A Review of Platforms for the Development of Agent Systems

Agent-based computing is an active field of research with the goal of building autonomous software of hardware entities. This task is often facilitated by the use of dedicated, specialized frameworks. For almost thirty years, many such agent platforms have been developed. Meanwhile, some of them have been abandoned, others continue their development and new platforms are released. This paper presents a up-to-date review of the existing agent platforms and also a historical perspective of this domain. It aims to serve as a reference point for people interested in developing agent systems. This work details the main characteristics of the included agent platforms, together with links to specific projects where they have been used. It distinguishes between the active platforms and those no longer under development or with unclear status. It also classifies the agent platforms as general purpose ones, free or commercial, and specialized ones, which can be used for particular types of applications.Comment: 40 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables, 83 reference

A Survey of Agent-Based Modeling Practices (January 1998 to July 2008)

In the 1990s, Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) began gaining popularity and represents a departure from the more classical simulation approaches. This departure, its recent development and its increasing application by non-traditional simulation disciplines indicates the need to continuously assess the current state of ABM and identify opportunities for improvement. To begin to satisfy this need, we surveyed and collected data from 279 articles from 92 unique publication outlets in which the authors had constructed and analyzed an agent-based model. From this large data set we establish the current practice of ABM in terms of year of publication, field of study, simulation software used, purpose of the simulation, acceptable validation criteria, validation techniques and complete description of the simulation. Based on the current practice we discuss six improvements needed to advance ABM as an analysis tool. These improvements include the development of ABM specific tools that are independent of software, the development of ABM as an independent discipline with a common language that extends across domains, the establishment of expectations for ABM that match their intended purposes, the requirement of complete descriptions of the simulation so others can independently replicate the results, the requirement that all models be completely validated and the development and application of statistical and non-statistical validation techniques specifically for ABM.Agent-Based Modeling, Survey, Current Practices, Simulation Validation, Simulation Purpose

Q-CP: Learning Action Values for Cooperative Planning

Research on multi-robot systems has demonstrated promising results in manifold applications and domains. Still, efficiently learning an effective robot behaviors is very difficult, due to unstructured scenarios, high uncertainties, and large state dimensionality (e.g. hyper-redundant and groups of robot). To alleviate this problem, we present Q-CP a cooperative model-based reinforcement learning algorithm, which exploits action values to both (1) guide the exploration of the state space and (2) generate effective policies. Specifically, we exploit Q-learning to attack the curse-of-dimensionality in the iterations of a Monte-Carlo Tree Search. We implement and evaluate Q-CP on different stochastic cooperative (general-sum) games: (1) a simple cooperative navigation problem among 3 robots, (2) a cooperation scenario between a pair of KUKA YouBots performing hand-overs, and (3) a coordination task between two mobile robots entering a door. The obtained results show the effectiveness of Q-CP in the chosen applications, where action values drive the exploration and reduce the computational demand of the planning process while achieving good performance

Governance, scale and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas

Any present day approach of the world’s most pressing environmental problems involves both scale and governance issues. After all, current local events might have long-term global consequences (the scale issue) and solving complex environmental problems requires policy makers to think and govern beyond generally used time-space scales (the governance issue). To an increasing extent, the various scientists in these fields have used concepts like social-ecological systems, hierarchies, scales and levels to understand and explain the “complex cross-scale dynamics” of issues like climate change. A large part of this work manifests a realist paradigm: the scales and levels, either in ecological processes or in governance systems, are considered as “real”. However, various scholars question this position and claim that scales and levels are continuously (re)constructed in the interfaces of science, society, politics and nature. Some of these critics even prefer to adopt a non-scalar approach, doing away with notions such as hierarchy, scale and level. Here we take another route, however. We try to overcome the realist-constructionist dualism by advocating a dialogue between them on the basis of exchanging and reflecting on different knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. We describe two important developments, one in the ecological scaling literature and the other in the governance literature, which we consider to provide a basis for such a dialogue. We will argue that scale issues, governance practices as well as their mutual interdependencies should be considered as human constructs, although dialectically related to nature’s materiality, and therefore as contested processes, requiring intensive and continuous dialogue and cooperation among natural scientists, social scientists, policy makers and citizens alike. They also require critical reflection on scientists’ roles and on academic practices in general. Acknowledging knowledge claims provides a common ground and point of departure for such cooperation, something we think is not yet sufficiently happening, but which is essential in addressing today’s environmental problems

Critical Infrastructure Protection Approaches: Analytical Outlook on Capacity Responsiveness to Dynamic Trends

Overview: Critical infrastructures (CIs) – any asset with a functionality that is critical to normal societal functions, safety, security, economic or social wellbeing of people, and disruption or destruction of which would have a very significant negative societal impact. CIs are clearly central to the normal functioning of a nation’s economy and require to be protected from both intentional and unintentional sabotages. It is important to correctly discern and aptly manage security risks within CI domains. The protection (security) of CIs and their networks can provide clear benefits to owner organizations and nations including: enabling the attainment of a properly functioning social environment and economic market, improving service security, enabling integration to external markets, and enabling service recipients (consumers, clients, and users) to benefit from new and emerging technological developments. To effectively secure CI system, firstly, it is crucial to understand three things - what can happen, how likely it is to happen, and the consequences of such happenings. One way to achieve this is through modelling and simulations of CI attributes, functionalities, operations, and behaviours to support security analysis perspectives, and especially considering the dynamics in trends and technological adoptions. Despite the availability of several security-related CI modelling approaches (tools and techniques), trends such as inter-networking, internet and IoT integrations raise new issues. Part of the issues relate to how to effectively (more precisely and realistically) model the complex behavior of interconnected CIs and their protection as system of systems (SoS). This report attempts to address the broad goal around this issue by reviewing a sample of critical infrastructure protection approaches; comprising tools, techniques, and frameworks (methodologies). The analysis covers contexts relating to the types of critical infrastructures, applicable modelling techniques, risk management scope covered, considerations for resilience, interdependency, and policy and regulations factors. Key Findings: This research presents the following key findings: 1. There is not a single specific Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) approach – tool, technique, methodology or framework – that exists or emerges as a ‘fit-for-all’; to allow the modelling and simulation of cyber security risks, resilience, dependency, and impact attributes in all critical infrastructure set-ups. 2. Typically, two or more modelling techniques can be (need to be) merged to cover a broader scope and context of modelling and simulation applications (areas) to achieve desirable highlevel protection and security for critical infrastructures. 3. Empirical-based, network-based, agent-based, and system dynamics-based modelling techniques are more widely used, and all offer gains for their use. 4. The deciding factors for choosing modelling techniques often rest on; complexity of use, popularity of approach, types and objectives of user Organisation and sector. 5. The scope of modelling functions and operations also help to strike the balance between ‘specificity’ and ‘generality’ of modelling technique and approach for the gains of in-depth analysis and wider coverage respectively. 6. Interdependency and resilience modelling and simulations in critical infrastructure operations, as well as associated security and safety risks; are crucial characteristics that need to be considered and explored in revising existing or developing new CIP modelling approaches. Recommendations: Key recommendations from this research include: 1. Other critical infrastructure sectors such as emergency services, food & agriculture, and dams; need to draw lessons from the energy and transportation sectors for the successive benefits of: i. Amplifying the drive and efforts towards evaluating and understanding security risks to their infrastructure and operations. ii. Support better understanding of any associated dependencies and cascading impacts. iii. Learning how to establish effective security and resilience. iv. Support the decision-making process linked with measuring the effectiveness of preparedness activities and investments. v. Improve the behavioural security-related responses of CI to disturbances or disruptions. 2. Security-related critical infrastructure modelling approaches should be developed or revised to include wider scopes of security risk management – from identification to effectiveness evaluations, to support: i. Appropriate alignment and responsiveness to the dynamic trends introduced by new technologies such as IoT and IIoT. ii. Dynamic security risk management – especially the assessment section needs to be more dynamic than static, to address the recurrent and impactful risks that emerge in critical infrastructures