Inference Based on Time-Varying SVARs Identified with Sign Restrictions

Layer 1 — Overview

Research Question. The paper asks how to conduct valid Bayesian inference in time-varying structural vector autoregressions (SVARs) identified with sign restrictions, a setting in which existing algorithms are shown to be theoretically flawed. As an empirical illustration, the authors use the new framework to examine three questions about the 2022–2023 Federal Reserve tightening cycle: (i) how did the Fed respond to the state of the economy; (ii) how would more dovish or hawkish stances have fared; and (iii) was the Fed behind the curve in 2021, and at what cost?

Methodology. The paper defines a class of rotation-invariant time-varying SVARs, building on Bognanni (2018). A model belongs to this class when its prior over sequences of structural parameters is invariant to orthogonal transformations of those sequences—i.e., it assigns equal prior density to all observationally equivalent structural parameter sequences (Proposition 1 establishes that observational equivalence corresponds exactly to orthogonal rotation of the sequence). The authors prove an if-and-only-if characterization (Proposition 2): a prior belongs to this class if and only if the induced prior over sequences of orthogonal matrices is uniform and independent of the time-varying reduced-form parameters.

A specific member of this class, the Random Correlations SVAR (RC-SVAR), is constructed by combining a prior over time-varying reduced-form parameters based on Archakov and Hansen’s (2021) parametrization of correlation matrices with a uniform prior over sequences of orthogonal matrices. The RC-SVAR is preferred over alternatives (Primiceri 2005’s decomposition, which is order-dependent; Bognanni’s 2018 discounted Wishart model, whose marginal likelihood significantly underperforms) because, for the type of empirical applications considered, it generally implies a higher log-predictive score than most orderings of the Primiceri (2005) model.

The authors introduce three algorithms. Algorithm 1 (simple acceptance sampling) is theoretically correct but computationally infeasible when sign restrictions span many periods because the probability of satisfying all restrictions simultaneously converges to zero as sample length T grows. Algorithm 2, the current approach in the literature (Baumeister and Peersman 2013; Bognanni 2018; Debortoli, Galí and Gambetti 2020), draws orthogonal matrices period-by-period from the sign-restriction-truncated uniform distribution; the authors show this does not draw from the correct target posterior because the resulting prior over orthogonal matrices is not independent of the reduced-form parameters and therefore the prior does not satisfy the rotation-invariance condition. Algorithm 3, the paper’s contribution, uses a Gibbs sampler that incorporates the Particle Gibbs with Ancestor Sampling (PGAS) method of Lindsten, Jordan and Schon (2014) to draw sequentially from the correct target posterior conditional on sign restrictions over an arbitrary number of periods.

An important additional contribution is the allowance for time-varying sign restrictions—restrictions that are imposed only in selected periods—enabling researchers to tailor identification to institutional knowledge about when particular restrictions are economically appropriate.

Data and Empirical Application. The RC-SVAR is estimated at a quarterly frequency with five variables: output growth (log difference of real GDP), core inflation (log difference of core PCE price index), the federal funds rate, money growth (log difference of M2), and the Moody’s Baa corporate bond yield relative to the 10-year Treasury yield (credit spread). The sample runs from 1959:Q1 to 2023:Q2, with a constant and two lags (n=5, p=2, m=11). Four independent MCMC chains of 20,000 draws are used, keeping every tenth draw after discarding the first 2,500; 1,800 particles approximate the reduced-form posterior and 3,600 particles approximate the posterior of the orthogonal matrices.

Main Findings. Decomposing the unexpected change in the federal funds rate from 2022:Q2 to 2023:Q2 into contributions from the predictable component, the systematic monetary policy response to non-monetary-policy shocks, and pure monetary policy shocks, the authors find that the lion’s share of the unpredictable rate increase was a systematic response to non-monetary policy shocks. Monetary policy shocks contributed about 100 basis points of the unexpected change in the federal funds rate by 2023:Q2 (out of roughly 4.99 percentage points of cumulative actual funds rate).

In the Dovish Fed counterfactual—where the response of the federal funds rate to contemporaneous inflation is halved for the first quarter of 2022—the economy would have marginally overheated, with inflation running persistently above 5 percent. In the Hawkish Fed counterfactual—where the response to inflation is doubled—inflation would have quickly declined at a small output cost: focusing on posterior medians, real GDP in 2023:Q2 would have been about 0.7 percent lower than in the data, though the lower envelope of the 68 percent probability bands indicates the output cost could have been as large as 3.1 percent.

