In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
muenchen.de writes
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I have written a paper which analyses the methodology of Multi-
>Agent
>> Based simulation (espEcially as it pertains to social simulation).
>In
>> particular it takes and analyses some papers from the MABS2000
>> workshop (Axtell's, Sawyer's, McGeary and Decker's and Hemlrijk's).
>>
>> Can I *please* have some comments upon it, including from the above
>if
>> they Would be so kind.
>>
>
>Hello Bruce!
>
>One comment, which is a more general: I wonder, if your paper
>is the qualitative description No. 134 or 176 how to build
>up an agent based microsimulation. The major problem is
>bracketed out like in most of these papers: When I have
>found the nugget of a VALID system? And how may I have the
>chance to find some?
>
>One example: Currently a large german holiday air carrier
>intends to build a net planing simulation tool. The only way
>to absorb the complexity of airline traveler streams under
>changing boundary conditions seems to go for multi agent systems.
>But supposingly this Multi Million Dollar project will never
>come into existence. It's no problem to write the model
>structure itself, to construct the THEORETICAL SYSTEM, but
>nobody knows how to find the right parameters! The problem
>"model and data" or "model and experiences" is bracketed
>out notoriously from almost all papers in the vicinity of
>social and economic microsimulation.
>
>I know already one argument frequently answered on this
>remark: "Microsimulation is no methodology to provide
>quantitative understandings of reality. The comparison
>has to be done always qualitatively." Fine. But do have
>you and your collegues any hope ever to cross the
>border of academic game plays into responsable
>research of common social interest? Any politicien,
>any manager will ask your MAS for the outcome of hard new
>informations. What will be you answer? That you can
>program nice looking similarities?
>
>Best regards!
>
>Christof Schatz
>
>
>
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> % ASKOS
> % Buero f. Analyse, Statistik u. Simulation
> % Dr. Christof Schatz
> % Schleissheimerstr. 164
> % 80797 Muenchen
> % Germany
> %
> % Tel: ++49/177/741 25 30
> % Fax: ++49/69/79 12 16 158
> % Web: www.askos.de
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Christof
Your point is a good one.
May I offer an approach?
1. Admit the shortage (or absence of, or lack of agreement on) objective data.
But simultaneously, point to the current inadequacies in current forecasting
methods,
and set out to allow the user to replace his/her subjective estimates at the
macro level
by subjective estimates at the micro(agent) level.
2. Define the project as one of providing a useful tool for the task.
That is, the designer may start, if he wishes, by creating a generic agent-based
model, but that is an intermediate stage of the project.
You use "Theoretical" as the way to describe this.
In my eyes it is not theoretical.
It is a true model that has significant limitations of use
because of the unavailability of objective data.
(That happens with other types of model, I think.)
The designer then has to shape that first model into a form useful to the user.
3. Specify that it will be a user task
to define his/her own assumptions and forecasts.
The model will allow and assist this. It may provide default assumptions.
But the assumptions remain a user responsibility.
4. In which case, project specification made by the client
cannot be for the production of the "hard new information", you mention.
The specification would be for a
tool that would compute the consequences of the user assumptions in a valid way.
What do you think?
Ben Aston
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
