An Analysis and Design Framework for Agent-Based Social Simulation

  • Amineh Ghorbani
  • Virginia Dignum
  • Gerard Dijkema
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7068)


Agent-based modeling is one of the popular tools for analyzing complex social systems. To model such systems, social attributes such as culture, law and institutions need to implemented as part of the context of a MAS, independently of individual agents.

In this paper, we present MAIA; a framework for modeling agent-based systems based on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD). The IAD is a well established comprehensive framework which addresses many social attributes. To make this framework applicable to agent-based software implementation, we inspire from some of the detailed definitions in the OperA methodology. The framework covers the different types of structures affecting agents at the operational level; physical, collective and constitutional. Moreover, this framework includes the conceptualization and design of evaluation.

An agent-based methodology has also been developed from the MAIA framework which consists of two layers. A conceptualization layer for analyzing and decomposing the system and a detailed design layer which leads to the implementation of social models.

MAIA allows the balance of global institutional requirements with the autonomy of individual agents thus enabling system evolution and reflecting more of reality in artificial societies.


Agent-based modeling methodology social simulation IAD 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Afman, M.R., Chappin, E.J.L., Jager, W., Dijkema, G.P.J.: Agent-based model of transitions in consumer lighting. In: Proceedings of 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, Kassel, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.: Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity 3(2), 16–22 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonabeau, E.: Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 7280 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castelfranchi, C.: The theory of social functions. challenges for multi-agent-based social simlation and multi-agent learning. Cognitive Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comfort, L., Ko, K., Zagorecki, A.: Coordination in rapidly evolving disaster response systems: The role of information. In: Agent-Based Simulation: From Modeling Methodologies to Real-World Applications, pp. 208–219 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Understanding the functions of norms in social groups through simulation. In: Artificial Societies, pp. 252–267. UCL Press, London (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coutinho, L., Sichman, J., Boissier, O.: Modelling dimensions for agent organizations. In: Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models. Information Science Reference, pp. 18–50 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, K.: Taems: A framework for environment centered analysis & design of coordination mechanisms. Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 429–448 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein, J.: Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton Univ. Pr. (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F.: From Agents to Organizations: An Organizational View of Multi-Agent Systems. In: Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.J. (eds.) AOSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2935, pp. 214–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghorbani, A., Ligtvoet, A., Nikolic, I., Dijkema, G.: Using institutional frameworks to conceptualize agent-based models of socio-technical systems. In: Proceeding of the 2010 Workshop on Complex System Modeling and Simulation, vol. 3, pp. 33–41 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilbert, N.: Agent-based social simulation: Dealing with complexity (2005),
  15. 15.
    Gilbert, N., Schuster, S., den Besten, M., Yang, L.: Environment design for emerging artificial societies. MPRA Paper (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilbert, N., Terna, P.: How to build and use agent-based models in social science. Mind & Society 1(1), 57–72 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heath, B., Hill, R., Ciarallo, F.: A survey of agent-based modeling practices (january 1998 to july 2008). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 12(4), 9 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hodgson, G., Calatrava, J.: What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues 40(1), 1 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J.: Institutional design. Public management review 8(1), 141–160 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koppenjan, J., Groenewegen, J.: Institutional design for complex technological systems. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 5(3), 240–257 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macal, C., North, M.: Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation 4(3), 151–162 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nikolic, I.: Co-Evolutionary method for modelling large scale socio-technical systems evolution. PhD thesis (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    North, M., Collier, N., Vos, J.: Experiences creating three implementations of the repast agent modeling toolkit. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 16(1), 1–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ostrom, E.: Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton Univ. Pr. (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: BDI agents: From theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), San Francisco, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thesen, A., Travis, L., Gordon, R.: Simulation for decision making. West Publishing Co. (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tisue, S., Wilensky, U.: Netlogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. In: International Conference on Complex Systems, pp. 16–21. Citeseer (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williamson, O.: Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. The Economist 146(1), 23–58 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amineh Ghorbani
    • 1
  • Virginia Dignum
    • 1
  • Gerard Dijkema
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations