2019
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3335397
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Economic Agent-Based Model Calibration Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More elaborated and simulation-oriented, large-scale agent-based models, studying the interplay between many different and evolving speculator types, have been advanced, for instance, by Palmer et al (1994), Arthur et al (1997), LeBaron et al (1999), Chen and Yeh (2001) and Raberto et al (2001). While it is still important to better understand the forces that may create financial market havoc, current research increasingly addresses questions that revolve around input validation (Anufriev et al 2016, Fagiolo et al 2017, model estimation (Lamperti et al 2018, Platt 2020, Kukacka and Kristoufek 2020, policy applications (Stanek and Kukacka 2018, Diem et al 2020) and prediction (Demirer et al 2019, Zhang et al 2019, Westphal and Sornette 2020. See Delli Gatti et al 2018, Dieci and He (2018), Iori and Porter (2018) and Lux and Zwinkels (2018) for up-to-date surveys.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More elaborated and simulation-oriented, large-scale agent-based models, studying the interplay between many different and evolving speculator types, have been advanced, for instance, by Palmer et al (1994), Arthur et al (1997), LeBaron et al (1999), Chen and Yeh (2001) and Raberto et al (2001). While it is still important to better understand the forces that may create financial market havoc, current research increasingly addresses questions that revolve around input validation (Anufriev et al 2016, Fagiolo et al 2017, model estimation (Lamperti et al 2018, Platt 2020, Kukacka and Kristoufek 2020, policy applications (Stanek and Kukacka 2018, Diem et al 2020) and prediction (Demirer et al 2019, Zhang et al 2019, Westphal and Sornette 2020. See Delli Gatti et al 2018, Dieci and He (2018), Iori and Porter (2018) and Lux and Zwinkels (2018) for up-to-date surveys.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method sets up an objective function, measuring the distance between the simulated and observed values of a set of target variables. Then, an optimization process is run in order to find that parameter combination that minimizes the distance, so that the chosen set of (endogenous) model variables are most closely resembled by the simulations (Platt 2020). This process was started by constructing an initial position for agents: This was done by mapping those relationships that already existed in 2010 (before the survey was conducted), into the two-dimensional social space.…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantage of the black-box function methods lies at hand: Since they do not require any knowledge about the model, the same methods can be applied to a variety of different models. A good comparison on gradient-free calibration of ABMs can be found in Platt (2020) and Carrella (2021). On the other hand, a gradient-based calibration is model-specific.…”
Section: 8mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also want to stress the drawback of the gradient-based calibration method: While other researchers worked on improving the calibration of ABMs on a very general level (Lamperti et al 2018;Platt 2020;Carrella 2021), our method is only applicable in the described ABM of Innovation Diffusion and can make no statement about other types of models. Additionally, to use gradients, the ABM has to be rather simple and no complex decision rules for the agents are possible.…”
Section: 4mentioning
confidence: 99%