Regarding the “behind the curve” question, the model finds evidence that the Fed was accommodative in 2021 (expansionary monetary policy shocks in that period), consistent with Summers (2021b). However, monetary policy shocks contributed only about 0.6 percentage points to annualized core inflation during 2021:Q2–2021:Q4 on a cumulative basis; the larger and dominant source of the unexpected inflation surge was non-monetary policy shocks. A comparison of the RC-SVAR with a constant-parameter SVAR identified only by Restriction 1 (Uhlig 2005) shows substantively different conclusions: the constant-parameter model attributes the unexpected increase in the federal funds rate to shocks that affect money growth and credit spreads, without a clear connection to the real economy, whereas the RC-SVAR links the rate increases to shocks that made the economy run hotter.

Layer 2 — Q&A

Q1: What is the fundamental theoretical flaw in existing algorithms for time-varying SVARs identified with sign restrictions, and why does it matter?

Existing algorithms (e.g., Baumeister and Peersman 2013; Bognanni 2018; Debortoli, Galí and Gambetti 2020) draw orthogonal matrices period-by-period from the uniform distribution restricted to those matrices satisfying the sign restrictions at each t. This construction implicitly defines a marginal density for the orthogonal matrices conditional on the reduced-form parameters that is not uniform: it is proportional to the reciprocal of the volume of the sign-restriction-satisfying subset of the orthogonal group, which depends on the reduced-form parameters. Consequently, the prior over structural parameters implied by these algorithms does not assign equal density to observationally equivalent sequences of structural parameters, violating Proposition 2’s necessary and sufficient condition. The resulting posteriors are therefore not correctly targeted to the desired posterior, meaning inference is distorted in a way that cannot be corrected by importance reweighting without prohibitive computation.

Q2: What does Proposition 1 establish, and how does it generalize the constant-parameter case?

Proposition 1 proves that two sequences of time-varying structural parameters are observationally equivalent if and only if there exists a sequence of orthogonal matrices such that one sequence is obtained from the other by post-multiplying each period’s structural parameters by the corresponding orthogonal matrix. This directly mirrors the constant-parameter result in Rubio-Ramírez, Waggoner and Zha (2010) and Uhlig (2005), where a single orthogonal matrix produces observational equivalence. The extension to sequences is non-trivial because the law of motion couples parameter draws across time, but the likelihood’s separability across periods preserves the period-by-period orthogonal rotation structure.

Q3: What is Proposition 2, and what is its practical implication for constructing valid priors?

Proposition 2 states that the prior over time-varying structural parameters satisfies the rotation-invariance condition (Equation 3) if and only if the induced prior over the time-varying orthogonal reduced-form parameters does not depend on the sequence of orthogonal matrices—equivalently, the prior over (Qt) is uniform over the product of orthogonal groups and is independent of the reduced-form parameters (Bt, Σt). The practical implication is constructive: any prior over time-varying reduced-form parameters (Bt, Σt), combined with an independent uniform prior over sequences of orthogonal matrices, automatically produces a rotation-invariant SVAR. This means that widely-used priors for reduced-form time-varying VARs (Primiceri 2005, Bognanni 2018, the new RC prior) can all be adapted for structural analysis without modification, as long as the orthogonal matrices are drawn uniformly and independently of the reduced-form parameters.

Q4: Why do models with heteroskedastic structural shocks (identification via heteroskedasticity) not belong to the class of rotation-invariant SVARs?

In models identified through heteroskedasticity, the time-varying structural parameters take the form (A Ψt^{-1/2}, F Ψt^{-1/2}), where Ψt is a time-varying diagonal matrix. For any permissible sequence, post-multiplying by a non-diagonal orthogonal matrix at one period produces a sequence where the ratio of structural parameters across consecutive periods is not diagonal, which violates the permissibility constraint of those models. Thus, the class of rotation-invariant SVARs and models identified through heteroskedasticity are mutually exclusive when the heteroskedastic specification has constant impulse responses up to scale—a restriction that the authors note has been criticized as a potential weakness of the heteroskedasticity-based approach.

Q5: Why is the Random Correlations SVAR (RC-SVAR) chosen as the baseline, and how does it compare to alternatives?

The RC-SVAR uses the Archakov and Hansen (2021) parametrization of correlation matrices to define a prior over time-varying reduced-form parameters that is order-invariant (unlike Primiceri 2005, which produces n! different elements depending on variable ordering) and avoids the highly restrictive structure of Bognanni’s (2018) discounted Wishart model, which significantly underperforms in marginal likelihood. For the empirical applications considered, Arias, Rubio-Ramírez and Shin (2023) show the RC-SVAR generally achieves a higher log-predictive score than most orderings of the Primiceri (2005) model, motivating its use as the baseline. The theoretical results apply to any member of the rotation-invariant class, so the algorithm is not specific to the RC-SVAR.

Q6: Why are time-varying sign restrictions important, and how are they implemented in the monetary policy application?

