Download PDF

Computational Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 313–331 | Cite as

Republication: On the Selection of Adaptive Algorithms in ABM: A Computational-Equivalence Approach

Erratum
First Online:
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

Agent-based Methodology (ABM) is becoming indispensable for the interdisciplinary study of social and economic complex adaptive systems. The essence of ABM lies in the notion of autonomous agents whose behavior may evolve endogenously and can generate and mimic the corresponding complex system dynamics that the ABM is studying. Over the past decade, many Computational Intelligence (CI) methods have been applied to the design of autonomous agents, in particular, their adaptive schemes. This design issue is non-trivial since the chosen adaptive schemes usually have a profound impact on the generated system dynamics. Robert Lucas, one of the most influential modern economic theorists, has suggested using laboratories with human agents, also known as Experimental Economics, to help solve the selection issue. While this is a promising approach, laboratories used in the current experimental economics are not computationally equipped to meet the demands of the selection task. This paper attempts to materialize Lucas’ suggestion by establishing a laboratory where human subjects are equipped with the computational power that satisfies the computational equivalence condition.

Keywords

Agent-based methodology Agent engineering Computational intelligence Computational equivalence CE lab 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. Arifovic J. (1994). Genetic algorithm learning and the cobweb model. Journal of Economic and Control 18(1):3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arifovic J. (1995). Genetic algorithms and inflationary economies. Journal of Monetary Economics 36(1):219–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arifovic J., Ledyard J. (2004). Scaling up learning models in public good games. Journal of Public Economic Theory 6:205–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arifovic, J., & Maschek, M. (2003). Expectations and currency crisis-an experimental approach. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Computing in Economics and Finance, University of Washington, Seattle, 11–13.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegelsmann & P. Terna (Eds.), Simulating Social Phenomena, Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems, 21–40.Google Scholar
  6. Brenner, T. (2006). Agent learning representation: Advice on modelling economic learning. In L. Tesfatsion & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2, North Holland, forthcoming in 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Camerer C., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature 43:9–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caplan, M., & Becker, Y. (2004). Lessons learned using genetic programming in a stock picking context. In U. O’Reilly, T. Yu, R. Riolo, & B. Worzel (Eds.), Genetic Programming Theory and Practice II, Springer, 87–102.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, S.-H. (2001). On the relevance of genetic programming in evolutionary economics. In K. Aruka (Ed.), Evolutionary Controversy in Economics towards a New Method in Preference of Trans Discipline, Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 135–150.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, S.-H. (Ed.) (2002a). Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming in Computational Finance, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, S-H. (Ed.) (2002b). Evolutionary Computation in Economics and Finance, Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Chen S.-H., Liao C.-C. (2004). Agent-based computational modeling of the stock price-volume relation. Information Sciences 170:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen S.-H., Tai C.-C. (2003). Trading restrictions, price dynamics and allocative efficiency in double auction markets: Analysis based on agent-based modeling and simulations. Advances in Complex Systems 6(3):283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, S.-H., & Wang, P.P. (2003). Computational intelligence in economics and finance. In Chen, S.-H., & P. P. Wang (Eds.), Computational Intelligence in Economics and Finance, 3–55.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, S.-H., & Yeh, C.-H. (1996). Genetic programming learning and the cobweb model. In P. Angeline (Ed.), Advances in Genetic Programming, Vol. 2, Chap. 22. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 443–466.Google Scholar
  16. Chen S.-H., Yeh C.-H. (2001). Evolving traders and the business school with genetic programming: A new architecture of the agent-based artificial stock market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25:363–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen S.-H., Yeh C.-H. (2002). On the emergent properties of artificial stock markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 49:217–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cliff, D. (1997). Minimal-intelligence agents for bargaining behaviors in market-based environments. HP Technical Report, HPL-97-91, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. Das, R., Hanson, J., Kephart, J., & Tesauro, G. (2001). Agent-human interactions in the continuous double auction. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  20. Dawid H. (1999). On the convergence of genetic learning in a double auction market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 23:1545–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duffy, J. (2006). Agent-based models and human-subject experiments. In L. Tesfatsion, & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2, North Holland, forthcoming in 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Feltovich N. (2000). Reinforcement-based vs. belief-based learning models in experimental asymmetric-information games. Econometrica 68:605–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franke R. (1998). Coevolution and stable adjustments in the cobweb model. Journal of Economics 8(4):383–406Google Scholar
  24. Glimcher P., Rustichini A. (2004). Neuroeconomics: The consilience of brain and decision. Science 306:447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gode D.K., Sunder S. (1993). Allocative efficiency of market with zero-intelligence trader: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy 101(1):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregg, L. W., & Simon, H. A. (1979). Process models and stochastic theories of simple concept formation. In H. A. Simon, Models of Thought, Vol. I. Chapter 5.4. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  27. Grossklags, J., & Schmidt, C. (2003). Interaction of human traders and artificial agents on double auction markets: Simulations and laboratory experiments,“ In K. Chen, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th Joint Conference on Information Sciences, 1269–1272.Google Scholar
  28. Güth W., Schmittberger R., Schwarze B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4):367–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. He, M., Leung, H.-F., & Jennings, N. (2002). A fuzzy logic-based bidding strategy for autonomous agents in continuous double auctions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.Google Scholar
  30. Hoffman E., McCabe K., Smith V. (1996). On expectations and the monetary stakes in an incomplete information ultimatum game. International Journal of Game Theory 25(3):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holland J., Miller J. (1991). Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory. American Economic Review 81(2):365–370Google Scholar
  32. Izumi, K., & Ueda, K. (2002). Using an artificial market approach to analyze exchange rate scenarios. In S.-H. Chen (Ed.), Evolutionary Computation in Economics and Finance, 135–157.Google Scholar
  33. Kirman A.P., Vriend N. (2001). Evolving market structure: An ACE model of price dispersion and loyalty. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25(3–4):459–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurumatani K., Kawamura H., Ohuchi A. (2005). Market micro-structure analysis by multiagent simulation in X-economy – comparison among technical indices. Information Sciences 170(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LeBaron B. (2001). A builder’s guide to agent-based financial markets. Quantitative Finance 1:254–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lieberman, H. (1996). Software agents: The MIT approach. Invited speech delivered at the 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW’96), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Jan 22–25, 1996.Google Scholar
  37. Lindström T. (1998). A fuzzy design of the willingness to invest in Sweden. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 36(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, J., Tang, Y. Y., Zhong, N., & Wang, P. S. P. (2001). Agent Engineering. World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Lucas R.E. Jr. (1986). Adaptive behavior and economic theory. Journal of Business 59:401–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Midgley D., Marks R., Cooper L. (1997). Breeding competitive strategies. Management 43(3):257–275Google Scholar
  41. Ockenfels, A., & Roth, A. (2002). The timing of bids in internet auctions: Market design, bidder behavior, and artificial agents. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, Fall, 79–87.Google Scholar
  42. Ringhut E., Kooths S. (2003). Modeling expectations with GENEFER – An artificial intelligence approach. Computational Economics 21:173–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth A., Ockenfels A. (2002). Last minute bidding and the rules of ending second price auctions: Evidence from eBay and amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review 92(4):1093–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rust, J., Miller, J., & Palmer, R. (1993). Behavior of trading automata in a computerized double auction market. In D. Friedman and J. Rust (Eds.), The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence, Addison Wesley. Chap. 6, 155–198.Google Scholar
  45. Rust J., Miller J., Palmer R. (1994). Characterizing effective trading strategies: Insights from a computerized double auction market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 18:61–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rustichini A. (2005). Neuroeconomics: Present and future. Games and Economic Behavior 52:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shachat, J., & Swarthout, J. (2002). Procurement auctions for differentiated goods. IBM Watson Research Center Working Paper.Google Scholar
  48. Simon Herbert A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon Herbert A. (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality Vol 3. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith V.L. (1991). Papers in Experimental Economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith V.L., Suchanek G.L., Williams A. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica 56(6):1119–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tang F.-F. (2003). A comparative study on learning in a normal form game experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 50:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tay N., Linn S. (2001). Fuzzy inductive reasoning, expectation formation and the behavior of security prices. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25:321–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tesfatsion, L. (1997). How economists can get alife. In B. Arthur, S. Durlauf, and D. Lane (Eds.), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, II, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Volume XXVII, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  55. Tesfatsion L. (2001). Introduction to the special double issue on agent-based computational. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25(3–4):281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Varian, H. R. (1988). Effect of the internet on financial markets. School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  57. Wellman, M., Greenwald, A., Stone, P., & Wurman, P. (2002). The 2001 trading agent experiment. In Proceedings of Fourteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 935–941.Google Scholar
  58. Wooldridge M., Jennings N. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10:115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AI-ECON Research Center, Department of EconomicsNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations