Exploring the world of agent-based simulations: simple models, complex analyses: exploring the world of agent-based simulations: simple models, complex analyses

ABSTRACT

Agent-based simulations are models where multiple entities sense and stochastically respond to conditions in their local environments, mimicking complex large-scale system behavior. We provide an overview of some important issues in the modeling and analysis of agent-based systems. Examples are drawn from a range of fields: biological modeling, sociological modeling, and industrial applications, though we focus on recent results for a variety of military applications. Based on our experiences with various agent-based models, we describe issues that simulation analysts should be aware of when embarking on agent-based model development. We also describe a number of tools (both graphical and analytical) that we have found particularly useful for analyzing these types of simulation models. We conclude with a discussion of areas in need of further investigation.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bettonvil, B. and J. P. C. Kleijnen. 1997. Searching for important factors in simulation models with many factors: sequential bifurcation. European Journal of Operational Research 96(1): 180--194.
• 2: Box, G. E. P., W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis and Model Building. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 3: Brandstein, A. 1999. Operational synthesis: applying science to military science. PHALANX 32(4): 1, 30--31.
• 4: Brown, L. P. 2000. Agent Based Simulation as an Exploratory Tool in the Study of the Human Dimension of Combat. M. S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/hyperion-image/00_Brown.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 5: Arnold H. Buss , Paul J. Sanchez, Modeling very large scale systems: building complex models with LEGOs (Listener Event Graph Objects), Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers, December 08-11, 2002, San Diego, California
• 6: John M. Chambers , Trevor J. Hastie, Statistical Models in S, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 1991
• 7: Childs, M. D. 2002. An Exploratory analysis of waterfront force protection measures using simulation. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://theses.nps.navy.mil/Thesis_02Mar_Childs.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 8: Cioppa, T. M. 2002. Efficient nearly orthogonal and spacefilling experimental designs for high-dimensional complex models. Doctoral dissertation, Operations Research Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.
• 9: Cressie, N. A. C. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Revised ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 10: Dewar, J., J. Gillogly, and M. Juncosa. 1996. Non-monotonicity, chaos, and combat models. Military Operations Research 2(2): 37--49.
• 11: Dickie, A. 2002. Modeling robot swarms using agent-based simulation. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://theses.nps.navy.mil/02Jun_Dickie.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 12: Dudenhoeffer, D. D., D. J. Bruemmer, and M. L. Davis. 2001. In Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. B. A. Peters, J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros, and M. W. Rohrer, 730--739. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Available online via <http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc01papers/096.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 13: Erlenbruch, T. 2002. Agent-based simulation of German peacekeeping operations for units up to platoon level. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/hyperion-image/02Mar_Erlenbruch.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 14: Friedman, J. H. 2002. Getting Started with MART in R. Stanford University, April 2002. Available online via <http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~jhf/r-mart/tutorial/tutorial.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 15: Gill, A. and P. Shi. 2002. Movement algorithm verification and issues in joint concept development and experimentation. In Proceedings of the 5th Project Albert International Workshop. Available online via <http://www.projectalbert.org/Documents/Albert/conferences/fifth_workshop/germany_main_frame.html> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 16: Horne, G. and M. Leonardi, eds. 2001. Maneuver Warfare Science 2001. Quantico, Virginia: Defense Automated Printing Service.
• 17: Horne, G. and S. Johnson, eds. 2002. Maneuver Warfare Science 2002. Quantico, Virginia: USMC Project Albert.
• 18: Ipekci, A. I. 2002. How agent based models can be utilized to explore and exploit non-linearity and intangibles inherent in guerrilla warfare. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via >http://theses.nps.navy.mil/02Jun_Ipekci.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 19: Jin, R., W. Chen, and T. Simpson. 2001. Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Journal of Structural Optimization 23(1): 1--13.
• 20: Kleijnen, J. P. C., S. M. Sanchez, T. Lucas, and T. M. Cioppa. A user's guide to the brave new world of designing simulation experiments. Working paper, Department of Information Management/Center for Economic Research (CentER), Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
• 21: Leonard Kleinrock, Distributed systems, Communications of the ACM, v.28 n.11, p.1200-1213, Nov. 1985 [doi>10.1145/4547.4552]
• 22: Lauren, M. K. and R. T. Stephen. 2001. MANA Map Aware Non-Uniform Automata Version 1.0 User's Manual. Australia: Land Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
• 23: Averill M. Law , David M. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1999
• 24: Lucas, T. W., S. M. Sanchez, L. P. Brown, and W. C. Vinyard. 2002. Better designs for high-dimensional explorations of distillations. In Manuever Warfare Science 2002, eds. G. Horne and S. Johnson, 17--46. Quantico, Virginia: USMC Project Albert.
• 25: Marine Core Combat Development Command. 2002. MC-CDC Project Albert. Available online via <http://www.projectalbert.org> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 26: Colin R. Mason , James Moffat, An agent architecture for implementing command and control in military simulations, Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation, December 09-12, 2001, Arlington, Virginia
• 27: McKay, M. D., R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover. 1979. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2): 239--245.
• 28: Meyer, T. and S. Johnson. 2001. Visualization for data farming: a survey of methods. In Maneuver Warfare Science 2001, eds. G. Horne and M. Leonardi. Quantico, Virginia: Marine Corps Combat Development Command, 15--30.
• 29: MHPCC, 1998. Project Albert VisTool 2.6. Maui, Hawaii: Maui High Performance Computing Center.
• 30: Hideyuki Mizuta , Yoshiki Yamagata, Agent-based simulation and greenhouse gas emissions trading, Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation, December 09-12, 2001, Arlington, Virginia
• 31: Palmore, J. 1996. Research on the causes of dynamical instability in combat models. Technical Report 96/95, U. S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, Illinois.
• 32: Pee, E. Y. 2002. An exploratory analysis on the effects of information superiority on battle outcomes. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/hyperion-image/02Mar_Pee.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 33: Craig W. Reynolds, Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model, ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, v.21 n.4, p.25-34, July 1987
• 34: Sacks, J., W. Welch, T. Mitchell, and H. Wynn. 1989. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical Science 4(4): 409--422.
• 35: Susan M. Sanchez, Design of experiments: robust design: seeking the best of all possible worlds, Proceedings of the 32nd conference on Winter simulation, December 10-13, 2000, Orlando, Florida
• 36: Sanchez, S. M., P. J. Sanchez, J. S. Ramberg, and F. Moeeni. 1996. Effective engineering design through simulation. International Transactions on Operational Research 3(2): 169--185.
• 37: SPSS Inc. 2001. Clementine 6.0 User's Manual. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.
• 38: Sugiyama, S. O. and J. W. Chow. 1997. @Risk, Riskview and BestFit. OR/MS Today 24(2): 64--66.
• 39: Edward R. Tufte, The visual display of quantitative information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, 1986
• 40: Van Beers, W. and J. P. C. Kleijnen. 2002. Kriging for interpolation in random simulation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, forthcoming.
• 41: Vinyard, W. C. 2001. Reducing non-monotonicity in combat models. Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 2001. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://theses.nps.navy.mil/Thesis_01sep_Vinyard.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 42: Vinyard, W. C. and T. W. Lucas. 2002. Exploring combat models for non-monotonicities and remedies. PHALANX 35(1), 19, 36--38.
• 43: Wan, S. C. 2002. An exploratory analysis on the effects of human factors on combat outcomes. Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 2001. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Available online via <http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/hyperion-image/02Mar_Wan.pdf> {accessed August 13, 2002}.
• 44: Wu, H.-F. 2002. Spectral analysis and sonification of simulation data generated in a frequency domain experiment. M.S. Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.