accuracy in a data-rich environment. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/ 34\/ (7), 1050--1072

    2019

  18. [26]

    Moutachaker, and J

    Lenza, M., I. Moutachaker, and J. Paredes (2023). Density forecasts of inflation: a quantile regression forest approach . Number 2830. ECB Working Paper

    2023

  19. [27]

    Li, and C.-L

    Ma, S., R. Li, and C.-L. Tsai (2017). Variable screening via quantile partial correlation. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 112\/ (518), 650--663

    2017

  20. [28]

    McCracken, M. and S. Ng (2020). Fred-qd: A quarterly database for macroeconomic research. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research

    2020

  21. [29]

    Medeiros, M. C., G. F. Vasconcelos, \'A . Veiga, and E. Zilberman (2021). Forecasting inflation in a data-rich environment: the benefits of machine learning methods. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 39\/ (1), 98--119

    2021

  22. [30]

    Meinshausen, N. (2006). Quantile regression forests. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 7\/ (Jun), 983--999

    2006

  23. [31]

    Reichlin, G

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

    2020

  24. [32]

    Pr \"u ser, J. and F. Huber (2024). Nonlinearities in macroeconomic tail risk through the lens of big data quantile regressions. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/ 39\/ (2), 269--291

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sun, C. and M. Medeiros (2024). A sorted penalty estimator: Inference for a correlation-robust shrinkage method. Available at SSRN\/

    2024

  26. [34]

    Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 58\/ (1), 267--288

    1996

  27. [35]

    Zhang, C.-H. (2010). Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. Annal of Statistics\/

    2010

  28. [36]

    Geanakoplos, J. (2022). Leverage and macroprudential policy. Handbook of Financial Stress Testing\/ , 381

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.