Cross-Disciplinary Views on Modelling Complex Systems

  • Emma Norling
  • Craig R. Powell
  • Bruce Edmonds
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5269)


This paper summarises work within an interdisciplinary collaboration which has explored different approaches to modelling complex systems in order to identify and develop common tools and techniques. We present an overview of the models that have been explored and the techniques that have been used by two of the partners within the project. On the one hand, there is a partner with a background in agent-based social simulation, and on the other, one with a background in equation-based modelling in theoretical physics. Together we have examined a number of problems involving complexity, modelling them using different approaches and gaining an understanding of how these alternative approaches may guide our own work. Our main finding has been that the two approaches are complimentary, and are suitable for exploring different aspects of the same problems.


System Dynamic Model Social Simulation Exceptional State Modelling Complex System Rock Lake 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Holland, J.: The effect of labels (tags) on social interactions. Technical Report 93-10-064, Santa Fe Institute (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edmonds, B.: The emergence of symbiotic groups resulting from skill-differentiation and tags. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1), 10 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hales, D.: Choose your tribe! – evolution at the next level in a peer-to-peer network. Technical Report UBLCS-2005-13, University of Bologna, Dept. of Computer Science (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hales, D., Arteconi, S., Babaoğlu, Ö.: Slacer: randomness to cooperation in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Stochasticity in Distributed Systems (STODIS 2005) including in the Proceedings of IEEE CollaborateCom Conference, San Jose, CA (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norling, E., Edmonds, B.: Why it is better to be SLAC than smart. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Social Simulation, Kyoto, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norling, E.: Contrasting a system dynamics model and an agent-based model of food web evolution. In: Antunes, L., Takadama, K. (eds.) MABS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4442, pp. 57–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinez, N.D.: Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the little rock lake food web. Ecological Monographs 61(4), 367–392 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, J.A.: The network structure of food webs. In: Pascual, M., Dunne, J.A. (eds.) Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs, pp. 27–86. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caldarelli, G., Higgs, P.G., McKane, A.J.: Modelling coevolution in multispecies communities. Journal of Theoretical Biology 193, 345–358 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drossel, B., Higgs, P.G., McKane, A.J.: The influence of predator-prey population dynamics on the long-term evolution of food web structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology 208, 91–107 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drossel, B., McKane, A.J., Quince, C.: The impact of nonlinear functional responses on the long-term evolution of food web structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology (229), 539–548 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quince, C., Higgs, P.G., McKane, A.J.: Deleting species from model food webs. Oikos (110), 283–296 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G.: Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baxter, G., Blythe, R., Croft, W., McKane, A.: Modeling language change: An evaluation of trudgill’s theory of the emergence of new zealand english (in submission) (2008),
  15. 15.
    Baxter, G.J., Blythe, R.A., Croft, W., McKane, A.J.: Utterance selection model of language change. Physical Review E 73 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edmonds, B.: Achieving consensus among agents - an opinion-dynamics model. Technical Report CPM-08-185, Centre for Policy Modelling (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gillespie, D.T.: Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. Journal of Physical Chemistry 81(25), 2340–2361 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grefenstette, J.J.: The evolution of strategies for multi-agent environments. Adaptive Behavior 1, 65–89 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Powell, C.R., McKane, A.J.: Effects of food web construction by evolution or immigration. Submitted to Oikos (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baxter, G.J., Blythe, R.A., McKane, A.J.: Fixation and consensus times on a network: a unified approach (in submission) (preprint) (2008),
  21. 21.
    M2M 2007: Third international model-to-model workshop (2007),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma Norling
    • 1
  • Craig R. Powell
    • 2
  • Bruce Edmonds
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan University 
  2. 2.Theoretical PhysicsThe University of Manchester 

Personalised recommendations