Reinforcement Learning for Combining Search Methods in the Calibration of Economic ABMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calibrating agent-based models (ABMs) in economics and finance typically involves a derivative-free search in a very large parameter space. In this work, we benchmark a number of search methods in the calibration of a well-known macroeconomic ABM on real data, and further assess the performance of "mixed strategies" made by combining different methods. We find that methods based on random-forest surrogates are particularly efficient, and that combining search methods generally increases performance since the biases of any single method are mitigated. Moving from these observations, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) scheme to automatically select and combine search methods on-the-fly during a calibration run. The RL agent keeps exploiting a specific method only as long as this keeps performing well, but explores new strategies when the specific method reaches a performance plateau. The resulting RL search scheme outperforms any other method or method combination tested, and does not rely on any prior information or trial and error procedure.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".