Advertisement

The Use of Models - Making MABS More Informative

  • Bruce Edmonds
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1979)

Abstract

The use of MABS (Multi-Agent Based Simulations) is analysed as the modelling of distributed (usually social) systems using MAS (Multi-Agent Systems) as the model structure. It is argued that rarely is direct modelling of target systems attempted but rather an abstraction of the target systems is modelled and insights gained about the abstraction then applied back to the target systems. The MABS modelling process is divided into six steps: abstraction, design, inference, analysis, interpretation and application. Some types of MABS papers are characterised in terms of the steps they focus on and some criteria for good MABS formulated in terms of the soundness with which the steps are established. Finally some practical proposals that might improve the informativeness of the field are suggested.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Target System Simulation Design Downward Causation Modelling Enterprise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axtell, R., Axelrod, R., Epstein, J. M. and Cohen, M. D. (1996) Aligning Simulation Models: A Case Study and Results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1:123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axtell, R (2000) Effects of Interaction Topology and Activatioon Regime in Several Multi Agent Models, this volume.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barro, R. J. and King, R. G. (1984) Time-Seperable Preferences and the Intertemporal-Substution Models of Business Cycles. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99:817–839.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chattoe, Edmund (1998) Just How (Un)realistic are Evolutionary Algorithms as Representations of Social Processes?, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(3), http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/3/2.html.
  7. 7.
    Cooper R., Fox J., Farringdon J.& Shallice T. (1996) A Systematic Methodology for Cognitive Modelling, Artificial Intelligence, 85:3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doran, J. E. (1997) Foreknowledge in Artificial Societies. In R Conte, R Hegselmann, and P Tierna (eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 456:457–469.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downing, T., Moss, S. and Pahl-Worstl, C. (2000) Integrated Assessment: Prospects for Understanding Climate Policy Using Participatory Agent-Based Social Simulation, this volume.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmonds, B. (2000) The Purpose and Place of Formal Systems in the Development of Science. CPM Report 00-75, MMU, UK. http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep75.html
  11. 11.
    Edmonds, B. (2000) The Use of Models, this volume.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edmonds, B. (in press). Towards a Descriptive Model of Agent Strategy Search, Computational Economics. Also at http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep54.html
  13. 13.
    Edmonds, B. (in press), Complexity and Scientific Modelling, Foundations of Science. Also at http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep23.html
  14. 14.
    Fisher, M. (2000) Characterising Simple Negotiation as Distributed Agent-Based Theorem-Proving ‐ A Preliminary Report. Proc. of the 4 th Int. Conf. on MultiAgent Systems. Los Alimitos: IEEE Computer Society, 127–134.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hemelrijk, C. K. (2000) Sexual Attraction and Inter-secual Dominance amoung Virtual Agents, this volume.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hesse, M. B. (1963) Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hughes, R. G. (1997) Models and Representation. Philosophy of Science, 64(proc), S325–S336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakatos, I. (1983) The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGeary, F and Decker, K. (2000) Modelliing a Virtual Food Court using DECAF, this volume.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moss, S (2000) Canonical Tasks, Environments, and Models for Social Simulation, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 6:249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moss, S. and Edmonds, B. (1998) Modelling Economic Learning as Modelling, Cybernetics and Systems, 29:5–37. Also at http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep03.html CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moss, S., Edmonds, B. and Wallis, S. (1997) Validation and Verification of Computational Models with Multiple Cognitive Agents. CPM Report 97-25, MMU, UK.http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep25.html
  24. 24.
    Moss, S., Artis, M. and Ormerod, P. (1994) A Smart Macroeconomic Forecasting System, The Journal of Forecasting 13:299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosen, R. (1985) Anticipatory Systems. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sawyer, R. K. (2000) Simulating Emergence and Downward Causation in Small Groups, this volume.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simon, H.A. (1986). The failure of armchair economics [Interview]. Challenge, 29:18–25.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terán, O., Edmonds, B. and Wallis, S. Mapping the Envelope of Social Simulation Trajectories. This volume. Also at http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep72.html
  29. 29.
    Wheeler, M. and Clark, A. (1999). Genic Representation: Reconciling Content and Causal Complexity. British journal for the Philosophy of Science 50: 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wooldridge, M. (2000) The computational complexity of agent design problems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on MultiAgent Systems, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society, 341–348.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wooldridge, M. (2000) Computationally Grounded theories of Agency. Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on MultiAgent Systems, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society, 13–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Edmonds
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations