Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Computational Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 November 2006

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 November 2006

Abstract

Agent-based Methodology (ABM) is becoming indispensable for the inter disciplinary 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 equivalencecondition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arifovic, J. (1994). Genetic algorithm learning and the cobweb model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arifovic, J. (1995). Genetic algorithms and inflationary economies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 36(1), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arifovic, J. and Ledyard, J. (2004). Scaling up learning models in public good games. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 6, 205–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arifovic, J. and 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.

  • Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, and P. Terna (eds.), Simulating Social Phenomena, Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems, 21–40.

  • Brenner, T. (2006). Agent learning representation: Advice on modelling economic learning. In L. Tesfatsion and K.L. Judd (eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2, North Holland, forthcoming in 2006.

  • Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 9–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, M. and Becker, Y. (2004). Lessons learned using genetic programming in a stock picking context. In U. O'Reilly, T. Yu, R. Riolo, and B. Worzel (eds.), Genetic Programming Theory and Practice II, Springer, 87–102.

  • 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 

  • Chen, S.-H. (Ed.) (2002a). Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming in Computational Finance, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Chen, S-H. (Ed.) (2002b). Evolutionary Computation in Economics and Finance, Physica-Verlag.

  • Chen, S.-H. and Liao, C.-C. (2004). Agent-based computational modeling of the stock price-volume relation. Information Sciences, 170, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H. and 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), 283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H. and Wang, P.P. (2003). Computational intelligence in economics and finance. In Chen, S.-H. and P. P. Wang (eds.), Computational Intelligence in Economics and Finance, 3–55.

  • Chen, S.-H. and 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 

  • Chen, S.-H. and 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, 363–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H. and Yeh, C.-H. (2002). On the emergent properties of artificial stock markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 49, 217–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, D. (1997). Minimal-intelligence agents for bargaining behaviors in market-based environments. HP Technical Report, HPL-97-91, 1997.

  • Das, R., Hanson, J., Kephart, J. and Tesauro, G. (2001). Agent-human interactions in the continuous double auction. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

  • Dawid, H. (1999). On the convergence of genetic learning in a double auction market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 23, 1545–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, J. (2006). Agent-based models and human-subject experiments. In L. Tesfatsion and K. L. Judd (eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2, North Holland, forthcoming in 2006.

  • Feltovich, N. (2000). Reinforcement-based vs. belief-based learning models in experimental asymmetric-information games. Econometrica, 68, 605–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R. (1998). Coevolution and stable adjustments in the cobweb model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8(4), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P. and Rustichini, A. (2004). Neuroeconomics: The consilience of brain and decision. Science, 306, 447–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gode, D.K. and 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), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, L.W. and 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 

  • Grossklags, J. and 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.

  • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, M., Leung, H.-F. and Jennings, N. (2002). A fuzzy logic-based bidding strategy for autonomous agents in continuous double auctions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. and Smith, V. (1996). On expectations and the monetary stakes in an incomplete information ultimatum game. International Journal of Game Theory, 25(3), 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. and Miller, J. (1991). Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory. American Economic Review, 81(2), 365–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izumi, K. and 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.

  • Kirman, A.P. and Vriend, N. (2001). Evolving market structure: An ACE model of price dispersion and loyalty. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3–4), 459–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurumatani, K., Kawamura, H. and Ohuchi, A. (2005). Market micro-structure analysis by multiagent simulation in X-economy — comparison among technical indices. Information Sciences, 170(1) , 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBaron, B. (2001). A builder's guide to agent-based financial markets. Quantitative Finance, 1, 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lindström, T. (1998). A fuzzy design of the willingness to invest in Sweden. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 36(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Tang, Y.Y., Zhong, N. and Wang, P.S.P. (2001). Agent Engineering. World Scientific Publishing.

  • Lucas, R. E., Jr. (1986). Adaptive behavior and economic theory. Journal of Business, 59, 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, D., Marks, R. and Cooper, L. (1997). Breeding competitive strategies. Management Science, 43 (3), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockenfels, A. and Roth, A. (2002). The timing of bids in internet auctions: Market design, bidder behavior, and artificial agents. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, Fall, 79–87.

  • Ringhut, E. and Kooths, S. (2003). Modeling expectations with GENEFER — An artificial intelligence approach. Computational Economics, 21, 173–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. and 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), 1093–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, J., Miller, J. and 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.

  • Rust, J., Miller, J. and Palmer, R. (1994). Characterizing effective trading strategies: Insights from a computerized double auction market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18, 61–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rustichini, A. (2005). Neuroeconomics: Present and future. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachat, J. and Swarthout, J. (2002). Procurement auctions for differentiated goods. IBM Watson Research Center Working Paper.

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.L. (1991). Papers in Experimental Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith V.L., Suchanek, G. L. and Williams, A. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56 (6), 1119–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, F.-F. (2003). A comparative study on learning in a normal form game experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tay, N. and Linn, S. (2001). Fuzzy inductive reasoning, expectation formation and the behavior of security prices. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25, 321–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Tesfatsion, L. (2001). Introduction to the special double issue on agent-based computational economics. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25 (3–4), 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H.R. (1988). Effect of the internet on financial markets. School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, M., Greenwald, A., Stone, P. and Wurman, P. (2002). The 2001 trading agent experiment. In Proceedings of Fourteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 935–941.

  • Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AI-ECON Research Center, Department of Economics, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 116

    Shu-Heng Chen & Chung-Ching Tai

Authors
  1. Shu-Heng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chung-Ching Tai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chung-Ching Tai.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10614-006-9075-x

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, SH., Tai, CC. On the Selection of Adaptive Algorithms in ABM: A Computational-Equivalence Approach. Comput Econ 28, 51–69 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-006-9039-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-006-9039-1

Key Words

Search

Navigation