% Auto-generated (revision: clustered SEs)
\begin{table}[htbp]
  \centering
  \begin{threeparttable}
    \caption{Hedonic Regression Results (Text + Vision Features)}
    \label{tab:regression}
    \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
      \toprule
      & (1) Model~A & (2) Model~B \\
      & \textit{rich} & \textit{broad} \\
      \midrule
      $\ln(\text{Living area})$ & 0.358$^{***}$ &  \\
       & (0.012) &  \\[3pt]
      $\ln(\text{Lot area})$ & 0.027$^{***}$ & 0.040$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.006) & (0.005) \\[3pt]
      Bedrooms & 0.014$^{***}$ & 0.032$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.005) & (0.003) \\[3pt]
      Bathrooms & 0.073$^{***}$ & 0.113$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.007) & (0.007) \\[3pt]
      Parking & 0.011$^{***}$ & 0.015$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.001) & (0.002) \\[3pt]
      Age & $-$0.004$^{***}$ & $-$0.005$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.001) & (0.001) \\[3pt]
      \multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\textit{Amenities \& text (LLM)}} \\[2pt]
      Central A/C & 0.053$^{***}$ & 0.020 \\
       & (0.018) & (0.018) \\[3pt]
      Public transit & 0.090$^{**}$ & 0.058 \\
       & (0.046) & (0.039) \\[3pt]
      Waterfront & 0.058$^{*}$ & 0.062$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.033) & (0.019) \\[3pt]
      Condition (LLM, ord.) & 0.016$^{***}$ & 0.016$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.006) & (0.005) \\[3pt]
      Reno.\ kitchen (LLM) & 0.026$^{***}$ & 0.027$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.007) & (0.010) \\[3pt]
      Hardwood floor (LLM) & 0.024$^{**}$ & 0.030$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.009) & (0.011) \\[3pt]
      New construction (LLM) & $-$0.000 & $-$0.016 \\
       & (0.013) & (0.014) \\[3pt]
      Income property (LLM) & $-$0.019$^{**}$ & $-$0.013$^{*}$ \\
       & (0.009) & (0.008) \\[3pt]
      \multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\textit{Vision (façade)}} \\[2pt]
      Curb appeal (1--10) & 0.023$^{***}$ & 0.016 \\
       & (0.009) & (0.013) \\[3pt]
      Renovation level (ord.) & 0.024$^{**}$ & 0.020$^{**}$ \\
       & (0.010) & (0.009) \\[3pt]
      Luxury (visual) & 0.051$^{***}$ & 0.062$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.012) & (0.009) \\[3pt]
      Garage visible & 0.046$^{***}$ & 0.047$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.006) & (0.007) \\[3pt]
      Brick façade & 0.033$^{***}$ & 0.044$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.009) & (0.011) \\[3pt]
      Stone façade & 0.036$^{***}$ & 0.047$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.008) & (0.005) \\[3pt]
      Vinyl façade & $-$0.045$^{***}$ & $-$0.062$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.015) & (0.012) \\[3pt]
      Rural setting & $-$0.122$^{***}$ & $-$0.076$^{***}$ \\
       & (0.032) & (0.029) \\[3pt]
      \midrule
      City FE / Type FE  & Yes & Yes \\
      Living area        & Yes & No  \\
      Observations       & 9{,}446 & 19{,}123 \\
      $R^2$              & 0.755 & 0.725 \\
      Adjusted $R^2$     & 0.748 & 0.721 \\
      \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
    \begin{tablenotes}[flushleft]
      \footnotesize
      \item \textit{Notes:} OLS estimates of Equation~\eqref{eq:hedonic} with the full
      feature set. Model~A includes $\ln(\text{Living area})$ (measured-area subsample);
      Model~B omits it (full sample). ``LLM'' variables are extracted from the
      description text; ``Vision'' variables from the façade photograph. Curb appeal and
      renovation level enter as scores; luxury, garage, and material/setting are
      indicators. All specifications include city and property-type fixed effects and the
      full amenity, room-detail, and listing-signal controls (only selected coefficients
      shown). Standard errors clustered by municipality (195 clusters) in parentheses.
      Heteroskedasticity-robust (HC3) standard errors are uniformly smaller and yield
      the same significance pattern for the text- and vision-derived attributes, except
      that curb appeal in Model~B is significant under HC3 but not under clustering.
      $^{***}$, $^{**}$, $^{*}$: significance at 1\%, 5\%, 10\%.
    \end{tablenotes}
  \end{threeparttable}
\end{table}