MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118592544 · doi:10.1068/b120043p

A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling

2013· review· en· W2118592544 on OpenAlex
Qingxu Huang, Dawn C. Parker, Tatiana Filatova, Shipeng Sun

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning B Planning and Design · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgent-based modelComputer scienceBiddingLand useUrbanizationRelocationRobustness (evolution)Process (computing)Management scienceOperations researchData scienceArtificial intelligenceEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban land-use modeling methods have experienced substantial improvements in the last several decades. With the advancement of urban land-use change theories and modeling techniques, a considerable number of models have been developed. The relatively young approach, agent-based modeling, provides urban land-use models with some new features and can help address the challenges faced by traditional models. Applications of agent-based models to study urban dynamics have increased steadily over the last twenty years. To offer a retrospective on the developments in agent-based models (ABMs) of urban residential choices, we review fifty-one relevant models that fall into three general categories: (i) urban land-use models based on classical theories; (ii) different stages of the urbanization process; and (iii) integrated agent-based and microsimulation models. We summarize and compare the main features of these fifty-one models within each category. This review focuses on three fundamental new features introduced byABMs. The first is agent heterogeneity with particular attention to the method of introducing heterogeneity in agents' attributes and behaviors. The second is the representation of land-market processes, namely preferences, resources constraints, competitive bidding, and endogenous relocation. The third is the method of measuring the extensive model outputs. In addition, we outline accompanying challenges to, and open questions for, incorporating these new features. We conclude that, by modeling agent heterogeneity and land markets, and by exploiting a much broader dimension of output, we will enhance our understanding of urban land-use change and are hopefully able to improve model fitness and robustness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.081 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it