Network calibration and metamodeling of a financial accelerator agent based model

  • Leonardo Bargigli
  • Luca Riccetti
  • Alberto Russo
  • Mauro Gallegati
Regular Article


We introduce a simple financially constrained production framework in which heterogeneous firms and banks maintain multiple credit connections. The parameters of credit market interaction are estimated from real data in order to reproduce a set of empirical regularities of the Japanese credit market. We then pursue the metamodeling approach, i.e. we derive a reduced form for a set of simulated moments \(h(\theta ,s)\) through the following steps: (1) we run agent-based simulations using an efficient sampling design of the parameter space \(\Theta \); (2) we employ the simulated data to estimate and then compare a number of alternative statistical metamodels. Then, using the best fitting metamodels, we study through sensitivity analysis the effects on h of variations in the components of \(\theta \in \Theta \). Finally, we employ the same approach to calibrate our agent-based model (ABM) with Japanese data. Notwithstanding the fact that our simple model is rejected by the evidence, we show th at metamodels can provide a methodologically robust answer to the question “does the ABM replicate empirical data?”.



We thank all the participants of the DISEI Department seminar of University of Florence held on November 17th 2015, the DISES Department seminar of Polytechnic University of Marche held on March 3rd 2016, the CEF2016 conference held on June 26–28 2016 in Bordeaux for their useful comments. A special thanks to Yoshi Fujiwara for providing the Japanese credit market data. All the usual disclaimers apply.


  1. Alfarano S, Lux T, Wagner F (2005) Estimation of agent-based models: the case of an asymmetric herding model. Comput Econ 26(1):19–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargigli L, Gallegati M (2011) Random digraphs with given expected degree sequences: a model for economic networks. J Econ Behav Organ 78(3):396–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargigli L, Gallegati M, Riccetti L, Russo A (2014) Network analysis and calibration of the “leveraged network-based financial accelerator”. J Econ Behav Organ 99:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner T, Werker C (2007) A taxonomy of inference in simulation models. Comput Econ 30(3):227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campolongo F, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2000) Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modeling. Stat Sci 15(4):377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canova F, Sala L (2009) Back to square one: identification issues in DSGE models. J Monet Econ 56:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain G (1980) Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Rev Econ Stud 47(1):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen S-H, Chang C-L, Du Y-R (2012) Agent-based economic models and econometrics. Knowl Eng Rev 27(6):187–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cioppa TM, Lucas TW (2007) Efficient nearly orthogonal and space-filling latin hypercubes. Technometrics 49(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dancik GM, Jones DE, Dorman KS (2010) Parameter estimation and sensitivity analysis in an agent-based model of leishmania major infection. J Theor Biol 262(3):398–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagiolo G, Moneta A, Windrum P (2007) A critical guide to empirical validation of agent-based models in economics: methodologies, procedures, and open problems. Comput Econ 30(3):195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallegati M, Palestrini A, Delli Gatti D, Scalas E (2006) Aggregation of heterogeneous interacting agents: the variant representative agent framework. J Econ Interact Coord 1(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouriéroux C, Monfort A (1996) Simulation-based econometric methods. CORE lectures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Grazzini J, Richiardi M (2015) Estimation of ergodic agent-based models by simulated minimum distance. J Econ Dyn Control 51:148–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenwald B, Stiglitz JE (1993) Financial market imperfections and business cycles. Q J Econ 108(77–114):1993Google Scholar
  17. Kirman AP (1992) Whom or what does the representative individual represent? J Econ Perspect 6(2):117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manzan S, Westerhoff F-H (2007) Heterogeneous expectations, exchange rate dynamics and predictability. J Econ Behav Organ 64(1):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining \(R^2\) from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4(2):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park J, Newman MEJ (2004) Statistical mechanics of networks. Phys Rev E 2004(70):066117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Core Team (2015) (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. R (2015) Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  22. Riccetti L, Russo A, Gallegati M (2013) Leveraged network-based financial accelerator. J Econ Dyn Control 37(8):1626–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roustant O, Ginsbourger D, Deville Y (2012) DiceKriging, DiceOptim: two R packages for the analysis of computer experiments by kriging-based metamodeling and optimization. J Stat Softw 51(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salle I, Yildizoglu M (2014) Efficient sampling and meta-modeling for computational economic models. Comput Econ 44(4):507–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shin HS (2008) Risk and liquidity in a system context. J Financ Intermed 17(3):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stoker TM (1993) Empirical approaches to the problem of aggregation over individuals. J Econ Lit 31(4):1827–1874Google Scholar
  27. Valente M (2005) Qualitative simulation modelling. Faculty of Economics, University of L’Aquila (Italy), MimeoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Università degli Studi di MacerataMacerataItaly

Personalised recommendations