The increased focus of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) on irregular warfare and counterinsurgency has served to identify the lack of credible models and simulations to represent the relevant civilian populations – the centers of gravity of such operations. While agent-based models (ABMs) have enjoyed widespread use in the social science community, many senior DoD officials are skeptical that agent-based models can provide useful tools to underpin DoD analysis, training, and acquisition needs mainly because of validation concerns. This paper uses docking and other forms of alignment that enable the linking of the Epstein civil violence agent-based model results to other models. These examples of model-to-model analysis could serve to assist and encourage DoD ABM human domain model validation efforts.
US Department of Defense (DoD). DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A). Department of Defense Instruction 5000.61, USD(AT&L), December2009.
2.
ApplegetJBlaisCJayeM. Best practices for US Department of Defense model validation: lessons learned from irregular warfare models. J Defense Model Simul2013; 10: 395–410.
3.
SargentRG. Verification and validation of simulation models. In: Proceedings of 2010 winter simulation conference (ed JohanssonBJainSMontoya-TorresJ.), Baltimore, Maryland, 5–8 December 2010, pp.166–183. Baltimore, MD: IEEE.
4.
AxtellRAxelrodREpsteinJ. Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organiz Theory1996; 1: 123–141.
ParunakHSavitRRioloR. Agent-based modeling vs. equation-based modeling: a case study and users’ guide. In: Proceedings of workshop on modeling agent-based systems, Paris, France, 1998, pp.10–25. Berlin: Springer.
7.
BurtonR. Computational laboratories for organization science: questions, validity, and docking. Comput Math Organiz Theory2003; 9: 91–108.
8.
Cioffa-RevillaCGottsN. Comparative analysis of agent-based social simulations: GeoSim and FEARLUS models. J Artif Soc Social Simul2003; 6(4): 10.
9.
EdmondsBHalesD. Replication, replication and replication: some hard lessons from model alignment. J Artif Soc Social Simul2003; 6(4): 11.
10.
RouchierJCioffi-RevillaCPolhillJ. Progress in model-to-model analysis. J Artif Soc Social Simul2008; 11(2): 8.
11.
ParunakH. A mathematical analysis of collective cognition convergence. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (ed DeckerSichmanSierra.), 2009, pp.473–480. Budapest: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
12.
ArfinSDavisGKurtzS. Divide and conquer: a four-fold docking experience of agent-based models. In: Proceedings of the 2010 winter simulation conference (ed JohanssonBJainSMontoya-TorresJ.), Baltimore, Maryland, 5–8 December 2010, pp. 575–586. Baltimore, MD: IEEE.
13.
ArfinSDavisGZhouY. Verification & validation by docking: a case study of agent-based models of Anopheles gambiae. In: SCSC2010: proceedings of the summer computer simulation conference (ed WainerG), 2010Ottawa, ON: Curran Associates.
14.
MiodownikDCartriteBBhavnaniR. Between replication and docking: “adaptive agents, political institutions, and civic traditions” revisited. J Artif Soc Social Simul2010; 13(3): 1.
15.
RankS. Docking agent-based simulation of collective emotion to equation-based models and interactive agents. In: Proceedings of agent-directed simulation symposium at the spring simulation conference, Orlando, FL, Spring2010, pp.82–89. The Society for Modeling & Simulation International.
16.
CastleCWatersonNPellissierE. A comparison of grid-based and continuous space pedestrian modelling software: analysis of two UK train stations. In: PeacockRKuligowskiEAverillJ (eds) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics. New York: Springer; 2011, pp.433–446.
17.
WilenskyURandW. Making models match: replicating an agent-based model. J Artif Soc Social Simul2007; 10(4): 2.
EpsteinJSteinbrunerJParkerM. Modeling civil violence: an agent-based computational approach. Center on Social and Economic DynamicsWorking Paper No. 20, Brookings Institution, 2001.
20.
HeathBHillRCiaralloF. A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). J Artif Soc Social Simul2009; 12(4): 9.
21.
KneppellPArangnoD. Simulation validation: a confidence assessment methodology. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.
22.
HeathBCiaralloFHillR. Validation in the agent-based modeling paradigm: problems and solutions. Int J Simul Process Model2012; 7: 229–239.
23.
RobinsonS. Conceptual modeling for simulation. Part I: Definition and requirements. J Oper Res Soc2008, 59: 278–290.
24.
RobinsonS. Conceptual modeling for simulation: issues and research requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2006 winter simulation conference, Monterey, California, 3–6 December 2006, pp.792–800.
25.
KlemensBEpsteinJHammondR. Empirical performance of a decentralized civil violence model. Center on Social and Economic Dynamics Working Paper No. 56, 2010.
26.
KermackWMcKendrickA. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc R Soc London Ser A1927; 115: 700–721.
27.
WaltmanP. A second course in ordinary differential equations. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1986.
28.
KuranT. Sparks and prairie fires: a theory of unanticipated political revolution. Public Choice1989; 61: 41–74.
29.
GranovetterM. Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Sociol1978; 83: 1420–1443.
30.
MesquidaCWienerN. Human collective aggression: a behavioral ecology perspective. Ethol Sociobiol1996: 17: 247–262.
31.
MesquidaCWienerN. Male age composition and severity of conflicts. Politics Life Sci1999: 18: 181–189.
