Abstract
As the many novel contributions to this volume show, Agent-Based Models (ABMs) offer exciting possibilities for including explanatory mechanisms, such as behavioural rules governing individual behaviour, in the analysis of demographic phenomena. Knowledge about the abstract statistical individual (Courgeau 2012) derived from empirical data can in this way be augmented by rule-based explanations, giving demography much-needed theoretical foundations (Billari et al. 2003).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In some cases, for instance, when the frequency of rare events are of interest, very large numbers of repetitions may be required to infer about the quantities of interest. Different approaches from those advocated here would likely be required for such problems, one of which might be to apply the analysis and calibration methods discussed in later sections to understand the behaviour of a different, more frequently observed output measure first, simplifying the problem of analysing the rare event.
- 2.
Other methods of obtaining Latin hyper-cube samples are available. For instance, @Risk (www.palisade.com/risk) is an add-on for Excel which provides this functionality, as does the statistics and machine learning tool-kit (uk.mathworks.com/help/stats/lhsdesign.html) of the Matlab mathematical programming software. However, both of these are proprietary packages and not freely available.
- 3.
Setting the mean function to a constant is often called ‘Ordinary Kriging’, while using a regression model is referred to as ‘Universal Kriging’ (Kleijnen 2008).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
References
Andrianakis, Y., & Challenor, P. G. (2011). Parameter estimation for Gaussian process emulators. Technical report, Managing Uncertainty in Complex Models. http://www.mucm.ac.uk/Pages/Downloads/TechnicalReports/
Andrianakis, I., & Challenor, P. G. (2012). The effect of the nugget on Gaussian process emulators of computer models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(12), 4215–4228.
Ankenman, B., Nelson, B. L., & Staum, J. (2010). Stochastic kriging for simulation metamodeling. Operations Research, 58(2), 371–382.
Aparicio Diaz, B., Fent, T., Prskawetz, A., & Bernardi, L. (2011). Transition to parenthood: The role of social interaction and endogenous networks. Demography, 48(2), 559–79.
Barton, R. R., Nelson, B. L., & Xie, W. (2014). Quantifying input uncertainty via simulation confidence intervals. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 26(1), 74–87.
Bastos, L. S., & O’Hagan, A. (2009). Diagnostics for Gaussian process emulators. Technometrics, 51(4), 425–438.
Bijak, J. (2011). Forecasting international migration in Europe: A Bayesian view. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bijak, J., Hilton, J., Silverman, E., & Cao, V. D. (2013). Reforging the wedding ring: Exploring a semi-artificial model of population for the United Kingdom with Gaussian process emulators. Demographic Research, 29(27), 729–766.
Billari, F., Ongaro, F., & Prskawetz, A. (2003). Introduction: Agent-based computational demography. In F. Billari & A. Prskawetz (Eds.), Agent-based computational demography: Using simulation to improve our understanding of demographic behaviour, (pp. 1–17). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Billari, F., Fent, T., Prskawetz, A., & Aparicio Diaz, B. (2007). The “Wedding-Ring”: An agent-based marriage model based on social interactions. Demographic Research, 17, 59–82.
Boukouvalas, A. (2010). Emulation of random output simulators. Ph.D. thesis, Aston University. http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/15776/
Boukouvalas, A., Sykes, P., Cornford, D., & Maruri-Aguilar, H. (2014). Bayesian precalibration of a large stochastic microsimulation model. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15(3), 1337–1347.
Challenor, P. (2013). Experimental design for the validation of kriging metamodels in computer experiments. Journal of Simulation, 7(4), 290–296.
Courgeau, D. (2012). Probability and social science: Methodological relationships between the two approaches. Dordrecht: Springer.
Epstein, J. M., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC/Cambridge: Brookings Institution Press/MIT Press.
Fent, T., Aparicio Diaz, B, & Prskawetz, A. (2013). Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure. Demographic Research, 29, 963–998.
Forrester, A., Sobester, A., & Keane, A. (2008). Engineering design via surrogate modelling: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Abingdon: CRC.
Gramacy, R. B. (2005). Bayesian treed Gaussian process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Grazzini, J., & Richiardi, M. G. (2013). Consistent estimation of agent-based models by simulated minimum distance. Technical report 130, Laboratorioa Riccardo Revelli.
Grimm, V., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modelling and ecology. Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press.
Hankin, R. (2005). Introducing BACCO, an R bundle for Bayesian analysis of computer code output. Journal of Statistical Software, 14(16).
Haylock, R. (1997). Bayesian inference about outputs of computationally expensive algorithms with uncertainty on the inputs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/13193/1/338522.pdf
Kennedy, M. (2004). Descriptions of the Gaussian process model used in gem-sa. http://www.tonyohagan.co.uk/academic/GEM/index.html
Kennedy, M., & O’Hagan, A. (2001). Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 63(3), 425–464.
Kersting, K., Plagemann, C., Pfaff, P., & Burgard, W. (2007). Most likely heteroscedastic Gaussian process regression. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’07 (pp. 393–400). Corvallis/New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1273496.1273546. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1273496.1273546. ISBN 978-1-59593-793-3.
Klabunde, A. (2014). Computational economic modeling of migration. Technical Report 471, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum.
Kleijnen, J. P. (2008). Design and analysis of simulation experiments. New York: Springer.
Kleijnen, J. P. C., & Mehdad, E. (2014). Multivariate versus univariate kriging metamodels for multi-response simulation models. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(2), 573–582.
Law, A. M. (2007). Simulation modeling and analysis (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loeppky, J. L., Sacks, J., & Welch, W. J. (2009). Choosing the sample size of a computer experiment: A practical guide. Technometrics, 51(4), 366–376.
Luke, S. (2007). Finding interesting things: Population-based adaptive parameter sweeping. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (pp. 86–93), London.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, D. (2013). Design and analysis of experiments (8th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
MUCM (2011). Managing uncertainty in complex models toolkit. mucm.aston.ac.uk
Nelder, J., & McCullagh, P. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 135(3), 370–384.
Oakley, J. (1999). Bayesian uncertainty analysis for complex computer codes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield.
Oakley, J. (2002). Eliciting Gaussian process priors for complex computer codes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 51(1), 81–97.
Oakley, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2002). Bayesian inference for the uncertainty distribution of computer model outputs. Biometrika, 89(4), 769–784.
Oakley, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2004). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: A Bayesian approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 66(3), 751–769.
O’Hagan, A. (2006). Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(10–11), 1290–1300.
O’Hagan, A., & Oakley, J. E. (2004). Probability is perfect, but we can’t elicit it perfectly. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85(1–3), 239–248.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263, 641–646.
Poole, D., & Raftery, A. E. (2000). Inference for deterministic simulation models: The Bayesian melding approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(452), 1244.
Qian, P. Z. G., & Wu, C. F. J. (2008). Bayesian hierarchical modeling for integrating low-accuracy and high-accuracy experiments. Technometrics, 50(2), 192–204.
R Development Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.r-project.org/
Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2006). Gaussian processes for machine learning. Cambridge: MIT. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15112367
Rossiter, S., Noble, J., & Bell, K. (2010). Social simulations: Improving interdisciplinary understanding of scientific positioning and validity. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13(1), 10.
Roustant, O., Ginsbourger, D., & Deville, Y. (2012). DiceKriging, DiceOptim: Two R packages for the analysis of computer experiments by kriging-based metamodelling and optimisation. Journal of Statistical Software 51(1).
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., & Ratto, M. (2004). Sensitivity analysis in practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Saltelli, A., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis. The primer. Chichester: Wiley.
Santner, T. J., Williams, B. J., & Notz, W. I. (2003). The design and analysis of computer experiments. New York: Springer.
Ševčíková, H., Raftery, A. E., & Waddell, P. A. (2007). Assessing uncertainty in urban simulations using Bayesian melding. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41(6), 652–669.
Silverman, E., Bijak, J., & Noble, J. (2011). Feeding the beast: Can computational demographic models free us from the tyranny of data? In Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL 2011: Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, Paris (pp. 747–757). MIT Press. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22839/
Sobol, I. M. (2001). Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 55(1–3), 271–280.
Squazzoni, F. (2012). Agent-based computational sociology (1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Urban, N. M., & Fricker, T. E. (2010). A comparison of Latin hypercube and grid ensemble designs for the multivariate emulation of an earth system model. Computers & Geosciences, 36(6), 746–755.
Vernon, I., Goldsteiny, & M., Bowerz, R. G. (2010). Galaxy formation: A Bayesian uncertainty analysis. Bayesian Analysis, 5(4), 619–670.
Werker, C., & Brenner, T. (2004). Empirical calibration of simulation models. Technical report, Max Planck Institute of Economics. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/88244/
Xie, W., Nelson, B. L., Barton, R. R., Nelson, B. L., & Barton, R. R. (2014). A Bayesian framework for quantifying uncertainty in stochastic simulation. Operations Research, 62(6), 1439–1452.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/H021698/1 “Care Life Cycle” and the support of the EPSRC Doctoral Training Centre grant (EP/G03690X/1). We are grateful to Jonathan Forster and two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and suggestions. Any errors remain exclusively ours.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
1 Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hilton, J., Bijak, J. (2017). Design and Analysis of Demographic Simulations. In: Grow, A., Van Bavel, J. (eds) Agent-Based Modelling in Population Studies. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32283-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32283-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32281-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32283-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)