  Interest in agent-based models of financial markets and the wider economy has
increased consistently over the last few decades, in no small part due to their
ability to reproduce a number of empirically-observed stylised facts that are
not easily recovered by more traditional modelling approaches. Nevertheless,
the agent-based modelling paradigm faces mounting criticism, focused
particularly on the rigour of current validation and calibration practices,
most of which remain qualitative and stylised fact-driven. While the literature
on quantitative and data-driven approaches has seen significant expansion in
recent years, most studies have focused on the introduction of new calibration
methods that are neither benchmarked against existing alternatives nor
rigorously tested in terms of the quality of the estimates they produce. We
therefore compare a number of prominent ABM calibration methods, both
established and novel, through a series of computational experiments in an
attempt to determine the respective strengths and weaknesses of each approach
and the overall quality of the resultant parameter estimates. We find that
Bayesian estimation, though less popular in the literature, consistently
outperforms frequentist, objective function-based approaches and results in
reasonable parameter estimates in many contexts. Despite this, we also find
that agent-based model calibration techniques require further development in
order to definitively calibrate large-scale models. We therefore make
suggestions for future research.