Time-varying sign restrictions allow researchers to impose identification restrictions only in periods where those restrictions are economically appropriate, adhering to the principle “If you know it, impose it; if you do not know it, do not impose it” (Uhlig 2017). In the monetary policy application, Restriction 2 (which constrains the contemporaneous elasticities in the policy rule to plausible ranges, following Arias, Caldara and Rubio-Ramírez 2019) is not imposed during three exceptional periods: 1979:Q4–1982:Q4 (non-borrowed reserves targeting under Volcker), 2009:Q1–2015:Q3 (quantitative easing following the Great Recession), and 2020:Q2–2021:Q4 (QE and effective zero lower bound during COVID-19). Restriction 1 (sign restrictions on impulse responses to a monetary policy shock, following Uhlig 2005) is imposed throughout the entire sample.

Q7: What do the estimated contemporaneous elasticities reveal about how monetary policy has changed over time?

The model estimates show substantial time variation. The contemporaneous elasticity of the federal funds rate to output growth exhibits three peaks: during Arthur Burns’s chairmanship in 1974 (capturing the sharp rate cut during the 1974–1975 recession), during Volcker’s chairmanship in 1983–1984 (when annualized real GDP growth averaged 6.8 percent), and during Greenspan’s tenure in 2001 (when the federal funds rate fell from 6.4 percent in December 2000 to 1.8 percent by end-2001). Outside these peaks, the elasticity averaged about 0.1, implying a 0.1 percentage point rise in the annualized federal funds rate per 1 percentage point increase in annualized GDP growth. The elasticity to inflation averaged about 0.3 percentage points per 1 percentage point rise in annualized core inflation, with a range from above 0.5 in the early 1970s and early Volcker years down to about 0.15 during Yellen’s tenure. The elasticity to the credit spread moved from about −1.4 at the beginning of Burns’s tenure to −2.2 at the end of Nixon’s presidency, then declined through the mid-1970s to the Great Recession, and stood at about −1 by mid-2023.

Q8: What is the exact decomposition of the 2022–2023 tightening cycle into predictable, systematic non-monetary, and monetary policy shock components?

Table 1 from the paper shows the federal funds rate decomposition. In 2022:Q2, the predictable component was 0.27 percentage points, the unpredictable component due to systematic response to non-monetary shocks was 0.24 pp, and the unpredictable component due to monetary policy shocks was 0.26 pp, summing to 0.77 pp. By 2023:Q2, these were 1.70 pp (predictable), 2.25 pp (systematic/non-monetary), and 1.04 pp (MP shocks), totaling 4.99 pp. Thus, at the tightening cycle’s end in 2023:Q2, the systematic response to non-monetary shocks accounted for about two-thirds of the unpredictable component (2.25 / (2.25 + 1.04) ≈ 68 percent), consistent with the broader literature finding that most variation in policy instruments is driven by the systematic component of policy.

Q9: How do the Hawkish and Dovish Fed counterfactuals work, and what do they imply?

The Hawkish (Dovish) counterfactual replaces the estimated contemporaneous response to inflation in the policy rule with one that is twice (half) as large as the estimated response for the first quarter of 2022, then simulates history forward from 2022:Q2 under the modified rule. Under the Dovish Fed, the economy would have marginally overheated with output rising above CBO potential GDP estimates, and inflation would have run persistently above 5 percent. Under the Hawkish Fed, posterior medians show inflation quickly declining at a cost of about 0.7 percent of real GDP in 2023:Q2 relative to the data; the lower envelope of the 68 percent probability bands shows the output cost could have been as large as 3.1 percent. A parallel set of counterfactuals, designed to be robust to the Lucas critique by working through one-time monetary policy shocks rather than changes to the reaction function, yields broadly similar results.

Q10: What does the comparison with Romer and Romer (2023a) reveal about the model’s monetary policy shock series?

Romer and Romer (2023a) identify a contractionary monetary policy shock in July 2022 (2022:Q3) using a narrative approach. The RC-SVAR’s estimated monetary policy shock series is broadly consistent with this finding: the model detects a contractionary shock in 2022:Q3 and, like Romer and Romer, also finds some evidence of a contractionary shock in 2022:Q2 (though they characterized it as “signs but not definitive evidence”). Beyond the Romer-Romer estimation window, the RC-SVAR additionally finds evidence of an expansionary monetary policy shock in 2023:Q1, when the Fed decelerated the pace of rate increases from 50 to 25 basis points.

Q11: How does the RC-SVAR’s inference on the 2022–2023 tightening cycle differ from that of a constant-parameter SVAR identified only with Restriction 1?

Two salient differences emerge. First, through the lens of the constant-parameter SVAR, monetary policy shocks contribute insignificantly to unexpected output growth between 2022:Q2 and 2023:Q2; in fact, the posterior median output response to a contractionary monetary policy shock is positive in that model (consistent with Uhlig 2005’s finding), implying that the positive monetary policy shocks needed to explain the rate increase would propel rather than reduce output. In the RC-SVAR, the posterior median output response to a contractionary shock is negative, so contractionary monetary policy shocks worked to decelerate output against a backdrop of non-monetary shocks that made the economy run hotter. Second, in the constant-parameter SVAR, non-monetary policy shocks that drive the unexpected increase in the federal funds rate do not propagate through output or inflation, whereas in the RC-SVAR they do—yielding a much more coherent macroeconomic narrative for the tightening cycle.

Q12: What does the model find about whether the Fed was behind the curve in 2021, and what were the consequences?

The model’s 2021:Q1 forecasts predicted the federal funds rate would reach about 0.6 percent by end-2021, consistent with a view that rate normalization was already warranted. The actual federal funds rate remained at its effective lower bound through 2021:Q4, and the shock decomposition shows that the cumulative unexpected change in the funds rate during 2021:Q2–2021:Q4 was driven by expansionary monetary policy shocks—supporting the view that monetary policy was accommodative and the FOMC fell behind the curve. However, monetary policy shocks contributed only about 0.6 percentage points (annualized) to the unexpected increase in core inflation during this period; the dominant and larger source of the inflation surge was non-monetary policy shocks. The model therefore finds that the delay in tightening was not the primary driver of the 2021 inflation surge.

Q13: Do time-varying sign restrictions materially affect inference, as demonstrated in Section 6.8?

Yes. Comparing the baseline identification scheme (Restrictions 1 and 2, with Restriction 2 not imposed during exceptional periods) against an alternative scheme that imposes both restrictions throughout the entire sample reveals differences in the estimated monetary policy shocks, particularly in 2021:Q4. Under the alternative scheme, there was an expansionary monetary policy shock in 2021:Q4, while the baseline finds the shock was nearly centered around zero. Additionally, for 2021:Q2, the alternative scheme implies the contemporaneous output response to an expansionary monetary policy shock is more likely to have been positive, whereas the baseline scheme yields a different posterior distribution for this response. These differences illustrate that imposing or omitting restrictions in specific periods affects inference about structural shocks and impulse responses at economically important junctures.

Key Concepts

Rotation-Invariant Time-Varying SVAR: A class of time-varying SVAR models whose prior over sequences of structural parameters satisfies: for every permissible sequence of structural parameters and every sequence of orthogonal matrices, the orthogonally-rotated sequence is also permissible and receives the same prior density. This ensures the prior does not break the observational equivalence among structural parameter sequences related by orthogonal rotation, so that identification comes solely from the imposed restrictions.

Observational Equivalence in Time-Varying SVARs: Two sequences of time-varying structural parameters are observationally equivalent if and only if there exists a sequence of orthogonal matrices such that one sequence equals the other sequence post-multiplied period-by-period by the corresponding orthogonal matrix. This definition extends Rothenberg’s (1971) concept to the time-varying setting and directly implies the rotation-invariance restriction.

Random Correlations SVAR (RC-SVAR): A specific member of the rotation-invariant class constructed by using the Archakov and Hansen (2021) parametrization of correlation matrices to define the prior over time-varying reduced-form parameters, combined with a uniform prior over sequences of orthogonal matrices. The prior is order-invariant and, for the empirical applications considered, generally achieves higher log-predictive scores than the workhorse Primiceri (2005) model.

Time-Varying Sign Restrictions: Sign restrictions imposed only on selected time periods rather than uniformly across the sample, implemented by allowing the restriction function St() to differ across t (including the possibility that no restriction is imposed at some t). This allows researchers to tailor identification to periods in which the theoretical or institutional knowledge motivating the restriction is deemed applicable—e.g., imposing policy-rule contemporaneous restrictions only when the federal funds rate is the primary policy instrument.

Particle Gibbs with Ancestor Sampling (PGAS): The sequential Monte Carlo method (from Lindsten, Jordan and Schon 2014) used in the paper’s Algorithm 3 to draw the sequence of structural parameters At from its conditional posterior given the sign restrictions. PGAS conditions on the previous Gibbs draw of the structural parameter sequence to ensure an invariant distribution, which is the key property that makes the Gibbs sampler valid for drawing from the correct target posterior.

Systematic Component of Monetary Policy: In the paper’s structural monetary policy equation, the linear combination of contemporaneous endogenous variables (output growth, inflation, money growth, credit spread) that enters the federal funds rate equation, weighted by the contemporaneous elasticities ψ. It represents the portion of interest rate variation that is a predictable, rule-based response to economic conditions, as distinguished from the monetary policy shock (the residual).

Contemporaneous Elasticity: The coefficient ψi,t in the monetary policy equation measuring the response of the federal funds rate to a one-unit contemporaneous change in variable i at time t, defined directly in terms of the structural parameter matrix At. The paper’s time-varying framework allows these elasticities to evolve over the sample, revealing historically distinct episodes of how aggressively the Fed responded to output growth, inflation, money growth, and credit spreads.