Observation of Large-Scale Multi-Agent Based Simulations

  • Gildas Morvan
  • Alexandre Veremme
  • Daniel Dupont
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7124)

Abstract

The computational cost of large-scale multi-agent based simulations (MABS) can be extremely important, especially if simulations have to be monitored for validation purposes. In this paper, two methods, based on self-observation and statistical survey theory, are introduced in order to optimize the computation of observations in MABS. An empirical comparison of the computational cost of these methods is performed on a toy problem.

Keywords

large-scale multi-agent based simulations observation methods scalability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bethlehem, J.: Applied Survey Methods: A Statistical Perspective. Wiley (2009) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 128–135 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaud, N., Galland, S., Gechter, F., Hilaire, V., Koukam, A.: Holonic multilevel simulation of complex systems: Application to real-time pedestrians simulation in virtual urban environment. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16, 1659–1676 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horvitz, D.G., Thompson, D.J.: A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47, 663–685 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaminka, G., Pynadath, D., Tambe, M.: Monitoring teams by overhearing: A multi-agent planrecognition approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 17, 83–135 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luke, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K., Balan, G.: Mason: A multiagent simulation environment. Simulation 81(7), 517–527 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michel, F., Beurier, G., Ferber, J.: The turtlekit simulation platform: Application to complex systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Signal-Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, pp. 122–127 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parunak, H.: Between Agents and Mean Fields. In: Villatoro, D., Sabater-Mir, J., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) MABS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7124, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Railsback, S., Lytinen, S., Grimm, V.: Stupidmodel and extensions: A template and teaching tool for agent-based modeling platforms (2005), http://condor.depaul.edu/~slytinen/abm/StupidModelFormulation.pdf
  10. 10.
    Railsback, S., Lytinen, S., Jackson, S.: Agent-based simulation platforms: Review and development recommendations. Simulation 82(9), 609–623 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Razavi, S.N., Gaud, N., Mozayani, N., Koukam, A.: Multi-agent based simulations using fast multipole method: application to large scale simulations of flocking dynamical systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 35(1), 53–72 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veremme, A., Lefevre, E., Morvan, G., Jolly, D.: Application of the belief function theory to validate multi-agent based simulations. In: First International Workshop on the Theory of Belief Functions (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilkins, D., Lee, T., Berry, P.: Interactive execution monitoring of agent teams. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 18, 217–261 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gildas Morvan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexandre Veremme
    • 1
    • 3
  • Daniel Dupont
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Univ. Lille Nord de FranceLille CedexFrance
  2. 2.LGI2A, U. ArtoisBéthuneFrance
  3. 3.HEILille CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations