SPB Git

spb/wp11_uqo

Public

UQO Working Paper No. 11 — Half a million prices, twenty models: a systematic assessment of hedonic specifications.

version anonyme pour soumission en revue (main_anon.tex, titlepage_anon.tex)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Simon-Pierre Boucher committed (Oct 17, 2026) parent 412caf4 Browse files

7 changed files +180 −2

modified paper/main.pdf +0 −0

Binary file not shown.

modified paper/main.tex +3 −0
@@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ prediction disagree less than the random-validation gap suggests.}
99 99
100 \hypersetup{pdftitle={Half a Million Prices, Twenty Models}, pdfauthor={Simon-Pierre Boucher}} 100 \hypersetup{pdftitle={Half a Million Prices, Twenty Models}, pdfauthor={Simon-Pierre Boucher}}
101 101
102+% Self-reference neutralised in the anonymous version (main_anon.tex)
103+\newcommand{\companionpaper}{our companion paper (UQO WP10)}
104+
102 \begin{document} 105 \begin{document}
103 106
104 \input{sections/titlepage} 107 \input{sections/titlepage}
added paper/main_anon.pdf +0 −0

Binary file not shown.

added paper/main_anon.tex +122 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
1+% Author: Simon-Pierre Boucher — contact@spboucher.ai
2+% ============================================================================
3+% UQO Working Paper No. 11
4+% Half a Million Prices, Twenty Models
5+%
6+% Build: latexmk -pdf main.tex (or `make` in this directory)
7+% Figures are read from ../figures/, tables from ../results/tables/.
8+% ============================================================================
9+\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
10+
11+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
12+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
13+\usepackage[english]{babel}
14+
15+\usepackage[letterpaper,margin=1in]{geometry}
16+\usepackage{setspace}
17+\onehalfspacing
18+
19+\usepackage{mathptmx}
20+\usepackage{microtype}
21+
22+\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
23+
24+\usepackage{booktabs}
25+\usepackage{threeparttable}
26+\usepackage{makecell}
27+
28+\usepackage{graphicx}
29+\usepackage{subcaption}
30+\graphicspath{{../figures/}{./}}
31+
32+\usepackage[font=small,labelfont=bf,labelsep=period,justification=justified,singlelinecheck=false]{caption}
33+
34+\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
35+\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=NavyBlue,citecolor=NavyBlue,urlcolor=NavyBlue,breaklinks=true]{hyperref}
36+
37+\usepackage[authoryear,round,semicolon]{natbib}
38+\bibliographystyle{aer}
39+
40+\usepackage{titlesec}
41+\titleformat{\section}{\large\bfseries}{\thesection.}{0.5em}{}
42+\titleformat{\subsection}{\normalsize\bfseries}{\thesubsection.}{0.5em}{}
43+\titleformat{\subsubsection}{\normalsize\itshape}{\thesubsubsection.}{0.5em}{}
44+\usepackage{fancyhdr}
45+\pagestyle{fancy}\fancyhf{}
46+\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
47+\fancyfoot[C]{\thepage}
48+\usepackage{enumitem}
49+\setlist{nosep,leftmargin=*}
50+
51+% ============================================================================
52+% METADATA
53+% ============================================================================
54+\newcommand{\WPnumber}{11}
55+\newcommand{\WPtitle}{Half a Million Prices, Twenty Models}
56+\newcommand{\WPsubtitle}{A Systematic Assessment of Hedonic Specifications and
57+ Estimation Methods for the Quebec Housing Market, 2021--2026}
58+\newcommand{\WPdate}{August 2026}
59+\newcommand{\WPversion}{1.0}
60+\newcommand{\WPkeywords}{hedonic pricing, functional form, house price indexes, machine learning, automated valuation, out-of-sample prediction}
61+\newcommand{\WPjel}{R31, C21, C52, C53}
62+
63+\newcommand{\WPauthor}{Simon-Pierre Boucher}
64+\newcommand{\WPaffiliation}{D\'epartement des sciences administratives\\
65+ Universit\'e du Qu\'ebec en Outaouais}
66+\newcommand{\WPemail}{simon-pierre.boucher@uqo.ca}
67+\newcommand{\WPaddress}{Gatineau -- Pavillon Alexandre-Tach\'e\\
68+ 283, boulevard Alexandre-Tach\'e\\ Gatineau, Qu\'ebec, Canada J9A 1L8}
69+
70+\newcommand{\WPabstract}{%
71+Fifty years after \mbox{Rosen (1974)}, applied hedonic practice still rests
72+on a series of specification choices --- functional form, temporal controls,
73+spatial controls, estimation method --- that are usually made by convention
74+and rarely stress-tested jointly. Using 514{,}212 Quebec residential sales
75+(2021--2026) whose structural descriptors come from the provincial
76+assessment roll, we run a controlled horse race of twenty hedonic models
77+organised along those four axes, scoring every model on identical holdouts
78+and on the same price-level scoreboard (log models are Duan-retransformed,
79+Box--Cox inverted). Four lessons emerge. (1)~Functional form is a
80+second-order choice: from linear to splines, the median absolute error
81+spans 16.5--18.6\%, and the data-driven Box--Cox exponent
82+($\hat\lambda=0.25$) buys nothing out of sample. (2)~Controls are
83+first-order: dropping spatial fixed effects costs ten error points ---
84+location granularity matters far more than curvature, but only up to the
85+point where cells thin out (a $\sim$1~km grid \emph{overfits}).
86+(3)~Under random validation, estimation method matters most: gradient
87+boosting reaches 14.4\% --- a 13\% improvement over the best linear model
88+--- with random forests close behind, and coordinates alone reproduce
89+what thousands of dummies buy. (4)~But the ranking is an artifact of the
90+split: under a forward-in-time holdout (train $<$~2025, test 2025--26)
91+every model degrades and the machine-learning advantage \emph{reverses}
92+--- the spline hedonic posts a lower median error than gradient boosting
93+and an identical log-scale $R^2$ --- a stark warning against evaluating
94+valuation models with random cross-validation alone. Constant-quality
95+monthly indices implied by the competing forms agree to within a few
96+index points, and the boosted model's implicit age and floor-area
97+profiles track the quadratic OLS closely --- interpretation and
98+prediction disagree less than the random-validation gap suggests.}
99+
100+\hypersetup{pdftitle={Half a Million Prices, Twenty Models}, pdfauthor={}}
101+
102+% Self-reference neutralised in the anonymous version (main_anon.tex)
103+\newcommand{\companionpaper}{a companion paper by the same authors (reference withheld for review)}
104+
105+\begin{document}
106+
107+\input{sections/titlepage_anon}
108+
109+\setcounter{page}{1}
110+\input{sections/introduction}
111+\input{sections/literature}
112+\input{sections/data}
113+\input{sections/methodology}
114+\input{sections/results}
115+\input{sections/extensions}
116+\input{sections/discussion}
117+\input{sections/conclusion}
118+
119+\newpage
120+\bibliography{references}
121+
122+\end{document}
modified paper/sections/discussion.tex +1 −1
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ accuracy gains lie not in exotic estimators but in spatial resolution
59 chosen by market thickness --- and that any model, linear or boosted, 59 chosen by market thickness --- and that any model, linear or boosted,
60 frozen at a reference date degrades by 3--7 points of median error 60 frozen at a reference date degrades by 3--7 points of median error
61 within two years. This quantifies the staleness mechanism behind the 61 within two years. This quantifies the staleness mechanism behind the
62−assessment inequities documented in our companion paper (UQO WP10): the 62+assessment inequities documented in \companionpaper{}: the
63 valuation technology's out-of-time decay is of the same magnitude as the 63 valuation technology's out-of-time decay is of the same magnitude as the
64 inequities measured there. 64 inequities measured there.
65 65
modified paper/sections/extensions.tex +1 −1
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ is the most predictable object in the market. At the other extreme,
108 cottages defeat both models (32.1\% versus 33.9\%): idiosyncratic, 108 cottages defeat both models (32.1\% versus 33.9\%): idiosyncratic,
109 waterfront-driven stock is hard for everyone, and the machine's spatial 109 waterfront-driven stock is hard for everyone, and the machine's spatial
110 surface cannot rescue attributes it does not observe. The complement of 110 surface cannot rescue attributes it does not observe. The complement of
111−the assessment-inequity anatomy in our companion paper (UQO WP10) is 111+the assessment-inequity anatomy in \companionpaper{} is
112 instructive: the segments where assessors are most regressive 112 instructive: the segments where assessors are most regressive
113 (heterogeneous, land-heavy stock) are also those where \emph{no} 113 (heterogeneous, land-heavy stock) are also those where \emph{no}
114 standard technology, linear or boosted, prices accurately from roll 114 standard technology, linear or boosted, prices accurately from roll
added paper/sections/titlepage_anon.tex +53 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
1+% ============================================================================
2+% ANONYMOUS TITLE PAGE — for double-anonymized journal submission
3+% Used by paper/main_anon.tex (same macros as main.tex, no author block,
4+% no institution, no logo). Abstract/keywords/JEL page identical to titlepage.tex.
5+% ============================================================================
6+\thispagestyle{empty}
7+\begin{center}
8+
9+\vspace*{3cm}
10+
11+{\LARGE\bfseries \WPtitle\par}
12+
13+\ifx\WPsubtitle\empty\else
14+ \vspace{0.3cm}
15+ {\large\itshape \WPsubtitle\par}
16+\fi
17+
18+\vspace{1.5cm}
19+
20+{\normalsize [Author identity withheld for review]}
21+
22+\vspace{0.8cm}
23+
24+{\normalsize \WPdate}
25+
26+\end{center}
27+
28+\vfill
29+
30+\newpage
31+\thispagestyle{empty}
32+\vspace*{1cm}
33+
34+\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}
35+\vspace{0.3cm}
36+
37+\noindent\textbf{Abstract}
38+\vspace{0.15cm}
39+
40+\noindent\WPabstract
41+
42+\vspace{0.4cm}
43+
44+\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} \WPkeywords
45+
46+\vspace{0.15cm}
47+
48+\noindent\textbf{JEL Classification:} \WPjel
49+
50+\vspace{0.3cm}
51+\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}
52+
53+\newpage
54
Menu

Theme