An LLM multi-agent system can mimic Fed deliberations and predict interest-rate decisions with high accuracy: FedSight CoD correctly forecasted 2023–24 FOMC outcomes ~93.8% of the time, beating simpler baselines and producing human-readable rationales — though results rest on a small, recent sample and require broader validation.

Main Finding

FedSight AI is a multi-agent LLM framework that simulates FOMC-style deliberation (Analyst, Economist, and three Member agents) to predict federal funds target rate changes. Its Chain-of-Draft (CoD) variant achieves 93.75% total accuracy and 93.33% voting stability on 16 scheduled FOMC meetings (Feb 2023–Dec 2024), outperforming prior LLM multi-agent baselines and an Ordinal Random Forest while producing interpretable, committee-style reasoning.

Key Points

• Architecture
  • Multi-agent workflow (implemented in CrewAI): Analyst → Economist formulates three candidate policy options (dovish / neutral / hawkish) → three Member agents deliberate and vote.
  • Member archetypes derived by clustering historical FOMC participants: Regional Pragmatists, Academic Balancers, Central Policymakers.
• Extensions
  • FedSight ICL: simulation-based in-context fine-tuning (agents store simulated meeting lessons as memory).
  • FedSight CoD (best performer): Chain-of-Draft prompting enforcing concise multi-stage drafts (≤30 words/step) plus revisions to improve coherence, efficiency, and accuracy.
• Performance highlights (on 16 meetings; each meeting simulated 5 times)
  • Total Accuracy: 93.75% (FedSight CoD)
  • Agent Accuracy (average correct agent votes): 90.22%
  • Voting Stability: 93.33%
  • Average Tokens per meeting (efficiency): ~60,464 (CoD)
  • MAE: 0.0156 (CoD)
• Benchmarks
  • Outperforms MiniFed on reported tests (FedSight CoD achieved 100% on a reported 2018 set vs MiniFed’s 75%).
  • Outperforms Ordinal Random Forest on 2023–2024 meetings (FedSight CoD directional accuracy 100% vs Ordinal RF 62.5%).
  • Simple linear regression baseline: 31.25% directional accuracy.
• Interpretability
  • Produces simulated FOMC statements and explicit reasoning chains; semantic similarity to official statements reported (~73–75% cosine similarity across variants).
• Limitations reported by authors
  • Small test set (16 meetings) limits statistical power.
  • Dependence on current LLM behavior; model drift or hallucinations could change results.
  • Potential data leakage risk from pretrained LLM exposure to historical policy texts (authors argue deliberation on contemporaneous inputs mitigates this).

Data & Methods

• Dataset
  • Test set: 16 scheduled FOMC meetings, Feb 2023–Dec 2024 (distribution: 9 holds, 3 cuts, 4 hikes).
  • Structured features (snapshot two days before meetings): inflation (PCE, CPI, 1‑yr expectations), monetary indicators (3M/6M TB yields, M2), GDP (real-time estimate), unemployment, VIX, political indicators (Fed Chair, White House party), past FFTR and prior change, market expectations.
  • Unstructured inputs: Beige Book (verbatim anecdotes), Dot Plot (verbalized distribution of participants’ EOY rate expectations), FedWatch market-implied probabilities.
• Preprocessing
  • Dot plots converted to short natural-language distributions (counts per rate bucket).
  • Beige Book and FedWatch snippets passed verbatim with focused prompt instructions so agents extract cues during deliberation.
• Multi-agent pipeline
  • Analyst interprets Fed funds futures / market probabilities.
  • Economist proposes three options with macro rationales.
  • Member agents independently analyze structured/unstructured inputs, deliberate (exchange perspectives), then vote; final output is a consolidated simulated statement.
• Implementation & compute
  • Agents use GPT-4o (OpenAI) with role-specific instructions; ~26M tokens consumed across experiments.
  • CoD reduces per-meeting token use and enforces concise multi-stage reasoning.
• Evaluation metrics
  • Total Accuracy, Agent Accuracy, Voting Stability, Semantic Similarity (cosine vs actual FOMC statements), Average Tokens, MAE.
• Comparators
  • FedSight AI (baseline multi-agent), FedSight ICL, FedSight CoD, MiniFed (prior LLM MAS), Ordinal Random Forest, Linear Regression.

Implications for AI Economics

• Conceptual shift: Treating policy decisions as emergent outcomes of deliberative institutions (simulated committees) can improve predictive performance and interpretability versus black‑box mappings from indicators to outcomes.
• Value of unstructured data: Incorporating narrative sources (Beige Book, dot plots, market-implied probabilities) materially enriches models of policy choice—capturing qualitative signals that econometric models often omit.
• Interpretability for policy analysis: Multi-agent deliberation yields explicit rationales and simulated statements that can be analyzed for drivers of decisions, useful for researchers, market participants, and policymakers seeking transparent scenario analysis.
• Practical forecasting: CoD-style concise reasoning can reduce compute/tokens while preserving accuracy—important for operational deployment where efficiency matters.
• Caution on generalization and robustness: Small-sample results and reliance on a particular LLM version highlight risks—models must be stress-tested across longer horizons, regime shifts, and different model families to ensure robustness.
• Research directions
  • Scale evaluation to larger historical windows or cross-country policy committees.
  • Formal tests of economic significance (e.g., market reaction prediction, policy surprises) and sensitivity to agent archetype design.
  • Robustness checks for LLM updates, adversarial/unseen narratives, and reproducibility (code/data access constraints noted by authors).
• Ethical/regulatory considerations: Using proprietary LLMs and private-industry collaboration raises reproducibility and transparency issues; careful disclosure and governance are needed if such tools inform market strategies or policy advisories.