Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA23471 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 May 2002 12:30:34 +0100 Message-ID: <3CEB7C2A.6E421992@ehess.cnrs-mrs.fr> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:08:26 +0200 From: juliette rouchier <rouchier@ehess.cnrs-mrs.fr> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Subject: cfp - M2M Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DEA5E69376BDD3B867B2B17D" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Apparently-To: memetics-outgoing@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Please forward this call for papers to any relevant lists or
individuals. sorry for crossposting.
M-2-M
“Model to Model”
Workshop
Call for Papers
dead line for participation - 1st November 2002
In recent years there has been an explosion of published literature
utilising Multi-Agent-Based Simulation (MABS) to study social,
biological and artificial systems. However, despite the plethora of
novel models and interesting results it is rare that models are
compared, built-on or transferred between researchers. It would seem
there is a dearth of “model-to-model” analysis.
The aim of this workshop is to gather researchers in MABS who are
interested in understanding and furthering the transferability of
knowledge between models and beyond. Although models tend to give very
seductive results, it is not always clear how people who are not the
modeller can interpret or utilise such results - particularly when
building their own models.
Understanding complex systems often seems to necessitate the use of more
than one model. This might be for several different reasons, for
example: different models at varying levels of abstraction might be used
for different purposes. By specifically comparing models a better view
of what modelling brings to the understanding of (real and artificial)
societies may be facilitated.
Comparison of models can be achieved by diverse means that have been
commonly used by researchers to attain validation or to get a better
understanding of others' work, for example:
° Rewriting models that others have described in papers so as to
understand them more deeply and reproduce the stated results (Axelrod,
1997);
° Composition of models where different scales are inter-related in a
larger model - the results of one model being used in the other;
° Comparison of different models that announce the same type of results
and trying to see if they actually produce similar (or the same) results
- sometimes termed “aligning” of models (Axtell et al., 1996);
° Comparison of different models based on their fitness to a set of
data;
° Using one model as a post-hoc summary or abstraction of another
model’s results; Constraining the scope of an existing model to enable
more powerful techniques to be applied in a different computational
framework;
° Using models with different structures and assumptions to confirm each
other’s results;
° Determining what to do when two models give results that contradict
each other.
Workshop papers must be based on some comparison of models, as described
above. Papers should therefore deal with at least two agent based
simulation models (with at least one of them already published). The
relationships between the models should be central to the paper and
covered in detail. The models should be presented in enough detail to
allow for the reader to understand the comparative element. Ideally any
new models should be described in sufficient detail for others to be
able to reimplement them. Given these criteria papers may be technical
or theoretical.
Axelrod R., 1997, Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social
Sciences, R. Conte and R. Hegselmann and P. Terna (eds) Simulating
Social Phenomena, Springer-Verlag. Selected Papers TBA, Berlin, pp
21-40.
Axtell, R., Axelrod R., J.M. Epstein and M.D. Cohen (1996), "Aligning
Simulation Models: A Case Study and Results", Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory 1(2), pp. 123-141.
Moss S., 2000, Canonical Task Environments for Social Simulation,
Computational and Mathematical Organisation Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3,
September 2000, pp 249-275.
The workshop should be held on 31. march - 1st April 2003 in Marseille,
France.
Please send your paper(s) before the 1st november 2002 to :
rouchier@ehess.cnrs-mrs.fr
Organisation committee:
Bruce Edmonds (Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester, UK)
David Hales (Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester, UK)
Juliette Rouchier (GREQAM-CNRS, Marseille, France)
Program committee:
Rob Axtell
Francois Bousquet
Helder Coelho
Paul Davidsson
Marco Janssen
Catholijn Jonker
Christophe Lepage
Scott Moss
Mario Paolucci
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 22 2002 - 12:42:32 BST