Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

aejmac-theory-model

Use when the quantitative model is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript — DSGE, New Keynesian, heterogeneous-agent (HANK / Aiyagari-Bewley), or structural estimation — and calibration, parameter identification, solution accuracy, or counterfactual validity need discipline. For empirical shock identification see aejmac-identification.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Quantitative Theory & Model Discipline (aejmac-theory-model)

When to trigger

  • Parameters are calibrated or estimated but it is unclear what disciplines each one
  • A DSGE/HANK model is solved but the solution method / accuracy is unstated
  • A counterfactual or welfare number is reported with no validity argument (Lucas critique)
  • Untargeted moments are never shown, so the model's fit is asserted not demonstrated
  • You are unsure the model clears AEJ: Macro's quantitative-discipline bar

The AEJ: Macro model bar

AEJ: Macro welcomes quantitative-theoretical macro, but the standard is discipline, not decoration: a calibration or structural estimate must be tied to data, the solution must be accurate enough for the claim, and the counterfactual must be defensible. The model exists to deliver a broad-interest macro quantity (a multiplier, a welfare cost, a share of inequality, a propagation magnitude), not to display machinery.

Discipline paths

Path A: Calibration discipline

  • Source every parameter. Externally calibrated (cited micro/macro estimates) vs. internally calibrated (matched to targeted moments) — label each and give the target.
  • Targeted moments table. Show data vs. model on the moments you matched.
  • Untargeted-moment validation. Show the model matches moments it was not asked to match — this is the credibility payoff for calibration.
  • Sensitivity. Report how the headline quantity moves with the key parameters (and which moment moves which parameter).

Path B: Structural estimation discipline

  • Name what identifies each parameter — the data feature / moment, not "the likelihood." Report a sensitivity / informativeness measure (e.g., a sensitivity matrix) so readers see which data move which parameter.
  • Estimator stated (MLE / GMM / SMM / indirect inference / Bayesian) with priors (if Bayesian), starting values, tolerances, and multi-start evidence of a global enough optimum.
  • Monte Carlo recovery: simulated data return the true parameters.

Path C: Solution accuracy & numerics

  • State the solution method (perturbation order, projection, value-function iteration, sequence-space Jacobian for HANK) and why it suffices for the nonlinearity/size of shock studied.
  • For occasionally-binding constraints (ZLB, borrowing limits) or large shocks, justify global vs. local methods.
  • Report accuracy diagnostics (Euler-equation errors, grid/refinement checks) where the claim depends on accuracy.
  • Set and report seeds for any simulation.

Path D: Counterfactual & welfare validity

  • Argue the estimated/calibrated parameters are policy-invariant enough for the counterfactual (Lucas critique); show they are not functions of the policy you change.
  • State the welfare metric (consumption-equivalent, etc.) and carry uncertainty into the counterfactual quantity.
  • For HANK: be explicit about the distributional channel and the role of the MPC distribution / liquidity.

Checklist

  • Every parameter labeled external vs. internal, with its source/target
  • Targeted-moment fit shown; untargeted-moment validation shown
  • Structural: each parameter tied to identifying moments; sensitivity + Monte Carlo recovery
  • Solution method named and justified for the nonlinearity/shock size; accuracy diagnostics where needed
  • Seeds reported; numerics reproducible for the AEA Data Editor (simulation code counts)
  • Counterfactual: policy-invariance argued; welfare metric stated with uncertainty
  • The model delivers one memorable, broad-interest macro quantity

Anti-patterns

  • "We calibrate to standard values" with no targets and no sensitivity
  • Reporting targeted-moment fit only, never untargeted moments (fit asserted, not validated)
  • A first-order perturbation used to study a large nonlinear shock (ZLB, big crisis) without justification
  • A welfare/counterfactual number with no policy-invariance argument
  • Treating estimation convergence as identification ("the optimizer found a minimum")
  • A model with rich machinery but no headline macro quantity a general reader remembers

Worked vignette: disciplining a HANK fiscal multiplier (illustrative)

A HANK model reports a fiscal multiplier of 1.3. A referee asks what disciplines it. The AEJ: Macro answer ties the multiplier to the MPC distribution: the model is calibrated to match the empirical distribution of MPCs (targeted), and then matches the untargeted share of hand-to-mouth households and the consumption response to a transfer from independent micro evidence. A sensitivity check shows the multiplier moves from 1.1 to 1.5 as the liquid-wealth target varies over its empirical range — making visible that the multiplier is governed by liquidity, not a free parameter. Solution by sequence-space Jacobian; Euler-error diagnostics reported (illustrative).

Output format

【Model type】NK-DSGE / HANK / Aiyagari-Bewley / structural-estimation
【Headline quantity】... (with units)
【Parameter discipline】external vs. internal; targeted + untargeted moments
【Identification (structural)】moment ↔ parameter; sensitivity; MC recovery
【Numerics】solution method + why it suffices; accuracy diagnostics; seeds
【Counterfactual validity】policy-invariance + welfare metric + uncertainty
【Next step】aejmac-robustness

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill