Econometric Fine Art Valuation by Combining Hedonic and Repeat-Sales Information
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical methods are widely used for valuation (prediction of the value at sale or auction) of a unique object such as a work of art. The usual approach is estimation of a hedonic model for objects of a given class, such as paintings from a particular school or period, or in the context of real estate, houses in a neighborhood. Where the object itself has previously sold, an alternative is to base an estimate on the previous sale price. The combination of these approaches has been employed in real estate price index construction (e.g., Jiang et al. 2015); in the present context, we treat the use of these different sources of information as a forecast combination problem. We first optimize the hedonic model, considering the level of aggregation that is appropriate for pooling observations into a sample, and applying model-averaging methods to estimate predictive models at the individual-artist level. Next, we consider an additional stage in which we incorporate repeat-sale information, in a subset of cases for which this information is available. The methods are applied to a data set of auction prices for Canadian paintings. We compare the out-of-sample predictive accuracy of different methods and find that those that allow us to use single-artist samples produce superior results, that data-driven averaging across predictive models tends to produce clear gains, and that, where available, repeat-sale information appears to yield further improvements in predictive accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it