Umeå University's logo

During the COVID-19 crisis there have been many difficult decisions governments and other decision makers had to make. E.g. do we go for a total lock down or keep schools open? How many people and which people should be tested? Although there are many good models from e.g. epidemiologists on the spread of the virus under certain conditions, these models do not directly translate into the interventions that can be taken by government. Neither can these models contribute to understand the economic and/or social consequences of the interventions. However, effective and sustainable solutions need to take into account this combination of factors. In this paper, we propose an agent-based social simulation tool, ASSOCC, that supports decision makers understand possible consequences of policy interventions, but exploring the combined social, health and economic consequences of these interventions.

Truly realistic models for policy making require multiple aspects of life, realistic social behaviour and the ability to simulate millions of agents. Current state of the art Agent-based models only achieve two of these requirements. Models that prioritise realistic social behaviour are not easily scalable because the complex deliberation takes into account all information available at each time step for each agent. Our framework uses context to considerably narrow down the information that has to be considered. A key property of the framework is that it can dynamically slide between fast deliberation and complex deliberation. Context is expanded based on necessity. We introduce the elements of the framework, describe the architecture and show a proof-of-concept implementation. We give first steps towards validation using this implementation.

Simulating for policy making can require modelling multiple aspects of life, realistic social behaviour and the ability to simulate up to millions of agents [1]. However realistic models are not easily scalable due to the complex deliberation that takes into account all information at every time step which is slow. Explicitly taking into account context in the deliberation can increase scalability, through a complexity by need principle. The Dynamic Context-Sensitive Deliberation (DCSD) framework uses minimal information when possible, but gradually draws in more information when necessary. To validate whether DCSD can increase scalability while retaining realism we implement DCSD into an example large scale model, the Agent-based Social Simulation of the Coronavirus Crisis (ASSOCC). We compare the original deliberation from the ASSOCC model with the implemented DCSD. We conclude that DCSD can increase scalability while retaining realism in large scale social simulation models.

We propose a context-sensitive deliberation framework where the decision context does not deliver an action straight away, but where rather the decision context and agent characteristics influence the type of deliberation and type of information evaluated which will affect the final decision. The framework is based on the Contextual Action Framework for Computational Agents (CAFCA). Our framework also tailors the deliberation type used to the decision context the agent finds itself in, starting from the least cognitive taxing deliberation types unless the context requires more complex deliberation types. As a proof-of-concept the paper shows how context and information relevance can be used to conceptually expand the deliberation system of an agent.

When creating (open) agent systems it has become common practice to use social concepts such as social practices, norms and conventions to model the way the interactions between the agents are regulated. However, in the literature most papers concentrate on only one of these aspects at the time. Therefore there is hardly any research on how these social concepts relate. It is also unclear whether something like a norm evolves from a social practice or convention or whether they are complete independent entities. In this paper we investigate some of the conceptual differences between these concepts. Whether they are fundamentally stemming from a single social object or should be seen as different types of objects altogether. And finally, when one should which type of concept in an implementation or a combination of them.