Replication data for: Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems (doi:10.7910/DVN/EBMA)

View:

Part 1: Document Description
Part 2: Study Description
Part 5: Other Study-Related Materials
Entire Codebook

Document Description

Citation

Title:

Replication data for: Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems

Identification Number:

doi:10.7910/DVN/EBMA

Distributor:

Harvard Dataverse

Date of Distribution:

2014-07-21

Version:

1

Bibliographic Citation:

Graefe, Andreas, 2014, "Replication data for: Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EBMA, Harvard Dataverse, V1

Study Description

Citation

Title:

Replication data for: Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems

Identification Number:

doi:10.7910/DVN/EBMA

Authoring Entity:

Graefe, Andreas (LMU Munich)

Date of Production:

2014

Distributor:

Harvard Dataverse

Distributor:

Harvard Dataverse Network

Date of Deposit:

2014-07-21

Date of Distribution:

2014

Holdings Information:

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EBMA

Study Scope

Keywords:

Bayesian Model Averaging, election forecasting

Abstract:

We compare the accuracy of simple unweighted averages and Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging (EBMA) to combining forecasts in the social sciences. A review of prior studies from the domain of economic forecasting finds that the simple average was more accurate than EBMA in four out of five studies. On average, the error of EBMA was 5% higher than the error of the simple average. A reanalysis and extension of a published study provides further evidence for US presidential election forecasting. The error of EBMA was 33% higher than the corresponding error of the simple average. Simple averages are easy to describe, easy to understand and thus easy to use. In addition, simple averages provide accurate forecasts in many settings. Researchers who develop new approaches to combining forecasts need to compare the accuracy of their method to this widely established benchmark. Forecasting practitioners should favor simple averages over more complex methods unless there is strong evidence in support of differential weights.

Methodology and Processing

Sources Statement

Data Access

Notes:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0">CC0 1.0</a>

Other Study Description Materials

Related Publications

Citation

Title:

Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems

Bibliographic Citation:

Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems

Other Study-Related Materials

Label:

EBMA.xlsx

Text:

Notes:

application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet