e*plore v.0: Principia for Strategic Exploration of Social Simulation Experiments Design Space

  • Luis Antunes
  • Helder Coelho
  • João Balsa
  • Ana Respício


Years ago, we addressed the issue of methodological procedures to develop the design of cognitive agents tuned to real problems, inserting them into a context where experimentation could have a meaningful outcome in terms of the original problems posed. Since then we have been building mechanisms and frameworks for mind design in multiagent systems. We proceeded with the evaluation of such systems through simulation that was many times exploratory. In many of those experiments, the evaluation of the deep meaning of outcomes was inherently complex, challenging the researchers and even the research questions.


Design Space Multiagent System Target Phenomenon Artificial Society Exploratory Simulation 
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.
    L. Antunes, J. Balsa, L. Moniz, P. Urbano, and C. R. Palma. Tax compliance in a simulated heterogeneous multi-agent society. In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation VI, volume 3891 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Antunes and H. Coelho. On how to conduct experiments with self-motivated agents. In G. Lindemann, D. Moldt, and M. Paolucci, editors, Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems: First International Workshop, RASTA 2002, volume 2934 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Antunes, J. Faria, and H. Coelho. Improving choice mechanisms within the BVG architecture. In Intelligent Agents VII, Proc. of ATAL 2000, volume 1986 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Axelrod. Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, and P. Terna, editors, Simulating Social Phenomena, volume 456 of LNEMS. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Balsa, L. Antunes, A. Respício, and H. Coelho. Autonomous inspectors in tax compliance simulation. In Proc. 18th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Bergenti, M.-P. Gleizes, and F. Zambonelli, editors. Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems: The Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Handbook. Kluwer Ac. Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. M. C. Campos, A. M. P. Canuto, and J. H. C. Fernandes. Towards a methodology for developing agent-based simulations: The masim methodology. In Proc. AAMAS 2004, pages 1494–1495, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. L. Casti. Would-be business worlds. Complexity, 6(2), 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Coelho, L. Antunes, and L. Moniz. On agent design rationale. In Proc. XI Brazilian Symposium on AI. SBC and LIA, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. R. Cohen. A Survey of the Eighth National Conference on AI: Pulling together or pulling apart? AI Magazine, 12(1):16–41, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Conte and N. Gilbert. Introduction: computer simulation for social theory. In Artificial Societies: the computer simulation of social life. UCL Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, and P. Terna. Introduction: Social simulation —a new disciplinary synthesis. In Simulating Social Phenomena, volume 456 of LNEMS. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. M. Epstein and R. Axtell. Growing artificial societies. The Brookings Institution and The MIT Press, Washington, D.C. and Cambridge, MA (resp.), 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Gilbert. Models, processes and algorithms: Towards a simulation toolkit. In R. Suleiman, K. G. Troitzsch, and N. Gilbert, editors, Tools and Techniques for Social Science Simulation. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Gilbert. Varieties of emergence. In Proc. Agent 2002: Social agents: ecology, exchange, and evolution, Chicago, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Gilbert and J. Doran, editors. Simulating Societies: the computer simulation of social phenomena. UCL Press, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Hales. Tag Based Co-operation in Artificial Societies. PhD thesis, Univ. Essex, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Hanks, M. E. Pollack, and P. R. Cohen. Benchmarks, test beds, controlled experimentation, and the design of agent architectures. AI Magazine, 14(4), Winter 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Sloman. Prospects for AI as the general science of intelligence. In Proc. of AISB’93. IOS Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Sloman. Explorations in design space. In Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. R. Swartout and R. Balzer. On the inevitable interwining of specification and implementation. Communications of ACM, 25(7):438–440, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Wooldridge, N. R. Jennings, and D. Kinny. The GAIA methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(3), 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Antunes
    • 1
  • Helder Coelho
    • 1
  • João Balsa
    • 1
  • Ana Respício
    • 2
  1. 1.GUESS/LabMAg/Universidade de LisboaPortugal
  2. 2.GUESS/CIO/Universidade de LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations