Search

Agent‐based models (ABMs) are a powerful class of computational models widely used to simulate complex phenomena in many different application areas. However, one of the most critical aspects, poorly investigated in the literature, regards an important step of the model credibility assessment: solution verification. This study overcomes this limitation by proposing a general verification framework for ABMs that aims at evaluating the numerical errors associated with the model. A step‐by‐step procedure, which consists of two main verification studies (deterministic and stochastic model verification), is described in detail and applied to a specific mission critical scenario: the quantification of the numerical approximation error for UISS‐TB, an ABM of the human immune system developed to predict the progression of pulmonary tuberculosis. Results provide indications on the possibility to use the proposed model verification workflow to systematically identify and quantify numerical approximation errors associated with UISS‐TB and, in general, with any other ABMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work presents an extensive case study on modelling the DAX (Deutscher Aktienindex) index and United States Oil Fund (USO) exchange‐traded fund (Etf) time series with the financial agent‐based system learning financial agent‐based simulator (L‐FABS) that exploits simulated annealing as a learning method. The USO Etf time series is highly correlated with oil price behaviour, and the DAX index is based on the weighted and accumulated behaviour of the share prices of some of the largest companies traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. These two time series are driven by completely different economic factors and thus provide two diverse empirical settings to evaluate the effectiveness of our methodology. Our experimentation shows that a relatively simple computational representation of real financial markets is effective in capturing the overall behaviour of the time series with varying approximation levels while the prediction target is moved into the future. The reported experimental investigation of L‐FABS shows that it is robust notwithstanding the learning method used and the data sets exploited. L‐FABS indeed produced a relatively low approximation error in several settings even when evaluated with respect to other modelling approaches, for example, 0.88% and 1.61% errors on average for 1 day ahead experiments in, respectively, DAX index and USO Etf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]