Macroeconomic forecasts are often based on a mix of math models and human judgment, making them biased. This review looks at new ways to evaluate these forecasts, focusing on comparing different types of forecasts. The study shows that traditional methods may not work well for evaluating these mixed forecasts, and alternative techniques are needed. By comparing forecasts from the Federal Reserve Board and the FOMC on inflation, unemployment, and real GDP growth, the review demonstrates the importance of using different tools to assess the accuracy of macroeconomic predictions.