evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

DFROG — De Nederlandsche Bank's Machine-Learning-Tested Nowcasting Model for GDP Growth

Netherlands · Amsterdam · See the Netherlands profile

DNB's DFROG nowcasting model has tracked Dutch GDP growth in real time since 2024, publishing monthly estimates; a decade-long evaluation found it beat professional Consensus Economics forecasters' backcasts by a 46% RMSFE margin and a standard dynamic-factor benchmark by up to 1

46%
DFROG advantage over Consensus Economics forecasters (RMSFE) (2013 Q3–2023 Q3 excl. COVID quarters)
up to 38%
DFROG advantage over naive benchmarks (RMSFE) (2013 Q3–2023 Q3 excl. COVID quarters)
11% more accurate
DFROG accuracy vs Bańbura–Rünstler benchmark, month 1 of quarter
16% more accurate
DFROG accuracy vs Bańbura–Rünstler benchmark, month 2 of quarter
0.88 vs 0.90
Random forest vs factor model RMSFE, nowcast horizon
0.92 vs 0.97
Random forest vs factor model RMSFE, one quarter ahead

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB)
Period
Since 2024 (in production; evaluation covers 2013–2023)
Keywords
central banking, macroeconomic forecasting, nowcasting, machine learning, GDP growth

Context

De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) operates DFROG (Dutch Forecasting model for Real-time Output Growth), a dynamic-factor-model nowcasting tool combining roughly 70 monthly economic and financial indicators into a single real-time estimate of current-quarter Dutch GDP growth, published monthly on DNB's website as a 'mechanical projection' distinct from the bank's official forecasts.

Objectives

Provide a real-time, model-based nowcast of current-quarter GDP growth alongside DNB's official June and December forecasts.

Activities

DNB researchers evaluated DFROG's accuracy over 2013 Q3–2023 Q3 against professional forecasters (Consensus Economics), naive benchmarks (random walk, autoregressive model), and the Bańbura–Rünstler dynamic factor model (Working Paper 819). A related earlier paper (754, peer-reviewed in De Economist and AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis) tested machine-learning methods (random forest, LASSO, elastic net, random subspace regression) against DFROG's approach.

Results

Excluding the three most volatile COVID-19 quarters, DFROG beat Consensus Economics backcasts by a 46% RMSFE margin and naive benchmarks by up to 38%; it was 11% and 16% more accurate than the Bańbura–Rünstler benchmark in the first and second month of the quarter respectively (though statistically indistinguishable over the full COVID-inclusive sample). A random forest model modestly outperformed the factor model at the nowcast horizon (0.88 vs 0.90 relative RMSFE) and one quarter ahead (0.92 vs 0.97).

Conclusions

DNB is candid that DFROG is a mechanical statistical tool, not an official forecast, and that professional forecasters' judgement still beats it during exceptional distress like COVID-19; despite ML methods showing modest gains, DFROG's simpler factor-model design remains DNB's production choice.

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful