Computational Economics

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 1245–1263 | Cite as

Surrogate Modelling in (and of) Agent-Based Models: A Prospectus

  • Sander van der HoogEmail author


A very timely issue for economic agent-based models (ABMs) is their empirical estimation. This paper describes a line of research that could resolve the issue by using machine learning techniques, using multi-layer artificial neural networks (ANNs), or so called Deep Nets. The seminal contribution by Hinton et al. (Neural Comput 18(7):1527–1554, 2006) introduced a fast and efficient training algorithm called Deep Learning, and there have been major breakthroughs in machine learning ever since. Economics has not yet benefited from these developments, and therefore we believe that now is the right time to apply multi-layered ANNs and Deep Learning to ABMs in economics.


Surrogate modelling Agent-based models Estimation 

JEL Classification

C63 E03 E27 



This paper has benefited from discussions with Spyros Kousides, Nan Su and Herbert Dawid. Any remaining errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author.


  1. Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azoff, E. (1994). Neural network time series forecasting of financial markets. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Bacha, H., & Meyer, W. (1992). A neural network architecture for load forecasting. Proceedings of the IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2, 442–447.Google Scholar
  4. Barde, S. (2016). Direct comparison of agent-based models of herding in financial markets. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 73, 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barde, S. (2017). A practical, accurate, information criterion for Nth order Markov processes. Computational Economics, 50(2), 281–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barde, S., & van der Hoog, S. (2017). An empirical validation protocol for large-scale agent-based models. Studies in Economics 1712, School of Economics, University of Kent.
  7. Bengio, Y., Boulanger-Lewandowski, N., & Pascanu, R. (2013). Advances in optimizing recurrent networks. In IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 8624–8628).Google Scholar
  8. Brenner, T., & Werker, C. (2006). A practical guide to inference in simulation models. Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  9. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Dawid, H., & Fagiolo, G. (2008). Agent-based models for economic policy design: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(2), 351–354. (special issue on Agent-based models for economic policy design).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawid, H. & Harting, P. (2012). Capturing firm behavior in agent-based models of industry evolution and macroeconomic dynamics. In G. Bünsdorf (Ed.), Applied evolutionary economics, behavior and organizations (Ch. 6, pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Dawid, H., & Neugart, M. (2011). Agent-based models for economic policy design. Eastern Economic Journal, 37, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawid, H., Harting, P., van der Hoog, S., & Neugart, M. (2018a). Macroeconomics with heterogeneous agent models: Fostering transparency, reproducibility and replication. Journal of Evolutionary Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. Dawid, H., Gemkow, S., Harting, P., van der Hoog, S., & Neugart, M. (2018b). Agent-based macroeconomic modeling and policy analysis: The Eurace@Unibi Model. In S.-H. Chen, M. Kaboudan, & Y.-R. Du (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on computational economics and finance (Ch. 17, pp. 490–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dosi, G., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A., & Treibich, T. (2017). Micro and macro policies in Keynes+Schumpeter evolutionary models. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffie, D., & Singleton, K. J. (2003). Credit risk: Pricing, measurement, and management. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fagiolo, G., & Roventini, A. (2012a). Macroeconomic policy in DSGE and agent-based models. Revue de l’OFCE, 124, 67–116.Google Scholar
  18. Fagiolo, G., & Roventini, A. (2012b). On the scientific status of economic policy: A tale of alternative paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 27, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagiolo, G., Moneta, A., & Windrum, P. (2007). A critical guide to empirical validation of agent-based models in economics: Methodologies, procedures, and open problems. Computational Economics, 30(3), 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gately, E. (1996). Neural networks for financial forecasting. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Gorr, W. L. (1994). Editorial: Research prospective on neural network forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 10(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grazzini, J., & Gatti, D. D. (2013). Paper on the development of MABM Mark II: The input–output network in the CRISIS macro agent-based model. CRISIS Project Deliverable D3.3, Universit Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano.Google Scholar
  23. Grazzini, J., & Richiardi, M. G. (2013). Consistent estimation of agent-based models by simulated minimum distance. LABORatorio R. Revelli working papers series 130, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.Google Scholar
  24. Grazzini, J., Richiardi, M., & Sella, L. (2012). Indirect estimation of agent-based models: An application to a simple diffusion model. LABORatorio R. Revelli Working papers series 118, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Grazzini, J., Richiardi, M. G., & Sella, L. (2013). Analysis of agent-based models. LABORatorio R. Revelli working papers series 135, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Harting, P. (2014). Policy design in the presence of technological change: An agent-based approach. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  27. Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y. W. (2006). A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computing, 18(7), 1527–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786), 504–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutter, M. (2000). A theory of universal artificial intelligence based on algorithmic complexity. CoRR arXiv:cs.AI/0004001.
  30. Kang, S. (1991). An investigation of the use of feedforward neural networks for forecasting. Ph.D. thesis, Kent State University.Google Scholar
  31. Kleijnen, J. P. (2015). Design and analysis of simulation experiments. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleijnen, J. P. C. (1995). Verification and validation of simulation models. European Journal of Operational Research, 82(1), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kohzadi, N., Boyd, M., Kermanshahi, B., & Kaastra, I. (1996). A comparison of artificial neural network and time series models for forecasting commodity prices. Neurocomputing, 10, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuan, C. M., & Liu, T. (1995). Forecasting exchange rates using feedforward and recurrent neural networks. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10(4), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamperti, F. (2015). An information theoretic criterion for empirical validation of time series models. LEM papers series 2015/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
  36. Lamperti, F., Roventini, A., & Sani, A. (2017). Agent-based model calibration using machine learning surrogates. Papers arXiv:1703.10639.
  37. Lux, T., & Zwinkels, R. C. J. (2018). Empirical validation of heterogeneous agent models. In C. H. Hommes & B. LeBaron (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics: Heterogeneous agent models (Vol. 4). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Maasoumi, E., Khotanzad, A., & Abaye, A. (1994). Artificial neural networks for some macroeconomic series: A first report. Econometric Reviews, 13, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Makridakis, S., Anderson, A., Carbone, R., Fildes, R., Hibdon, M., & Lewandowski, R. (1982). The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition. Journal of Forecasting, 1, 111–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martens, J., & Sutskever, I. (2010). Parallelizable sampling of Markov random fields. In Artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 517–524).Google Scholar
  41. Martens, J., & Sutskever, I. (2011). Learning recurrent neural networks with Hessian-Free optimization. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Bellevue, Washington, USA (pp. 1033–1040).Google Scholar
  42. Martens, J., & Sutskever, I. (2012). Training deep and recurrent networks with Hessian-Free optimization. In G. Montavon, G. B. Orr, & K. R. Müller (Eds.), Neural networks: Tricks of the trade. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7700, pp. 479–535). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nagle, T., & Hogan, J. (2006). The strategy and tactics of pricing: A guide to growing more profitably. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. National Physical Laboratory (Ed.). (1959). Mechanisation of thought processes. In Proceedings of a symposium held at the national physical laboratory on the 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th November 1958, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1959.Google Scholar
  45. Refenes, A. (1993). Constructive learning and its application to currency exchange rate forecasting, chap 39 (pp. 777–806). Chicago: Probus Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Refenes, A. (1995). Neural networks in the capital markets. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Sargent, R. G. (2011). Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the winter simulation conference, WSC ’11 (pp. 183–198).Google Scholar
  48. Sharda, R. (1994). Neural networks for the ms/or analyst: An application bibliography. Interfaces, 24, 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 253–283.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1996 [1969]). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Simon, H. A. (1997 [1947]). Administrative behavior (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Srinivasan, D., Liew, A., & Chang, C. (1994). A neural network short-term load forecaster. Electric Power Systems Research, 28, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutskever, I. (2013). Training recurrent neural networks. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  55. Tang, Z., & Fishwick, P. (1993). Feedforward neural nets as models for time series forecasting. ORSA Journal on Computing, 5, 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tesfatsion, L., & Judd, K. E. (2006). Handbook of computational economics II: Agent-based computational economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  57. Trippi, R., & Turban, E. (1993). Neural networks in finance and investment: Using artificial intelligence to improve real-world performance. Chicago: Probus.Google Scholar
  58. Weigend, A., & Gershenfeld, N. (1993). Time series prediction: Forecasting the future and understanding the past. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  59. Weigend, A., Huberman, B., & Rumelhart, D. (1992). Predicting sunspots and exchange rates with connectionist networks (pp. 395–432). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  60. Werker, C., & Brenner, T. (2004). Empirical calibration of simulation models. Papers on economics and evolution 2004–10, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, R., & Sharda, R. (1992). Neural networks. OR/MS Today, pp. 36–42.Google Scholar
  62. Yildizoglu, M., & Salle, I. (2012). Efficient sampling and metamodeling for computational economic models. Cahiers du GREThA 2012–18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Theory and Computational Economics (ETACE), Department of Business Administration and EconomicsBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations