1

From Social Simulation to Integrative System Design

arXiv:1011.3970v2 [cs.CY] 24 Feb 2011

Dirk Helbing1,2 and Stefano Balietti1
1 ETH Zurich, CLU, Clausiusstr. 50, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
2 Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA
∗ E-mail: dhelbing@ethz.ch and sbalietti@ethz.ch

Abstract
The purpose of this White Paper of the EU Support Action “Visioneer”[1] is to address the following
goals:
1. Develop strategies to build up social simulation capacities.
2. Suggest ways to build up an “artificial societies” community that aims at simulating real and
alternative societies by means of supercomputers, grid or cloud computing.
3. Derive proposals to establish centers for integrative systems design.

1

Introduction

1.1

Real-World Challenges

Since decades, if not since hundreds of years, the world has been facing a number of recurrent socioeconomic problems which are obviously hard to solve because their roots are still not well understood.
This includes, in particular, the following problems:
1. Financial and economic (in)stability (government debts, taxation, and inflation/deflation; sustainability of social benefit systems; consumption and investment behavior. . . )
2. Public health (food safety; spreading of epidemics [flu, SARS, H1N1, HIV], obesity, smoking, or
unhealthy diets. . . )
3. Sustainable use of resources and environment (consumption habits, travel behavior, sustainable
and efficient use of energy and other resources, participation in recycling efforts, environmental
protection. . . )
4. Collective social behavior and opinion dynamics (abrupt changes in consumer behavior; social contagion, extremism, hooliganism, changing values; breakdown of cooperation, trust, compliance, solidarity. . . )
5. Security and peace (organized crime, terrorism, social unrest, independence movements, conflict,
war. . . )
6. Reliability of critical infrastructures, in particular of information systems (cyber risks, misuse of
sensitive data, espionage, violation of privacy; data deluge, spam; education and inheritance of
culture. . . )
7. Institutional design (intellectual property rights; over-regulation; corruption; balance between global
and local, central and decentral control. . . )
8. Balance of power in a multi-polar world (between different countries and economic centers; also
between individual and collective rights, political and company power; avoidance of monopolies;
formation of coalitions; protection of pluralism, individual freedoms, minorities. . . )

2
9. Demographic change of the population structure (change of birth rate, migration, integration. . . )
10. Social, economic and political participation and inclusion (of people of different gender, age, health,
education, income, religion, culture, language, preferences; reduction of unemployment. . . )
It must be underlined that the above list is not ranked according to importance and that at least some
of these challenges are obviously interdependent. A recent paper [2] identifies and discusses a number of
fundamental scientific challenges in economics and other social sciences which must be addressed before
the above problems can be cured or mitigated (see also Ref. [3]). However, there is actually hope that
progress can be made, and the following activities are likely to be useful for this:
1. Build a Financial Crisis Observatory and large-scale agent-based simulations, explore alternative
exchange systems (see Ref. [4]).
2. Create a network of “health sensors” and a Health Risk Observatory in order to follow, simulate
and anticipate the spreading of diseases; create contingency plans (see Ref. [5]).
3. Develop user-friendly ICT tools for a realistic, but pluralistic modeling and simulation of the dynamics of complex systems and create new incentive schemes (see Sec. 3.4.2).
4. Explore group dynamics through lab and Web experiments and social data mining (see Ref. [4]).
5. Understand the roots of conflicts to derive new ways to avoid or mitigate them (see Ref. [5]).
6. Employ network analysis, build a privacy-respecting reputation system to learn how to design a
self-controlled, trustable system (see [5]).
7. Perform evolutionary optimization and scenario analyses, use serious games (see Secs. 4.6 and 4.7).
8. Develop better coordination and synchronisation mechanisms and new paradigms to manage complexity (see Sec. 4.2).
9. Create supporting ICT systems to support people in various real-life situations and their mutual
interactions (e.g. create a “multi-national translator or adapter”); use Decision Arenas to identify
good solutions (see Sec. 4.8).
10. Use eGovernance and build a Knowledge Accelerator (see Ref. [4]).
Some of the above challenges obviously require massive data-mining activities or the use and development of novel ICT systems, as it has been discussed in other Visioneer White Papers [5, 4, 3]. Of course,
we do not want to claim that all problems will be solvable forever, but there are good reasons to believe
that substantial progress can be made for some socio-economic issues, and that all possible attempt should
be made to mitigate them. The before-mentioned documents explain possible approaches to make such
progress. Complementary to these, social super-computing will be needed to make substantial progress
in the understanding, management and improvement of complex systems, as outlined in this document.

1.2

Particular scientific challenges of socio-economic systems

We are fully aware of a number of particular challenges of socio-economic systems which make them
different from other systems [6]:
• the number of variables involved is typically (much) larger,
• the relevant variables and parameters are often unknown and hard to measure (the existence of
“unknown unknowns” is typical),

3
• the time scales on which the variables evolve are often not well separated from each other,
• the statistical variation of measurements is considerable and masks laws of social behavior, where
they exist (if they exist at all),
• frequently there is no ensemble of equivalent systems, but just one realization (one human history),
• empirical studies are limited by technical, financial, and ethical issues,
• it is difficult or impossible to subdivide the system into simple, non-interacting subsystems that
can be separately studied,
• details of the environment and the history of the system, in which the actors live, may be important
to understand their behaviour,
• the observer participates in the system and modifies social reality,
• the non-linear and/or network dependence of many variables leads to complex dynamics and structures, and sometimes paradoxical effects,
• interaction effects are often strong, and emergent phenomena are ubiquitous (hence, not understandable by the measurement and quantification of the individual system elements),
• factors such as a large degree of randomness and heterogeneity, memory, anticipation (future expectations), decision-making, communication, consciousness, and the relevance of intentions and
individual interpretations complicate the analysis and modeling a lot,
• the same applies to human features such as emotions, creativity, and innovation,
• the impact of information is often more decisive for the behavior of a socio-economic system than
physical aspects (energy, matter) or our biological heritage,
• information feedbacks have a significant impact on the resulting socio-economic system dynamics,
• the “rules of the game” and the interactions in a social or economic system may change over time,
in contrast to what we believe to be true for the fundamental laws and forces of physics,
• in particular, social systems are influenced by normative and moral issues, which are variable.
For these reasons, progress in the socio-economic sciences is more difficult than in the natural and
engineering sciences. However, many available scientific methods have not yet been used in the socioeconomic sciences to the extent they may contribute. This includes, for example, insights from
• psychology,
• the neurosciences,
• biology (particulary the organization of social species and swarms),
• the ecology of mutually networked entities,
• synergetics and complex systems theory for large adaptive systems with non-linear interactions
(including theories of self-organization phenomena, non-linear and chaotic dynamics, emergence
etc.),
• statistical physics of systems with many interacting components (including theories of phase transitions and critical phenomena),

4
• information theory,
• computer science (including data mining, pattern recognition, machine learning, computer simulation, evolutionary optimization, heuristic algorithms, etc.).
• artificial intelligence and robotics,
• cybernetics/control theory, and
• game theory.
As the methods of these different sciences have by far not been fully explored and utilized, we are
convinced that a much better understanding of socio-economic systems can be gained than what we know
today. Restricting to empirical, experimental and analytical methods, but underusing the possibilities of
modern and future information and communication technologies (ICT) would ignore a large number of
powerful research tools. When properly performed, computational approaches can gain results for a much
wider range of models, parameters, and conditions than empirical, experimental and analytical methods
can.

2

Strategies to build up social simulation capacities: From
agent-based to multi-scale simulations

According to Shannon [7], simulation can be defined as “the process of designing a model of a real system
and conducting experiments with this model for the purpose of understanding the behavior of the system
and/or evaluating various strategies for the operation of the system”. The method of computer simulation
has been successfully used in the natural and engineering sciences. Also in the social sciences, it is being
used since the 50ies [8], and it is spreading continuously, particularly since the advent of agent-based
modeling (ABM) (for an introduction to history of social science simulation see Chap. 1 of Ref. [9]).

2.1

Agent-based models and simulation

Agent-based simulations are used to model the decision-making entities of the system of interest. Depending on the field of application, agents can represent individuals, groups, organizations, companies,
etc. They seem to be particularly suited to reflect interactions with the surrounding environment and
between different agents as well as their heterogeneous properties in a natural way [10, 11]. Agent-based
simulations can be combined with a variety of concepts, ranging from decision models to evolutionary
game theory and beyond. When modeling individuals, it seems plausible to give agents the following
features (or a subset of them, depending on the purpose of the respective study):
• birth, death, and reproduction,
• individual needs of resources (e.g. eat and drink),
• competition and fighting ability,
• toolmaking ability (e.g. the possibility to grow food, hunt etc.),
• perception,
• curiosity, exploration behavior, ability for innovation,
• emotions,

5
• memory and future expectations,
• mobility and carrying capacity,
• communication,
• learning and teaching ability,
• possibility of trading and exchange,
• the tendency to have relationships with other agents (e.g. family or friendship ties etc.).
Agent-based simulations allow one to start off with the descriptive power of verbal argumentation
and to calculate the implications of different hypotheses. From this perspective, computer simulation is
a special form of mathematics. Some are already arguing that applied computer science has taken the
role that mathematics has had for centuries for what concerns “providing an orderly formal framework
and explanatory apparatus for the other sciences” [12]. Others have formulated reasons why simulation
should be considered more appropriate than mathematics for performing social science analysis [13]:
modularity, greater flexibility, enhanced expressiveness, and inherent capabilities for performing parallel
and distributed tasks are among its strong advantages.
In the socio-economic sciences, multi-agent computer simulations facilitate to overcome the limitations
of the theoretical concept of homo economicus (the “perfect egoist”) [14], relaxing idealized assumptions
that are empirically not well supported. They also offer a possibility to go beyond the representative
agent models of macroeconomics [15], and to establish a natural link between the micro- and macro-level
of description, considering heterogeneity, spatio-temporal variability, and fluctuations, which are known
to change the dynamics and outcome of the system sometimes dramatically [2].
Computer simulations are also a suitable tool to study complex systems and their emergent, often
counter-intuitive behaviors, due to which linear, conventional, and straight-forward modeling attempts
may not provide a suitable understanding [16, 17]. By modeling the relationships on the level of individuals
in a rule-based way rather than describing aggregates in the classical, equation-based way [18], agentbased simulations allow peculiar features of a system to emerge without a-priori assumptions on global
properties. At the same time, this approach allows one to show the consequences of ex-ante hypotheses
regarding the interactions of agents. It is also possible to apply methods from statistics and econometrics
to simulation outcomes and compare the results with actual data, to which the same procedures have
been applied. As agent-based simulations are suited for detailed hypothesis-testing, one could say that
they can serve as a sort of magnifying glass or telescope (“socioscope”), which may be used to understand
reality better.
The progress as compared to fifteen years ago lies not only in the better computer power and visualization techniques. The greater perspectives result from the current transition from a data-poor to a data-rich
situation in the socio-economic sciences, which allows one to verify or falsify models, calibrate their parameters, or pursue data-driven modeling approaches [5]. This transition supports the comprehension
of the inner relationships and significant patterns of complex systems with semi-automated techniques,
based on algorithms and ICT systems that are able to cope with the gigantic amounts of data that are
now continuously produced by all sorts of information systems (and even more so in the future). Given
this development, we envision a new, complementary way of performing socio-economic research, which
may be called “Social Supercomputing”. This approach would facilitate the integration of different kinds
of data (e.g. demographic, socio-economic, and geographic data) and different kinds of simulation approaches (e.g. agent-based and continuous ones, using partial differential equations), at an unprecedented
scale and level of detail. It would facilitate multi-scale simulations of all kinds. In fact, global-scale computer simulation is a vision that appears to become possible in the socio-economic sciences within the
next 10 to 15 years, with unprecedented opportunities for societies and economies, if done in the right
way.

6

2.2

Social super-computing

In the past, large or even global-scale simulations of human society have been obstructed by a lack of
sufficient computer power and also by a lack of data to determine suitable models, network interactions,
parameters, initial and boundary conditions. However, future high performance computing capacities
(including grid and cloud computing) and advances in collecting and analyzing massive socio-economic
data [5] promise to overcome these problems. Massive computer power is, for example, required for largescale computational analyses in the following areas:
• network research, community detection,
• Monte-Carlo simulations of probabilistic system behavior,
• multi-agent simulations of large systems (e.g. “whole-earth simulator”, which may involve up to 10
billion agents and complementary environmental simulations),
• multi-agent simulations considering human cognitive and psychological processes (e.g. personality,
memory, strategic decision-making, emotions, creativity etc.),
• massive data mining, e.g. real-time financial data analysis,
• realistic computer simulations with parameter-rich models (coupling simulations of climate and
environmental change with simulations of large techno-socio-economic-environmental systems),
• pluralistic or “possibilistic”, “multiple-world-views” modeling [6] (to determine the degree of reliability of model assumptions and to improve the overall prediction capability),
• calibration of parameter-rich models with massive datasets,
• scanning of multi-dimensional parameter spaces,
• sensitivity analyses (e.g. k-failures),
• parallel worlds scenario analyses (to test alternative policies etc.),
• visualization of multi-dimensional data and models of complex systems, and
• an optimal real-time management of complex systems (guided self-organization, self-optimization),
• multi-agent simulations considering complex decision-making processes.
In the past, supercomputers have been used mainly in physics or biology, or for difficult engineering
problems such as the construction of new aircrafts. They have also been applied to weather forecasting
and the study of climate change (e.g. [19]). Recently, they are also increasingly used for social and
economic analyses, even of the most fundamental human processes. First applications in a variety of
fields demonstrate the feasibility of social super-computing and the possibility to apply it in order to
better cope with crises:
1. A first successful application area was large-scale traffic simulation. The TRANSIMS project [20,
21, 22] of the Los Alamos National Institute (LANL), for example, has created agent-based simulations of whole cities such as Dallas [23] and Portland [24]. The approach has been recently extended
to the simulation of the travel behavior of the 7.5 million inhabitants of Switzerland [25, 26]. These
simulations are obviously based on parallel computing. They generate realistic individual activity
patterns according to detailed statistical panel data (“travel diaries”) [27, 28] which are nowadays complemented by the availability of GPS data. Other extensions look at the interconnections
between the traffic system and the regional development [29, 30].

7
2. Recent applications are studying contingency plans for large-scale evacuations of cities [31, 32].
Key aspect here is understanding the interdependency of infrastructure systems [33, 34] and their
vulnerabilities through natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and accidents. Los Alamos National Laboratories have already established a Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support System [35].
Its advanced simulation capabilities have already been extensively used during past emergencies.
3. Large-scale simulations have also been applied to study and predict the spreading of diseases.
While previous epidemic spreading models such as the SIR model [36, 37, 38] have neglected spatial
interaction effects, recent models [39] take into account effects of spatial proximity [40], air traffic
[41] and land transport [42] using TRANSIMS and other traffic simulation models. The current
scientific development also tries to take into account behavioral changes which may reduce the
spreading rate of diseases.
4. There are also attempts to model financial markets with agent-based simulations. Two examples
for this are the Santa-Fe Market Simulator [43] and U-mart [44]. Recent attempts are even heading
towards the simulation of the whole economic system (see for example the EU project EURACE
[45]). Other simulation studies are trying to understand the evolution of cooperation [46], social
norms [47, 48], language [49, 50, 51], and culture [52]. Such simulations explore the conditions under
which trust, cooperation and other forms of “social capital” can thrive in societies (see also Ref.
[4, 2]). They also show that the crust of civilization is disturbingly vulnerable. These simulations
reveal common patterns behind breakdowns of social order in events as diverse as the war in former
Yugoslavia, lootings after earthquakes or other natural disasters, or the violent demonstrations we
have recently seen in some European countries.
5. Migration processes have been studied through large-scale social simulations as well [53]. The related
scenarios integrate huge volumes of demographic information about geographical areas in order to
determine the factors that influence the spatial population dynamics.
It appears logical that supercomputing will be ultimately moving on from applications in the natural
and engineering sciences to the simulation of social and economic systems, as more and more complex
systems become understandable and the required data become available. It is obvious that virtual threedimensional worlds are waiting to be filled with life. The upcoming trend becomes visible already. For
example, ETH Zurich’s Competence Center for “Coping with Crises in Complex Socio-Economic Systems”
(CCSS) is currently the biggest shareholder of the Brutus supercomputing cluster, which is ranked 10th on
the list of Europe’s fastest supercomputers. Social supercomputing is also a new focus of other renowned
research centres such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Brookings Institution, John Hopkins
University or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, to mention only a few. Finally,
there is very recent news that Spain is going to invest 2.7 million EUR in a project (Simulpast) aimed at
developing new ways of applying simulation and High Performance Computing (HPC) to the Humanities
and Social Sciences.

3

Ways to build up an “artificial societies” community that aims
at simulating real and alternative societies by means of supercomputers, grid or cloud computing

Given the speed of development in the ICT area, it seems feasible to realize something like a “Living
Earth Simulator” to simulate the entire globe, including all the diverse interactions of social systems and
of the economy with our environment. However, this requires to solve a number of problems, including
the following ones:

8
1. to provide suitable hardware systems,
2. to transform data into knowledge,
3. to create suitable software solutions,
4. to build up a larger social supercomputing community, and
5. to improve the scientific methodology and validation of social simulation.

3.1

Europe has to catch up in the area of supercomputing and data centers

Today, challenges such as global climate simulation require the use of the fastest supercomputers of the
world. Simulating life on Earth and everything it relates to will require even bigger computer power.
Such planetary-scale simulations will be unprecedented in their scale and level of detail. The situation
is similar for the collection and processing of the relevant data (see Ref. [5]). The potential social and
economic benefits of social super-computing would be enormous, from the prevention or mitigation of
future crises up to the creation of new business opportunities (see Ref. [4]).
An analysis of the list of top 100 supercomputers in the world, however, shows that Europe is lacking
behind in terms of computer power (see Appendix B). While it appears appropriate that 19 out of the
50 fastest supercomputers are located in Europe, 20 in the United States, and 9 in China or Japan, the
top 20 list looks concerning: Only 5 of them are located in Europe, 4 in China or Japan, but 11 in the
United States. The top 10 list is even alarming: Only 1 of the 10 fastest computers in the world is in
Europe, 2 in China and Japan, while 7 of them are in the USA. The PRACE project [54] is trying to
address Europe’s computational gap on the long term by supplying exa-scale computing power by 2019.
A similar picture is found for data centers, the creation and maintenance of which poses increasing
costs and problems, considering in particular the rapidly growing data generation rates and the difficulties in integrating multiple concurrent data-streams and data from offline repositories. This will require
entirely new approaches to data processing. Today, most data are collected and stored by large Internet
providers, government agencies, and private companies, while public research institutions are far behind.
This situation implies a number of problems, including the lack of oversight of what is actually being
done in different parts of the system, leading to multiple investments, while remaining knowledge gaps
are not efficiently filled [4]. Evaluating the diverse digital traces that human activities leave behind, this
deficiency could be overcome.

3.2

Turning data into knowledge: Future challenges to be addressed

Current computer-based approaches in the social sciences still have a number of serious limitations which
must and can be overcome, as discussed in the following:
• The discussion around the simulation of Volcanic ashes shows that it is not sufficient to have computer simulations. One rather needs a concept integrating real-time measurement and monitoring,
e.g. through suitable sensor networks or other data sources. The goal is to reach zero-delay data mining which allows one (i) to feed boundary conditions and interaction network data into large-scale
computer simulations, (ii) to calibrate parameters and determine advance warning signs on-the-fly,
(iii) to discover characteristic patterns (“stylized facts”).
• Today’s simulations are still restricted in scale and level of detail, and they lack integration. When
performing transport-related simulations, for example, the time scales of traffic control, road repair, transport planning and regional planning range from seconds to 30 years. Such multi-scale
simulations are still not operational on the level of a single region, and even less on a global scale.

9
• Different sectors of the techno-socio-economic-environmental system need to be computed in an
integrated way, not in separation. Today, we are still lacking a sufficient fiancial market simulation
as well as an integrated micro-macro-simulation of the economic system. While this goal may be
reachable to a certain extend within a couple of years, an integration with models of the environment
and social system appear necessary as well. It is clear that the spreading of diseases is influenced
by human transport and impacts economics and social behavior. In a similar way environmental
changes affect agriculture, forestry, and other economic sectors, which may cause migration, integration problems, and conflicts or even wars. Therefore, it is crucial to gain an integrated systemic
view.
Causality networks [55] and systems dynamics approaches [56] can certainly be useful to explore
possible cascading and feedback effects. However, they are quite limited in scope, as they do not
sufficiently consider the variability in space and of other factors, and oversimplify the interactions
in the system. This could be overcome when computer models are combined with massive data
mining.
• The behavioral response to information about the system needs better modeling. This has, for example, become obvious for predictions of epidemic models, where disease spreading rates change
through behavioral adaptations. We also need to learn more about collective behavior, coalition
formation, political decision making, and lobbying. All this requires the integration of behavioral
models and, in particular of psychological models, into simulations of socio-economic systems. In
other words, the approach must go beyond rational agent approaches and reflect emotions, perception biases, and possibly other factors as well. Again, a data driven model promises progress, but
needs to be combined with empirical and experimental approaches (in the lab and Web).
Furthermore, we are currently lacking something like a “social information theory” which would
allow one to assess the relevance and impact of certain kinds of information on socio-economic
systems, or emergent effects that may result when two or more pieces of information are perceived
in correlation.

3.3

Crafting new software tools

The analysis of massive amounts of data is already a great computational challenge. The even bigger goal,
namely to simulate society and the global economy as a whole, must be approached in a structured way.
Herein, the modeling of human activities will play an eminent role. Today, there are already a number
of multi-agent simulation platforms for specific domains like traffic (e.g. Transims [57], Matsims [58]),
economics (e.g. Eurace [45]) and finance (e.g. Santa-Fe Market Simulator [43], U-mart [44]). However,
they are still lacking crucial functionalities, including the integration of real-time data streams. Therefore,
a wider approach to simulation is needed, which overcomes the boundaries between simulation and reality.
For example, the increasing popularity of communal on-line games could be used as an opportunity for
policy and systems design (see Sec. 4).
Considering the potentials and limitations of current state-of-the-art large-scale simulators, a globalscale super-simulator (“Living Earth Simulator”) would require to have features such as the following:
• massive computational resources (in order to reach a sufficient degree of realism),
• high flexibility, robustness, and evolutionary, self-organizing (self-*) properties,
• interconnectedness with a variety of other simulation tools for the sake of multi-scale micro-macro
modeling,
• interoperability with large-scale data sets (both regarding the use of data during simulations and
their deposition in massive repositories),

10
• support of the simultaneous integration of multiple data-sources, recombining real-time streams of
information with historical datasets,
• measurement of boundary conditions and the properties of the relevant interaction networks “on
the fly”,
• fusion of data-driven and model-based components in real-time,
• self-calibration during the simulation, as more and more data become available over time (e.g.
determination of weather-dependent road capacities or of spreading rates of diseases),
• establishment of coherent, flexible and practical standards for interoperability and systems integration,
• verification and validation through lab and Web experiments, and/or serious multi-player games,
• equipment with powerful visual data exploration tools (see Sec. A).
Each of the above points involves fundamental challenges requiring to significantly advance today’s ICT
systems. In the following, we can just highlight a few points. For example, for the purpose of modeling
complex systems (such as technical, social, economic and environmental systems and their interactions),
it would be favorable to develop a software system which allows one to (semi-)automatically perform the
following tasks:
• identify well measurable, interpretable and relevant variables in large data sets,
• detect significant patterns in high dimensional complex systems and visualize them,
• extract a variety of mathematical laws consistent with available data sets and identify their crucial
assumptions, approximations, and simplifications,
• assess the suitability to interpret the alternative models, to perform analytical studies, and to
calibrate them,
• evaluate their validity,
• support the process of interpreting the models,
• help to distinguish descriptive from explanatory models and to find models of the latter type
(providing a better level of understanding of causal relationships and systemic interdependencies),
• perform sensitivity analyses with respect to parameter variations and model assumptions (e.g.
structural variations),
• perform analyses of the network robustness (e.g. for critical infrastructures such as transportation
systems, power grids, the financial system, communication systems, the Internet etc.),
• perform analyses regarding spatial dependencies,
• identify early warning signs of upcoming critical states and systemic shifts through scenario analyses,
• generalize detected patterns and simplify models for them to determine “stylized facts” of the
studied system,
• customize the degree of detail to the modeling purpose,
• determine implications which distinguish alternative models, and derive procedures to test the
model variants by complementary data analyses or experiments,

11
• identify, run, and visualize relevant simulation scenarios, and support their interpretation,
• determine the range of validity of the alternative models and the levels of uncertainty of the simulation scenarios studied.
Such a new software platform would play a fundamental role in integrating
1. data generated from various sources, as described in Ref. [5],
2. models from economics, the social sciences and other disciplines,
3. extending these models into new directions, for example as discussed in Ref. [3], taking into account
the massive data provided by new powerful ICT systems.
Besides, it appears desirable
• to create distributed, adaptive processing and storage systems based on principles of collective
intelligence,
• to employ emergent computing and artificial immune systems,
• to make swarm architectures programmable like single systems,
• to create ICT platforms that can reconfigure themselves as well as adaptive algorithms that reprogram themselves, allowing for changing interaction rules,
• to develop a standardized framework for modelling agent interactions,
• to consider cognitive and emotional factors supporting swarm intelligence, and
• to enable “cultural evolution” in computer networks.

3.4

Building up a larger social supercomputing community

It is quite obvious that additional research, development, consultancy and education capacities must be
built up in the areas of social simulation and integrative systems design in order to address the challenges
of humanity more successfully in the future. Experiences from the establishment of the bioinformatics
community or the climate and earth science communities may be helpful to consider, here.
One way of extending these capacities is to connect the social simulation community (e.g. the European
Social Simulation Association, ESSA [59]) with natural and computer scientists, engineers, and ICT
researchers. This would pull in people and knowledge from a variety of relevant areas and make sure
that the wisdom gained in the socio-economic sciences will be considered. It is clear that this requires
to foster a multi-disciplinary interaction, which could be done by joint think tanks, summer schools,
workshops, symposia, conferences, etc., joint research projects and publications, and the creation of
a joint study direction, which may be called “Integrative Systems Design” or just “Systems Science”
(see Sec. 4). Moreover, the field and its progress could be largely stimulated by “Hilbert Workshops”
(identifying grand scientific challenges), suitable incentive schemes, and tools that make communication
and collaboration easier and more efficient (see Ref. [4]).

12
3.4.1

User-friendly tools for non-experts

An additional route to take is the provision of better tools to social scientists and economists for the
purpose of computer simulations. In the past, programming computer code has traditionally not been
a focus in these areas, in contrast to the natural and engineering sciences. As a consequence, there is a
huge gap between what is done in the academic world and in the governance and business world. This
situation must be overcome by creating user-oriented ICT systems. For this, the following seems to be
necessary:
1. to create “non-expert systems”, which make the knowledge of humanity, simulation tools etc. accessible for everyone,
2. to design models for adaptive autonomous systems that interact with humans and social structures:
ICT systems that think like humans, understand what they want, and adapt to them,
3. to develop ICT systems that are intuitive, easy to use, customizable, reliable (self-repairing), flexible
(self-adaptive), trustable (in particular self-protecting), sustainable, scalable, and interoperable (like
plug-ins or apps or widgets, see section 3.4.2),
4. to facilitate an interface-free interaction with users (along the line of systems that can be instructed
by voice or latest-generation computer games, which “understand” body language and mimics).
3.4.2

Building up the “World of Modeling” (WoM), a toolbox of interoperable apps

User-friendly simulation tools would make it easier to perform research that is driven by the problems
that need to be solved rather than by existing theories. Today, researchers still have to spend too much
time on programming their models, which implies that these tend to be oversimplified. It seems already
beyond the scope of a PhD thesis or the capability of a single research team to create a simulator that
would allow to study the implications and differences of existing decision and behavioral models—not to
mention more sophisticated models that may be developed in the future. For the way in which certain
behavioral strategies (or opinions) spread, for example, numerous plausible, but mutually inconsistent
approaches have been proposed, including the following ones [60]:
• strategic optimization considering likely future decisions of all involved parties, assuming that everybody else would behave so as well,
• “satisficing”, i.e. the application of aspiration-dependent rules (trying to reach a certain minimum
performance),
• reinforcement learning,
• unconditional imitation of the best performing neighbor or interaction partner,
• best response in the next interaction, given the current situation,
• multi-stage strategies such as tit for tat,
• the application of stimulus-response rules such as win-stay-lose-shift,
• the use of probabilistic rules such as the proportional imitation rule, the Fermi rule, or the unconditional imitation rule with a superimposed randomness (“noise”),
• rules based on social influence (such as majority rules), giving rise to herding effects.

13
Despite all of these rules (and sometimes several variants of them) have been formalized and have
testable implications, their range of validity has still not been experimentally determined. Most likely,
different individuals apply different rules, and the application of the respective behavioral choice rule may
even be situation-dependent (“framing effect”) [61].
Complementary, one would also have to test the impact of different interaction networks and different
initial conditions or even “history dependencies”, to get a sufficiently differentiated picture of socioeconomic reality (or possible realities) through computer simulations. Note that, at least to a certain
extent, such a simulation approach would allow one to identify sensitivities to parameter changes, and
even structural instabilities, which may cause unexpected systemic shifts (“phase transitions”).
To assess the sensitivity or robustness of socio-economic simulation results with regard to the underlying assumptions, it will be necessary to simulate a large variety of interaction rules and settings, and
to compare their implications. This should be doable by simply “plugging in” model components when
setting up the model underlying a computer simulation. Going one step further, the ICT system could
also create a number of scenarios in a (semi-)automated way. This multiple-world-view approach would
be compatible with the “possibilitistic” and “pluralistic modeling” strategies, which seem to be most
appropriate for the analysis of socio-economic systems [6].
To build up the simulation capacities we are calling for, the scientific community would have to create
standardized app-like model components, which are compatible and interoperable. Successful examples
of such an approach are Web browsers add-ons (e.g. see [62]), modules of content management systems
(CMS) (e.g. see [63]) or the famous apps for mobile phone operating systems (see e.g. [64] or [65]). The
way in which open communities such as Linux or Wikipedia are organized can give a good orientation of
how to do this (see also Ref. [4]). The result of such community-wide activities creating model components
for the simulation of socio-economic systems would be the creation of a big library (“toolbox”) for agentbased and other simulation approaches, which could be called the “World of Modeling” (WoM). The
approach would overcome the current situation, in which we have a pletora of limited and mutually
incompatible simulation tools such as Swarm [66] or Repast [67], which provide low-level libraries, and
graphical modelling environments such as Netlogo [68] or Sesam [69], which are more suited for beginners
(for a comprehensive comparison table of the features of available packages for agent-based simulations
see Ref. [70]). Even powerful simulation packages like MatLab [71] are not suited for massive agent-based
simulations or anything that would come close to the envisaged “Living Earth Simulator”. Moreover,
there is still a lack of analytical tools capable of exploring ABM results from a scientific point of view.

4

Proposals to establish centers for integrative systems design

Besides analyzing, modeling and simulating our world, additional efforts will also be required in the area
of managing complexity and integrative systems design in order to be able to prevent, mitigate, or cope
with crises more efficiently.

4.1

Predictability in socio-economic systems: Possibilities and limitations

Many people believe that, in order to create a crisis-relief system, one needs to be able to predict the
future of the system, but doubt that such prediction is possible for socio-economic systems. However,
both is not exactly true:
1. There are many other purposes of modeling and simulation besides prediction [72].
2. “Model predictions” should be better understood as “model implications” rather than “model forecasts”, e.g. a statement that says what systemic outcome is expected to occur for certain (regulatory)
boundary conditions, e.g. cooperation, free-riding, or conflict [47, 48].

14
3. It is important to point out that forecasts are possible sometimes. A famous example is Moore’s
law regarding the performance of computer chips. Moreover, while the detailed ups and downs of
stock markets are hard to predict, the manipulation of interest rates by central banks leads, to a
certain extent, to foreseeable consequences. Also the sequence in which the real-estate market in
the US affected the banking system, the US economy, and the world economy was quite logical.
That is, even though the exact timing can often not be predicted, causality networks allow one to
determine likely courses of events, which in principle enables us to take counter-actions in order to
avoid or mitigate the further spreading of the crisis [55].
4. As weather forecasts show, even unreliable short-term forecasts can be useful and of great economic
value (e.g. for agriculture). Another example illustrating this is a novel self-control principle for
urban traffic flows, which was recently invented [73, 74]. Although its anticipation of arriving platoons is of very short-term nature, it manages to reduce travel times, fuel consumption, and vehicle
emissions.
In conclusion, prediction is limited in socio-economic systems, but more powerful than is usually believed.
Moreover, in certain contexts, it is not necessary to forecast the course of events. For example, in order
to reduce problems resulting from bubbles in financial markets, it is not necessary to predict the time of
their bursting or even to know about their existence. What is required is a mechanism that destroys any
forming bubbles, as long as they are small. Such mechanisms are possible. For example, they could be
implemented by introducing additional sources of randomness into the system [17, 75].

4.2

Paradigm shift from controlling systems to managing complexity

The idea to control socio-economic systems is not only inadequate—it is also not working well. Socioeconomic systems are complex systems. Therefore, cause and effect are usually not proportional to each
other. In many cases, complex systems tend to resist manipulation attempts, while close to so-called
“tipping points” (or “critical points”), unexpected “regime shifts” (“phase transitions”, “catastrophes”)
may happen. Consequently, complex systems cannot be controlled like a technical system (such as a car)
[16].
Note that the above property of systemic resistance is actually a result of the fact that complex
systems often self-organize, and that their behavior is robust to not-too-large perturbations. While forcing
complex systems tends to be expensive (in case systemic resistance is strong) or dangerous (in case an
unexpected systemic shift is caused), the alternative to support the self-organization of the system makes
much more sense. Such an approach “goes with the flow” (using the natural tendencies in the system)
and is resource-efficient. Therefore, a reasonable way to manage complexity is to guide self-organization
or facilitating coordination [16, 76].
In a certain sense, this self-organization or self-control approach moves away from classical regulation
to mechanism design. Regulation often corresponds to changing the boundary conditions, while mechanism design changes the interactions in the system in a way that reduces instabilities (e.g. due to delays)
and avoids that the system is trapped in local optima (and continues its evolution to a system-optimal
state). For example, slightly modifying the interaction of cars by special driver assistant systems can
stabilize traffic flows and avoid bottleneck effects to a certain degree [77].

4.3

Self-defeating prophecies and proper design of information systems

It is often pointed out that socio-economic systems would not be predictable, because the reaction of
people to information about the system would destroy the validity of the forecast. If done in the wrong
way, this is actually true. Let us illustrate this by an example: Assume that all drivers are given the same
information about existing traffic jams. Then, drivers may most likely over-react, i.e. more drivers may
use an alternative road than required to reach a system-optimal distribution of traffic flows [78].

15
However, as has been shown in laboratory route choice experiments, an almost optimal route choice
behavior may be reached by an information system that gives user-specific recommendations. In other
words, some drivers would be asked to stay on the road, and others to leave it. By introducing a form
of compensation for the fact that not everyone follows the recommendations, one can avoid over- or
under-reactions of drivers in congestion scenarios [78].
One crucial issue of such individualized recommender systems, however, is their reliability. An unreliable system or one that is systematically biased, will be only poorly followed, and people quickly
compensate for biases. Therefore, it is also essential to design the information system in a way that is
fair to everyone. That is, nobody should have a systematic advantage. Nevertheless, the system should be
flexible enough to allow a trading of temporary (dis)advantages. For example, somebody who was asked
to take the slower road on a given day (and who would have a right to use the faster road on another
day), may still use the faster road. However, he or she would have to pay a fee for this, which would be
earned by somebody else who would exchange his or her “ticket” for the faster road for a “ticket” for the
slower road (such that the system optimum state would still be maintained) [78].
In summary, the above described information system would not cheat anyone, and it would be flexible
and fair. Only people who use the faster road more often than average would have to pay a road usage fee
on average. A normal driver would either pay nothing (when following the user-specific recommendation)
or pay on some days (when being under a pressure of time, while the recommendation asks to take the
slower road). However, the same amount of money could be earned on other days by taking the slower
road. In other words, fair usage would be free of charge on average, and drivers would still have a freedom
of route choice. The primary goal of the system would not be to suppress traffic flows through road
pricing, but the pricing scheme would serve to reach a system optimal traffic state.

4.4

New approaches and designs to manage complexity

There is no single scheme, which allows to manage all complex systems optimally, independently of their
nature. The success of a management concept very much depends on the characteristics of the system,
e.g. its degree of predictability. The systems design must account for this.
In case of long-term predictability, there must obviously be an almost deterministic relationship between input- and output-variables, which allow one to change the temporal development and final outcome of the system. If long-term predictability is not given, management attempts must be oriented at a
sufficiently frequent re-adjustment, which requires a suitable monitoring of the system.
As the example of weather forecasts shows, even unreliable short-term predictability can be very useful
and economically relevant (e.g. for agriculture).1 The success principle in case of short-term forecasts is
the flexible adjustment to the local environment, while well predictable systems often perform well with
a fixed (rather than variable) organization principle.
Even in case of a system that cannot be forecast over time at all, it is possible to modify the system
behavior. Taking the time-dependent course of the stock markets as an example, introducing a Tobin
tax would reduce excessive levels of speculation. Moreover, introducing “noise” (further sources of unpredictability), would destroy undesirable correlations and impede insider trading [75].
These are just a few examples illustrating that there actually are possibilities to influence systems
involving human behavior in a favorable way. A more detailed discussion of the issue of managing complexity is given in Refs [16, 79, 80, 81, 82].
Generally, there are two ways of influencing the dynamics and outcome of a system by changing
the “rules of the game”. If the interaction in the system are weak, the system dynamics can be well
influenced by modifying the boundary conditions of the system (i.e. by regulatory measures). However, if
the interactions are strong, as in many social and economic processes, the self-organization of the system
1 Another example is the “self-control” of urban traffic flows, which is based on a special, traffic-reponsive kind of
decentralized traffic light control [73], see Sec. 4.2

16
dominates the external influence. In this case, a modification of interactions in the system (mechanism
design) seems to be more promising (as in the traffic assistance system that reduces the likelihood of
congestion by special driver assistance systems [77]). Of course, both measures may also be combined
with each other.
While mechanism design is relatively common in computer science and some other areas (e.g. in
evolutionary game theory, mathematics, and partly in physics), it seems that these methods have not
been extensively applied in the socio-economic sciences so far. For example, there are many different
mechanisms to match supply and demand, and it would be interesting to know what systemic properties
they imply (such as the level of stability, the efficiency of markets, the resulting wealth distribution,
the creation of investment opportunities, etc.). There is also an on-going debate about the best way
to involve the population in the political decision-making process. It is still not clear how to reach the
best combination of top-down and bottom-up elements of interaction, and how to find the best balance
between centralized and decentralized coordination approaches. All this poses interesting and practically
relevant challenges that determine the prosperity and well-being of societies (see also Ref. [4]).
Moreover, in the past, mechanism design has been applied basically to (sub)systems (i.e. parts) of the
complex overall system we are living in. However, due to the interconnection of all sorts of (sub-)systems
(e.g. of the traffic, supply, industrial, and environmental systems), measures in one (sub)system may have
undesired side effects on other (sub)systems. In fact, for fundamental reasons, it is quite frequent that
taking the best action in one (sub)system will usually negatively affect another (sub)system, such that an
optimal state of society is not reached (setting aside for the moment the practical problem of what the
optimal state of society would be). The poor performance of traffic light controls that optimize locally
(without a coordination with neighboring intersections) is a good example for this [77]. In networked
systems, undesirable feedback effects (such as spill-over effects in urban traffic flows) are quite common.

4.5

Need of multi-disciplinary collaboration

As a consequence of the complexity of socio-economic systems, one requires an integrative approach
that comprises technical, social, economic and environmental systems and their interactions. A good
concept to manage complexity must be integrative and holistic in nature. Such an approach may be
called “integrative systems design”. Extending the idea of a “policy wind tunnel” (a computer-based,
experimental device to support decision-making) to large, global-scale systems, this will certainly require
massive computer power and huge amounts of data, as envisaged by the concept of the Living Earth
Simulator (see Sec.3.3). Moreover, in order to get beyond descriptive (fit) models in favor of explanatory
models, it would call for the integration of a large variety of competencies, including
• economics,
• social sciences (also considering psychology, anthropology, history, . . . ),
• statistical physics,
• the theory of complex adaptive systems (including self-organization, emergence),
• network theory,
• cybernetics, etc.
This implies the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach. Due to the difficulties related to the
fact that multi-disciplinary research, education and funding does not fit well into existing institutional
settings, it would be advised to build up a new, multi-disciplinary field and study direction. This would
involve the above subjects, and also computer science (including programming, visualization, AI, robotics,
etc.), mathematics, ecology, and biology (organization of social species, the immune and neural systems,

17
etc.). It is quite obvious that there is a lack of experts who would oversee all these areas and would be
capable of an integrative systems design approach. Such experts overlooking a broad range of problems
and methods would be very much needed in engineering, economics, and areas involving decision-making
about complex issues (such as politics).

4.6

New ICT tools for integrative systems design

In the past, it was impossible to experiment with our future. This made social sciences different from
the natural and engineering sciences, in which different options can be tried out before choosing one. In
the future, we will also be able to make experiments with different socio-economic designs (e.g. various
market mechanisms). Recently, besides the classical method of role plays, lab experiments are establishing
as a new scientific method in the socio-economic sciences [83, 84, 85, 86, 87]. These approaches are now
complemented by Web experiments [88] and studies of multi-player on line games (such as “Second Life”)
[60, 89, 90, 91].
In other words, so-called serious games, which represent features of society and economics in a quite
realistic way, may be used to gain insights into human behavior and effects of social or economic interactions on the systemic level. Such virtual realities allow one, in principle, to explore a number of
different scenarios and worlds [88]. For example, a variety of designs of a new shopping mall, airport,
railway station, or city center, could be populated in virtual reality and tested by their future users. In
this way, one can discover weaknesses of designs in advance and identify the most popular architecture
or city design.
It is obvious that similar approaches can be applied to a variety of different institutional design
problems. Using serious multi-player games complementary to lab, Web and real-life experiments (as far
as these is ethically opportune) can create significant new insights and reveal weaknesses of computer
models, such as over-simplified model assumptions or overlooked influence factors. Therefore, they are
a necessary instrument in the ICT tool set needed to overcome our knowledge gaps regarding complex
socio-economic systems.
As a result of these new ICT-based opportunities, there will be a paradigm shift in socio-economic
decision-making. In the past, it was common to implement suitably appearing new measures based on
experience and intuition. However, many decisions today have to target problems for which no previous
experience is available, and the complexity is so high that feedback and side effects of new measures
cannot be anticipated well enough by human intuition anymore.

4.7

Paradigm shift in decision-making

Therefore, it seems likely that the future way of implementing new measures will look as follows: Before
the implementation, large-scale computer simulations, fed by huge datasets, will explore different possible
scenarios and their side effects. Complementary, one will perform experiments in the lab, Web, and virtual
realities. All these experimental techniques (including the computer experiments) will serve to gain in
advance the best possible knowledge of the decision options and their likely implications for the concerned
individuals and the socio-economic system. For example, one could study stress test scenarios for financial
systems under as-realistic-as-possible conditions, involving interactions between all stakeholders (banks,
governments, customers, tax payers, ...), while today’s stress test still largely neglect interaction effects.
Based on the so collected experience, the best option would be chosen and implemented by the decisionmakers, considering priorities, normative, and ethical issues.
Furthermore, it would make sense to implement the best measures (institutional designs) in limited
parts of the system first and evaluate their performance. After this practical test (“pilot studies”), the best
solution would be transferred to the whole system, but the success of the measure would be continuously
monitored. In some sense, this approach to implementing innovations is more along the lines how nature
seems to work. In fact, the described approach basically follows the principles of evolution, with the main

18
difference that some of the testing of new solutions happens in the virtual rather than the real world,
and only the best variants are deployed in reality. It is obvious that, in the creation and selection of new
solutions, evolutionary algorithms [92, 93] will play a major role. Besides, one can probably learn from
complex adaptive systems such as neuronal networks [94, 95], immune systems [96], or the organization
of ecological systems [97, 98].

4.8

The importance of visualization and decision arenas

Another crucial element of this integrative systems design concept is visualization. It matters not only
for virtual reality applications. Also large-scale data mining and massive computer simulation imply a
need for new visualization techniques and approaches. This subject is addressed in detail in Appendix
A. Besides new visualization approaches, one will also require new visualization centers for sophisticated
three-dimensional animations and the demonstration to a larger number of decision-makers, from expert
panels, over managers and politicians to the interested public.
Combining suitable data, models and visualization tools, the final goal would be to develop a virtual
observatory of social, economic and financial systems with the possibility to explore new scenarios and
system designs through what it sometimes called a “policy wind tunnel”. The corresponding ICT systems should be suited to craft policy options, contingency plans, and intelligent responses to emerging
challenges and risks. They will allow one to develop concepts and institutional designs for a flexible,
adaptive, and resource-efficient real-time management of complex socio-economic systems and organizations. Decision arenas visualizing, animating, and illustrating the acquired scientific insights will provide
valuable decision-support to decision-makers, as they will make counter-intuitive feedback, cascading and
side effects understandable.
Decision Arenas will also be useful to craft new designs for smarter cities, transport, traffic and
logistics, and for intelligent energy production and consumption, as well as new institutional frameworks
and settings to support social and economic participation.

4.9

Ethical Issues

It should finally be pointed out that manipulating social or economic systems potentially raises ethical
issues. People working in this area should, therefore, follow an ethical codex which could be imagined
similar to Hippocratic Oath of doctors or other vows which as required from certain public officers.
The following goals seem to be widely acceptable:
• promote human well-being,
• increase the self-awareness of society,
• reduce vulnerability and risk,
• increase resilience (the ability to absorb societal, economic, or environmental shocks),
• avoid loss of control (sudden, large and unexpected systemic shifts),
• develop contingency plans,
• explore options for future challenges and opportunities,
• increase sustainability,
• facilitate flexible adaptation,
• promote fairness,

19
• increase social capital and the happiness of people,
• support social, economic and political inclusion and participation,
• balance between central and decentral (global and local) control,
• protect privacy and other human rights, pluralism and socio-bio-diversity,
• support collaborative forms of competition and vice versa (“coopetition”).
Unethical use of powerful ICT tools should be forbidden. From people working with them, one should
require a minimum level of qualification and training, including ethical issues (“licence”). The activities of
these ICT systems may need to be recorded and monitored in a way that is sufficiently transparent. The
public should have a right to be informed about related activities (be they at academic or government
institutions, or in private companies). Security measures will depend on the size of the simulations and
application areas. The software should be designed in a way that it can be remotely deactivated by a
number of specially authorized, independent people, if they agree on the necessity of such a step (see
Ref. [5] for details of such a mechanism). An ethical committee should accompany and supervise related
activities.

5

Summary

Today, statistical and national planning offices are using a large variety of models for different sectors of
the economy and society, but these are still largely disconnected from each other and hard to integrate,
so that systemic interaction effects are hard to assess. Considering financial and economic instabilities,
conflict, large-scale environmental changes, threats through diseases, cyber-crime, or problems resulting
from demographic change (such as the instability of social benefit systems), etc., our society needs to
undertake any possible effort to get a better understanding of these problems and possibilities to mitigate
them. In this context, the role of data is crucial to provide decision makers all relevant information needed
to act in a timely manner and find long-term sustainable solutions.
Hence, there is a strong need for integrated tools that are able to close the gap between mainstream
linear fit models and the required dynamic and holistic thinking that is appropriate to address the
global challenges of the twenty-first century. Systemic and dynamic approaches have the advantage to
consider feedback loops and to be able to reveal previously hidden consequences, while also supporting the
assessment of the effectiveness of policy measures. Massive agent-based simulations seem to be particularly
promising in this context, as they allow one to handle many different kinds of agents (individuals, groups,
companies, etc.), the variability of their individual properties, and interactions among the agents. Ideally,
in the future, the implementation of such agents should reflect cognitive features and emotions, behavioral
adaptation, the response to information, and the tendency to show collective behaviors (e.g. to form
alliances or groups).
The final goal of such super-computer-based activities is to monitor and improve the performance of
the whole Living Earth system (including its socio-economic life), to assure systemic resilience and avoid
to run into optimization traps.2 Note that naı̈ve optimization tends to eliminate heterogeneity [101] and
redundancies in the system and may increase the vulnerability to perturbations, i.e. decrease robustness
and resilience. Moreover, there exists special “evolutionary dead ends”, in which gradual optimization
2 In fact, in certain systems (such as various transport, logistic, or production systems), optimization tends to drive
the system towards instability, since the point of maximum efficiency is often in the neighborhood or even identical with
the point of breakdown of performance. Such breakdowns in capacity or performance can result from inefficiencies due to
dynamic interaction effects. For example, when traffic flow reaches its maximum capacity, sooner or later it breaks down.
As a consequence, the road capacity tends to drop during the time period where it is most urgently needed, namely during
the rush hour [99, 100].

20
simply does not work. In such cases, the best solution may be the combination of two bad solutions.
Therefore, it may be easily overlooked. These dangers of naı̈ve optimization suggest to pursue a different
approach oriented at the principles of evolution, i.e. to explore new solutions locally and test them, and
if they perform well, then disseminate and apply them to larger areas (see Sec. 4.7).
For all these reasons, there is a strong need to set-up a network of Centers for integrative systems
design, capable of gaining an “ecological perspective” of all relevant interactions in socio-economic-technoenvironmental systems. Within this holistic approach, these centers shall be able to run all potentially
relevant scenarios, identify causality chains, explore feedback and cascading effects for a number of model
variants, and determine the reliability of their implications (given the validity of the underlying models).
These Centers will compute, analyze and use independent information to address the impact of model
assumptions and reveal hidden constraints. They will be able to detect possible negative side effect of
policy decisions, before they occur. The Centers belonging to this network of Integrative Systems Design
Centers would be focused on a particular field, but they would be part of an attempt to eventually cover
all relevant areas of society and economy and integrate them within a “Living Earth Simulator”.
The results of all research activities of such Centers would be turned into informative input for political
Decision Arenas. For example, Crisis Observatories [5] (for financial instabilities, shortages of resources,
environmental change, conflict, spreading of diseases, etc.) would be connected with such Decision Arenas
for the purpose of visualization, in order to make complex interdependencies understandable to scientists,
decision-makers, and the general public. By informing all the stakeholders in a better way, it will be
easier to assess different options and their often counter-intuitive feedback, cascading, and side effects.
In this way, it will also become more efficient to develop contingency plans and intelligent responses
to emerging risks or opportunities, having the best of all knowledge at hand. The tight link between
Integrative System Design Centers and Decision Arenas will also foster the development of concepts
and institutional designs for a flexible, adaptive, and resource-efficient real-time management of complex
socio-economic systems and organizations. One of the strategies to explore new system designs will follow
an evolutionary approach based on techniques such as metaheuristic optimization (genetic algorithms,
swarm optimization, etc.). It will also profit from evolutionary computing methods such as differential
evolution, learning classifiers, artificial immune systems, etc. In such a way, new designs will be determined
for smarter cities, transport, traffic and logistics, for intelligent energy production and consumption, or
for a better social and economic participation.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for financial support by the Future and Emerging Technologies programme
FP7-COSI-ICT of the European Commission through the project Visioneer (grant no.: 248438). They
would also like to thank for stimulating discussions, feedback on the manuscript and contributions to the
Visioneer wiki: Ravi Bhavnani, Anna Carbone, Virginia Dignum, Andreas Flache, Mike Holcombe, Janos
Kertesz, Imre Kondor, Rosario Nunzio Mantegna, Tamara Mihaljev, Dan Miodownik, Stefan Reimann,
Xavier Rubio, Christian Schneider, David Sumpter, Piotr Swistak, Gabriele Tedeschi, Pietro Terna, and
Arne Traulsen.

A

Visual problem solving

The problem of how to find valuable information from (relatively) large data sources is probably one of
the most pressing in the history of science. If human intuition alone may have sufficed to cope with the
contents of several books or with analysing two-dimensional and time-series plots, today the exponential
growth of data generation rates imposes the use of more advanced visualizations techniques to grasp the
breadth and depth of the interrelations among petabytes of data.

21
Statistical and structural analyses are useful tools, but they come into play later, when the first
hypotheses have been made. At the early stages of scientific analyses, when little is known about the
data, but also in its interpretation and maturation process, the intuition of experts is very important
and must enter the modeling process in a frictionless and interactive way. It can largely be stimulated by
the great processing capacity of human visual system, which can easily notice correlations and quickly
recognize variations in colors, shapes, movements, etc. Therefore, the visual exploration of data is crucial,
particularly for the hypothesis generation process [102]. Moreover, at more advanced stages of the work, it
can serve to quickly analyze the results of simulations and experiments, e.g. regarding the correct fitting
of parameters, and it helps to check or reject hypotheses, at least on an intuitive level.
Unfortunately, the development of novel techniques for the visualization of scientific data did not
catch up with the astounding improvements in computational capacity over the last decades. This has
created a dangerous informational paradox, where one may have to invest one month to understand the
results of a one-hour simulation job. As Kageyama and Ohno have pointed out, computational science
without proper visualization tools is like “a high-rise building [not] supported by balanced pillars”[103].
In fact, now more than ever, there is an acute need of enhanced visualization tools. This urgency has not
been generated due to a surge in the size of datasets, but it was caused, in particular, by the explosion
of their dimensionality aspect, i.e. the number of observations for each entity. In fact, “what makes the
data Big is repeated observations over time and/or space”[104]. This high dimensionality has made the
standard visualization techniques inadequate, which were suitable for data with low dimensionality, such
as two- or three-D plots, OLAP (On Line Analytical Processing), etc.
Herein, we will briefly review the state-of-the-art visualization techniques and describe how they should
be integrated in a unique visualization tool that both scientists in integrative system design centers and
policy-makers in decision arenas would enormously benefit from.

A.1

Visual data exploration

Fortunately, the new paradigm for future visualization tools has been already suggested. It can be summarized by three simple directives, constituting the Information Seeking Mantra[105]. Namely: “overview
first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand”. In principle, a data scientist should be able to easily execute the three above-mentioned steps, passing seamlessly from one to another, without losing the overall
picture. It is important to note that the technology to implement each step of the Information Seeking
Mantra is already existing, but what is still missing is their seamless integration. That requires special attention for dynamic interaction and distortion techniques. To this extent, interactive zooming should not
display only bigger objects, but also change the type of data representation according to the scale, switching for example from colored pixels to high-resolutions icons such as sticky figures [106] or faces [107],
in order to exploit the great potential of the human brain to deal with physiognomy. Moreover, filtering
should be enabled directly at the visualization level, by implementing mechanisms to immediately and
interactively process and display portions of the dataset in different ways, and scan them by “magnifying
lenses” [108]. One possible transformation in presence of high-dimensionality is the parallel coordinates
technique [109], while hierarchical structures can be rendered by rotating cone trees[110], although for
particularly dense trees special spatial navigation support is required. Alternatively, the use of properties
of non-Euclidean geometries can overcome this problem [111]. However, the most space-efficient solutions
are squarified and cushion treemaps [112, 113], which are especially effective to represent file system
structures.
As just shown, many visualization technologies are already available, but their implementation in a
comprehensive tool capable to deal with big amounts of data and available for the scientific community
is still missing. Probably the best results in this direction could come only from a joint collaboration
between visualization scientists and graphic artists, designers, and communicators, as suggested also by
a recent Nature article [114].
Finally, if the Information Seeking Mantra had been written more recently, it would have probably

22
entailed a fourth directive in order to study data in a distributed way from different individual perspectives, namely share. The Web is in fact currently experiencing a democratic data revolution where not
only the datasets, but also the visualization tools required to manipulate them are shared. Dynamic interaction with the data and Web 2.0 social components are the staple features of such Web platforms (see
Appendix of Visioneer White Paper “From Social Data Mining to Forecasting Socio-Economic Crisis”
[5]). Applications could be manifold. For example, people could explore new architectural designs (such as
airports, railway stations, pedestrian zones, stadia or shopping malls) before they are built, as interactive
virtual multi-player environments would allow them to populate them in advance (see [115]).

A.2

Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization

Today, the frontier of human-computer interfaces is still called Virtual Reality. Although it is not a
new technology, it is still in an maturating state. Nevertheless, nothing else at present supports the
understanding of complex high-dimensional data in a similarly effective way.
In fact, virtual reality provides a rapid and intuitive way to explore high data volumes with a rich
set of spatial and depth cues [116]. There are many reasons, which make virtual reality particularly
appropriate for scientific visualization. First, it can easily be oriented towards abstract and conceptual
objects which can easily go beyond traditional notions of data representation, stimulating the scientists’
intuition. Secondly, it allows a level of control and direct interaction which can hardly be surpassed.
Finally, it has been proved it can be beneficial in debugging data acquisition methods.
Notwithstanding its great potential, one of the reasons why it has been only marginally adopted so far
is the requirement of special, and often costly, hardware and/or software (see [117]). Another often-heard
criticism is the lack of tools for specialized visualization, or of an established framework to build such
applications on top of it [118].
Nonetheless, it is timely to focus research efforts in this direction, because the potential benefits of
breakthrough in this area would be immense.
To this extent, it is worth mentioning the activities at the Earth Simulation Center in Japan, where
a team of scientists have been working for years to develop a virtual reality solution for scientific visualization called VFIVE [119], the source code of which is now publicly available [120].

B

List of top 100 supercomputer centers

Herein follows the list of the top hundred supercomputer sites in the world. The list is updated to June
2010 and it is provided by Top500 [121], which uses the LINPACK benchmark3 as an index to sort the
sites by computing power.

n.
1
2
3
4
5
6

3 It

Table 1. World top 100 supercomputing centers [121].
Supercomputing site
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Supercomputing Centre in Shenzhen (NSCS)
DOE/NNSA/LANL
National Institute for Computational Sciences/University of Tennessee
Forschungszentrum Juelich (FZJ)
NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS

measure how fast a computer solves a dense N by N system of linear equations Ax = b.

Country
United States
China
United States
United States
Germany
United States
Continues on next page.

23

n.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

Table 1 – continued from previous page
Supercomputing site
Country
National SuperComputer Center in Tianjin/NUDT
China
DOE/NNSA/LLNL
United States
Argonne National Laboratory
United States
Sandia National Laboratories / National Renewable Energy Laboratory
United States
Texas Advanced Computing Center/Univ. of Texas
United States
DOE/NNSA/LLNL
United States
Moscow State University - Research Computing Center
Russia
Forschungszentrum Juelich (FZJ)
Germany
KISTI Supercomputing Center
Korea, South
University of Edinburgh
United Kingdom
NERSC/LBNL
United States
Grand Equipement National de Calcul Intensif - Centre Informatique National France
de l’Enseignement Suprieur (GENCI-CINES)
Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences
China
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
United States
Sandia National Laboratories
United States
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
Japan
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
Saudi Arabia
Shanghai Supercomputer Center
China
Government
France
University of Edinburgh
United Kingdom
Swiss Scientific Computing Center (CSCS)
Switzerland
SciNet/University of Toronto
Canada
Government
United States
ERDC DSRC
United States
University of Colorado
United States
New Mexico Computing Applications Center (NMCAC)
United States
Computational Research Laboratories, TATA SONS
India
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
United States
DOE/NNSA/LANL
United States
National Institute for Computational Sciences/University of Tennessee
United States
Japan Agency for Marine -Earth Science and Technology
Japan
IDRIS
France
ECMWF
United Kingdom
ECMWF
United Kingdom
DKRZ - Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum
Germany
JAXA
Japan
US Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
United States
Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA)
France
Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA)/CCRT
France
Joint Supercomputer Center
Russia
HLRN at Universitaet Hannover / RRZN
Germany
HLRN at ZIB/Konrad Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik
Germany
Total Exploration Production
France
Government Agency
Sweden
Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Science
China
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
United States
Continues on next page.

24

n.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

Table 1 – continued from previous page
Supercomputing site
Country
Information Technology Center, The University of Tokyo
Japan
Kurchatov Institute Moscow
Russia
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft MPI/IPP
Germany
Institute of Physical and Chemical Res. (RIKEN)
Japan
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
United States
EDF R&D
France
IT Service Provider
Germany
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
United States
Naval Oceanographic Office - NAVO MSRC
United States
Manufacturing Company
France
Bull
France
GSIC Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Japan
University of Southern California
United States
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
United States
Stony Brook/BNL, New York Center for Computational Sciences
United States
Maui High-Performance Computing Center (MHPCC)
United States
Naval Oceanographic Office - NAVO MSRC
United States
CINECA
Italy
Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba
Japan
CLUMEQ - Universit Laval
Canada
US Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
United States
CSC (Center for Scientific Computing)
Finland
DOE/NNSA/LLNL
United States
KTH - Royal Institute of Technology
Sweden
University of Minnesota/Supercomputing Institute
United States
National Centers for Environment Prediction
United States
National Centers for Environment Prediction
United States
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Computational Center for Nanotechnology United States
Innovations
US Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
United States
NCSA
United States
University of Southampton
United Kingdom
NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS
United States
Clemson University
United States
NACAD/COPPE/UFRJ
Brazil
Barcelona Supercomputing Center
Spain
IBM Poughkeepsie Benchmarking Center
United States
KTH - Royal Institute of Technology
Sweden
NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
United States
National Institute for Fusion Science (NIFS)
Japan
Leibniz Rechenzentrum
Germany
ERDC MSRC
United States
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology
India
Cray Inc.
United States
University of Tokyo/Human Genome Center, IMS
Japan
Cray Inc.
United States
Georgia Institute of Technology
United States
Continues on next page.

25

n.
99
100

C

Table 1 – continued from previous page
Supercomputing site
NNSA/Sandia National Laboratories
Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA)

Country
United States
France

List of scientists who inspired this research agenda

C.1

Austria

• Alois Ferscha (Johannes Kepler University Linz): ICT systems, pervasive adaptation
• Stefan Thurner (Vienna): Econophysics, Multi-Player On Line Games

C.2

Cyprus

• Anastasia Sofroniou (University of Nicosia): Nonlinear Dynamics, Climate Policies

C.3

Denmark

• Kim Sneppen (Niels Bohr Institute): Complex systems, interdisciplinary physics

C.4

France

• Henri Berestycki (EHESS, France): Managing Complexity and Institutional Design
• Guillaume Deffuant (Cemagref): Social Simulation
• Alan Kirman (Universite Paul Cezanne): Economics
• Jean-Pierre Nadal (CNRS and EHESS): Complex Systems

C.5

Germany

• Thomas Brenner (Philipps-University Marburg): Econophysics
• Holger Kantz (Max Planck Institute for Physics of Complex Systems,Dresden): Complex Systems,
Time Series Analysis
• Jürgen Kurths (Potsdam Institute of Climate Research): Interdisciplinary Physics, Sustainability,
Climate Policies
• Thomas Lux (University of Kiel, Institut für Weltwirtschaft): Economics
• Carlo Jäger (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research): Sustainability, Climate Policies
• Jürgen Jost (Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences): Complex Systems, Networks,
Autonomous Systems
• Kristian Kersting (Fraunhofer): Data Mining
• Oliver Kirchkamp (University of Jena): Empirical and Experimental Economics

26
• Jörn Kohlhammer (Fraunhofer IGD): Information Visualization
• Paul Lukowicz (Universität Passau): Sensors networks
• Kai Nagel (TU Berlin): Large Scale Agents Modeling
• Albrecht Schmidt (University of Duisburg-Essen): Novel Interfaces for Ubiquitous Computing
• Gerhard Tröster (ETH Zürich): Sensor Networks, Wearable Computing
• Peter Wagner (DLR, Germany): Traffic Modeling and Mobility
• Uwe Wössner (Stuttgart): Virtual Reality

C.6

Greece

• Panos Agyrakis (University of Thessaloniki): Computational Physics
• Anastassios Bountis (University of Patras): Complex Systems

C.7

Great Britain

• Mike Batty (University College London): Cities, urban development
• Steven Bishop (University College London): Sustainability
• Dave Cliff (University of Bristol): Large Scale Complex IT Systems
• Nigel Gilbert (University of Surrey): Sociology, agent-based modeling
• Simon Gächter (University of Nottingham): Behavioural and Experimental Economics
• Tim Lenton (University of East Anglia): Environmental Modeling
• Eve Mitleton-Kelly (London School of Economics): Complex Social System
• Paul Ormerod (British Academy for the Social Sciences/Volterra Consulting): Economics, Networks,
Complex Systems
• Ben Paechter (Edinburgh Napier University): ICT systems, pervasive adaptation, evolutionary computing
• Jeremy Pitt (Imperial College London): Multi-Agent Systems
• Tom Snijders (University of Oxford): Multilevel analysis, social statistics, social networks
• Roger Whitaker (University of Cardiff): Telecommunication Systemss

C.8

Hungary

• David Hales (Szeged University): Techno-Social Systems
• Janos Kertesz (Budapest): Mining of Socio-Economic Data
• Imre Kondor (Collegium Budapest): Econophysics
• Andras Lörincz (Eötvös Lorand University): ICT Systems
• Gabor Vattay (Eötvös Lorand University): ICT Systems

27

C.9

Ireland

• Petra Ahrweiler (University College Dublin): Innovation Networks

C.10

Italy

• Armando Bazzani (University of Bologna): Traffic and transport, GPS data
• Guido Caldarelli (National Research Council of Italy): Econophysics
• Anna Carbone (Politecnico di Torino): Econophysics
• Silvano Cincotti (University of Genoa): Agent-based Economics and Finance
• Domenico Delli Gatti (University Cattolica): Economics
• Santo Fortunato (ISI Torino): Information science, sociophysics
• Mauro Gallegati (University Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona): Economics
• Vittorio Loreto (University La Sapienza): Language Dynamics, On Line Social Dynamics
• Rosario Mantegna (Palermo University): Econophysics
• Matteo Marsili (Abdus Salam ICTP): Econophysics
• Luciano Pietronero (La Sapienza, Rome): Complex systems, interdisciplinary physics
• Alex Vespignani (ISI Torino): Techno-Social Systems, Modeling of Epidemic Spreading

C.11

Netherlands

• Vincent Buskens (Utrecht University): Economic and Mathematical Sociology, Game Theory
• Andreas Flache (Univ. Groningen): Computer models of social systems
• Cars Hommes (University of Amsterdam): Experimental economics
• Johan Pouwelse (TU Delft): ICT systems, Peer-to-Peer Systems
• Andrea Scharnhorst (KNAW): Information Systems
• Bert de Vries (Utrecht University): Sustainable Development Modeling.

C.12

Poland

• Janusz Holyst (Warsaw Technical University): Sociophysics
• Andrzej Nowak (Warsaw University): Psychology, complex systems

C.13

Portugal

• Jorge Louçã (Lisbon University): Text-mining, Complex systems.
• José Fernando Mendes (University of Aveiro): Interdisciplinary Physics, Complex Networks

28

C.14

Romania

• Carmen Costea (ASE Bucharest): Complex Economic Systems

C.15

Spain

• Alex Arenas (Universitat Rovira i Virgili): Econophysics
• Antonio Ruiz de Elvira (Science and Climate): Climate Policies
• Maxi San Miguel (IFISC): Sociophysics
• Anxo Sanchez (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid): Sociophysics

C.16

Sweden

• Fredrick Liljeros (Stockholm University): Social Networks, Network Epidemiology, Complexity Theory, Socio Physics
• Kristian Lindgren (Goteborg University): Complex systems
• Björn Ola-Linnér (Linkping University): Climate Policies
• Martin Rosvall (Umea University): Interdisciplinary Physics, Information Science

C.17

Switzerland

• Karl Aberer (EPFL): Decentralized ICT systems
• Kay Axhausen (ETH Zurich): Transportation
• Wolfgang Breymann (Zurich University of Applied Sciences): Complex Systems
• Lars-Erik Cederman (ETH Zürich): Conflict research
• Axel Franzen (Bern University): Environmental Sociology
• Nikolas Geroliminis (EPFL): Traffic systems
• Dirk Helbing (ETH Zurich): Complex systems, Sociology, Coping with Crises
• Hans Herrmann (ETH Zurich): Interdisciplinary Physics, Network Theory
• Thomas Schulthess (ETH Zurich): Supercomputing
• Frank Schweitzer (ETH Zurich): Econophysics, Network Analysis
• Didier Sornette (ETH Zurich): Econophysics, Financial Crisis Observatory
• Yi-Cheng Zhang (University of Fribourg): Econophysics

29

C.18

U.S.

• Xavier Gabaix (New York University): Behavorial economics
• Sander E. van der Leeuw (Arizona State University): Anthropology
• Michael Macy (Cornell University): Collective Action, Conflicts, Lab Experiments
• Paul Werner (California School of Professional Psychology): Personality and Family Assessment,
Clinical Decision Making
• Douglas White (University of California Irvine): Social Networks, Long-Term Multilevel Study of
Human Social Organizations

References
[1] VISIONEER. Visioneer, Envisioning a Socio-economic Knowledge Collider. 2010. url:
http://www.visioneer.ethz.ch.
[2] Dirk Helbing and Stefano Balietti. Fundamental and real world challenges in economics. in print.
2010.
[3] D. Helbing and S. Balietti. “Formulating grand fundamental challenges. Visioneer White Paper”.
In: (2010). url: http://www.visioneer.ethz.ch.
[4] D. Helbing and S. Balietti. “How to create an Innovation Accelerator. Visioneer White Paper”.
In: (2010). url: http://www.visioneer.ethz.ch.
[5] D. Helbing and S. Balietti. From social data mining to forecasting socio-economic crisis. Visioneer
White Paper. 2010. url: http://www.visioneer.ethz.ch.
[6] Dirk Helbing. Pluralistic Modeling of Complex
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1646314(2010).

Systems.

CCSS-10-009.

2010.

url:

[7] Robert E. Shannon. “Introduction to the art and science of simulation”. In: WSC ’98: Proceedings
of the 30th conference on Winter simulation. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society
Press, 1998, pp. 7–14.
[8] G. H. Orcutt. “A new type of socio-economic systems”. In: The Review of Economics and Statistics
58 (1957), pp. 773–797.
[9] Nigel Gilbert and Klaus G Troitzsch. Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press,
2005.
[10] S. Weinberg. “Is the Universe a Computer?” In: New York Review of Books 49.16 (2002).
[11] Stephen Wolfram. A New Kind
http://www.wolframscience.com.

of

Science.

English.

Wolfram

Media,

2002.

url:

[12] I. Foster. “A two-way street to science’s future”. In: Nature 440 (2006), p. 419.
[13] Charles S. Taber and Richard J. Timpone. Computational Modelign. Sage, 1996.
[14] Henry J Aaron. “Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Public Policy, Values, and Consciousness”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 8.2 (1994), pp. 3–21. url:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v8y1994i2p3-21.html.
[15] Alan P Kirman. “Whom or What Does the Representative Individual
resent?” In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 6.2 (1992), pp. 117–36.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v6y1992i2p117-36.html.

Repurl:

30
[16] Dirk Helbing. Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications. 1st ed. Springer, 14, 2007.

[17] Dirk Helbing. Systemic risks in society and economics. Sante Fe Institute, working paper 09-12-044.
2009. url: http://www.santafe.edu/research/working-papers/abstract/9596e5a57d1f9b7e8fcc289f118555
[18] H.V.D. Parunak. “”Go to the ant”: Engineering principles from natural multi-agent systems”. In:
Annals of Operations Research 75 (1997), pp. 69–102.
[19] Earth Simulator: UK-Japan Climate Collaboration. url: http://www.earthsimulator.org.uk/.
[20] K. Nagel. “Parallel implementation of the TRANSIMS micro-simulation”. In: Parallel Computing
27.12 (2001), pp. 1611–1639. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8191(01)00106-5.
[21] M. Rickert and Nagel K. “Dynamic traffic assignment on parallel computers in TRANSIMS”. In:
Future generation computer systems 17.5 (2001), pp. 637–648.
[22] Kai Nagel et al. TRANSIMS for urban planning. LA-UR-98-4389. 1999.
[23] K. Nagel et al. Using Microsimulation Feedback for Trip Adaptation for Realistic Traffic in Dallas.
1997.
[24] P.M. Simon, J. Esser, and Nagel K. “Simple queueing model applied to the city of Portland”. In:
International Journal of Modern Physics C 10.5 (1999), pp. 941–960.
[25] Bryan Raney et al. “An agent-based microsimulation model of Swiss travel: First results”. In:
Networks and Spatial Economics 3 (2003), pp. 23–41.
[26] M. Balmer, K.W. Axhausen, and K. Nagel. An Agent Based Demand Modeling Framework for
Large Scale Micro-Simulations. Working paper, 329, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems
(IVT), ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 2005.
[27] David Charypar and Kai Nagel. “Generating complete all-day
with genetic algorithms”. In: Transportation 32.4 (2005), pp.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-004-8287-y.

activity
369–397.

plans
url:

[28] K.W. Axhausen and T. Garling. “Activity-based approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems”. In: Transport Reviews 12.4 (1992), pp. 323–341.
[29] Dirk Helbing and Kai Nagel. “The physics of traffic and regional development”. In: Contemporary
Physics 45.5 (2004), pp. 405–426. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107510410001715944.
[30] V. Killer et al. “Understanding Regional Effects of Travel Times in Switzerland and Germany
1970-2005”. In: Jnkping, Sweden: 50th European Regional Science Association (ERSA), 2010.
[31] Gregor Laemmel, Dominik Grether, and Kai Nagel. “The representation and implementation of time-dependent inundation in large-scale microscopic evacuation simulations”. In: Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies (12, 2009). url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2009.04.020.
[32] H. Taubenboeck et al. “”Last-Mile” preparation for a potential disaster - Interdisciplinary approach towards tsunami early warning and an evacuation information system for the coastal city
of Padang, Indonesia”. In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 9.4 (2009), pp. 1509–1528.
url: http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/1509/2009/.
[33] J. Min et al. “Toward modeling and simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies”. In: IIE Transactions (39 2007). special issue on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Research in Homeland Security, pp. 57–71.
[34] Chris Barrett, Stephen Eubank, and Madhav Marathe. “Modeling and Simulation of
Large Biological, Information and Socio-Technical Systems: An Interaction Based Approach”. In: Interactive Computation. Ed. by Dina Goldin, Scott A. Smolka, and Peter Wegner. 10.1007/3-540-34874-3 14. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 353–392. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34874-3\textunderscore14.

31
[35] National
Infrastructure
Simulation
http://www.lanl.gov/programs/nisac/.

and

Analysis

Center

(NISAC).

url:

[36] W. Kermack and A. Mckendrick. “Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemicsI”. In: Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53.1 (10, 1991), pp. 33–55. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02464423.
[37] W. Kermack and A. Mckendrick. “Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemicsII. The
problem of endemicity”. In: Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53.1 (10, 1991), pp. 57–87. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02464424.
[38] W. Kermack and A. McKendrick. “Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemicsIII.
Further studies of the problem of endemicity”. In: Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53.1 (1, 1991),
pp. 89–118. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02464425.
[39] Vittoria Colizza et al. “The role of the airline transportation network in the prediction and predictability of global epidemics”. In: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103.7 (2006), pp. 2015–
2020.
eprint:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/7/2015.full.pdf+html.
url:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/7/2015.abstract.
[40] Joshua M. Epstein. “Modelling to contain pandemics”. In: Nature 460.7256 (5, 2009), p. 687. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/460687a.
[41] L. Hufnagel, D. Brockmann, and T. Geisel. “Forecast and control of epidemics in a globalized world”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 101.42 (2004), pp. 15124–15129.
eprint:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/42/15124.full.pdf+html.
url:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/42/15124.abstract.
[42] Stephen Eubank et al. “Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks”. In: Nature
429.6988 (13, 2004), pp. 180–184. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02541.
[43] Artificial Stock Market. url: http://sourceforge.net/projects/artstkmkt/.
[44] U-mart. url: http://www.u-mart.org/.
[45] EURACE. url: http://www.eurace.org/.
[46] Dirk Helbing and Wenjian Yu. “The outbreak of cooperation among success-driven individuals
under noisy conditions”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.10 (10, 2009),
pp. 3680–3685. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811503106.
[47] D. Helbing and A. Johansson. Cooperation, norms, and conflict: A unified approach. SFI Working
Paper. 2009.
[48] Dirk Helbing et al. “Evolutionary Establishment of Moral and Double Moral Standards
through Spatial Interactions”. In: PLoS Comput Biol 6.4 (Apr. 2010), e1000758. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000758.
[49] A. Cangelosi and D. Parisi. Simulating the evolution of language. New York, NY, USA: SpringerVerlag, 2002.
[50] R. Dunbar. Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard Univ Pr, 1998.
[51] M.A. Nowak and D.C. Krakauer. “The evolution of language”. In: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96.14 (1999), p. 8028.
[52] J.M. Epstein and R. Axtell. Growing artificial societies. Cambridge, MA, 1996.
[53] Parallel discrete-event simulation of population dynamics. 2008, pp. 1047–1054. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2008.4736172.

32
[54] PRACE: Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe. url: http://www.prace-project.eu/.
[55] Dirk Helbing, H. Ammoser, and C. Kuehnert. “Extreme Events in Nature and Society”. In: ed. by
S. Albeverio, V. Jentsch, and Kantz H. Berlin: Springer, 2005. Chap. Disasters as extreme events
and the importance of network interactions for disaster response management, pp. 319–348.
[56] John Sterman. Business dynamics : systems thinking and modeling for a complex world.
Irwin,McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[57] Transims:
Transportation
Analysis
http://www.transims-opensource.net/.

and

Simulation

System.

url:

[58] Matsims: Multi-Agent Transport Simulation Toolkit. url: http://www.matsim.org/.
[59] ESSA: European Social Simulation Association. url: http://www.essa.eu.org/.
[60] Dirk Helbing and Yu W. “The future of social experimenting”. In: PNAS 12 (107 2010), pp. 5265–
5266.
[61] Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”. In: Science. New Series 211.4481 (1981), pp. 453–458. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1685855.
[62] Add-ons for Firefox. url: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/.
[63] Drupal,
an
open
source
content
http://drupal.org/project/Modules.

management

system.

Modules

page.

url:

[64] Apple Web apps store. url: http://www.apple.com/webapps/.
[65] Google Android market. url: http://www.android.com/market.
[66] SWARM. url: http://www.swarm.org/.
[67] Repast, Recursive Porous Agent Simulation Toolkit. url: http://repast.sourceforge.net/.
[68] NetLogo. url: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
[69] SESAM, Shell for Simulated Agent Systems. url: http://www.simsesam.de/.

[70] Wikipedia:
Comparison
of
Agent-based
Modeling
Software.
url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\textunderscoreof\textunderscoreagent-based\textundersco
[71] MATLAB. url: http://www.mathworks.com/.
[72] Joshua M. Epstein. “Why Model?” In: Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11.4
(2008), p. 12. url: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html.
[73] S. Laemmer and D. Helbing. “Self-control of traffic lights and vehicle flows in urban road networks”.
In: JSTAT (2008). P04019.
[74] “Verfahren zur Koordination von vernetzten Abfertigungsprozessen oder zur Steuerung des Transports von mobilen Einheiten innerhalb eines Netzwerkes”. Pat. DE102005023742B4. Dirk Helbing
and S. Laemmer. 2010. url: http://www.patent-de.com/20100805/DE102005023742B4.html.
[75] D. Helbing and M. Christen. Mit Rauschen und Reibung gegen finanzielle Blasen. submitted to
Wirtschaftswoche. 2010.
[76] D. I. R. K. Helbing et al. “Biologistics and the struggle for efficiency: concepts
and perpesctives”. In: Advances in Complex Systems 12.06 (2009), pp. 533+. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219525909002374.
[77] A. Kesting et al. “Adaptive cruise control design for active congestion avoidance”. In:
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 16.6 (2008), pp. 668–683. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2007.12.004.

33
[78] Dirk Helbing. “Human Behaviour and Traffic Networks”. In: ed. by M. Schreckenberg and R.
Selten. Berlin: Springer, 2004. Chap. Dynamic decision behavior and optimal guidance through
information services: Models and experiments, pp. 47–95.
[79] Norbert Wiener. Cybernetics, Second Edition: or the Control and Communication in the Animal
and the Machine. The MIT Press, 15, 1965.
[80] Brian Fabien. Analytical System Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation. Springer, 2, 2008.
[81] Sigurd Skogestad and Ian Postlethwaite. Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design.
2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience, 18, 2005.
[82] Er L. Fradkov, Iliya V. Miroshnik, and Vladimir O. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control of Complex
Systems. Springer, 1999.
[83] John H. Kagel. The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, 17, 2004.
[84] Nicholas Bardsley et al. Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules. US: Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009, p. 384.
[85] Daniel Friedman and Alessandra Cassar. Economics Lab: An Intensive Course in Experimental
Economics. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
[86] D. Friedman and S. Sunder. Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[87] Francesco
Guala.
The
Methodology
of
Experimental
Economics.
bridge
Books
9780521618618.
Cambridge
University
Press,
2005.
http://ideas.repec.org/b/cup/cbooks/9780521618618.html.

Camurl:

[88] Matthew J. Salganik, Peter S. Dodds, and Duncan J. Watts. “Experimental Study of Inequality
and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market”. In: Science 311.5762 (10, 2006), pp. 854–
856. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066.
[89] Michael Szell and Stefan Thurner. “Measuring social dynamics in a massive
multiplayer online game”. In: Social Networks 32.4 (2010), pp. 313–329. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.06.001.
[90] William S. Bainbridge. “The Scientific Research Potential of Virtual Worlds”. In: Science 317.5837
(27, 2007), pp. 472–476. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1146930.
[91] Neil F. Johnson et al. “Human group formation in online guilds and offline gangs driven
by a common team dynamic”. In: Physical Review E 79.6 (2009), pp. 066117+. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.066117.
[92] D.B. Fogel. “Introduction to evolutionary computation”. In: Evolutionary computation 1: basic
algorithms and operators (2000), p. 1.
[93] D.B. Fogel. Evolutionary computation: toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence. WileyIEEE Press, 2006.
[94] S. Haykin. Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA, 1994.
[95] M.T. Hagan, H.B. Demuth, M. Beale, et al. Neural network design. PWS Pub, 1996.
[96] C.A. Janeway et al. Immunobiology: the immune system in health and disease. Churchill Livingstone, 2001.
[97] Robert M. May. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (Princeton Landmarks in Biology).
Princeton University Press, 1, 2001.
[98] Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, USA, 12, 2007.

34
[99] Dirk Helbing and Mehdi Moussaid. Analytical Calculation of Critical Perturbation Amplitudes
and Critical Densities by Non-Linear Stability Analysis of a Simple Traffic Flow Model. Tech. rep.
arXiv:0807.4006. Comments: For related work see http://www.soms.ethz.ch/. 2008.
[100] D Helbing. “Traffic and Related Self-Driven Many-Particle Systems”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 73.condmat/0012229. 4 (2000), pp. 1067–1141.
[101] Why
Economists
Failed
to
Predict
the
Financial
http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1350507.

Crisis.

url:

[102] Keim D. A. “Information visualization and visual data mining”. In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 8.1 (2002).
[103] Kageyama A. and Ohno N. “Tutorial introduction to Virtual Reality: What possibilities are offered
to our field?” In: Proceedings of ISSS-7. 2005, pp. 127–136.
[104] Jacobs A. “The pathologies of big data”. In: ACM Queue 7.6 (2009).
[105] Ben Shneiderman. “The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations”. In: Visual Languages, IEEE Symposium on 0 (1996), p. 336. url:
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/VL.1996.545307.
[106] R. M. Pickett and G. G. Grinstein. “Iconographic displays for visualizing multidimensional data”.
In: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Piscataway, NJ. 1988, pp. 514–519.
[107] H. Chernoff. “The use of faces to represent points in k-dimensional space graphically”. In: Journal
Amer. Statistical Association 68 (1973), pp. 361–368.
[108] Bier E. A. et al. “Toolglass and magic lenses: The see-through interface”. In: Proc. SIGGRAPH,
Anaheim, CA. 1993, 7380.
[109] A. Inselberg and B. Dimsdale. “Parallel coordinates: A tool for visualizing multi-dimensional
geometry”. In: Proc. Visualization, San Francisco, CA. 1990, pp. 361–370.
[110] Robertson G. G., Mackinlay J. D., and Card S. K. “Cone trees: Animated 3D visualizations of
hierarchical information”. In: Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 91 Conf., New
Orleans, LA. 1991, pp. 189–194.
[111] Lamping J., Rao R., and Pirolli P. “A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for
visualizing large hierarchies”. In: Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems Conf. 1995, 401408.
[112] van Wijk J. J. and van de Wetering H. “Cushion treemaps - visualization of hierarchical information”. In: Proceedings 1999 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. 1999, 7378.
[113] Bruls M., Huizing K., and Van Wijk J. J. “Squarified treemaps”. In: Proceedings of Joint Eurographics and IEEE TCVG Symposium on Visualization. IEEE Press, 2000, 3342.
[114] Frankel F. and Reid Rosalind. “Distilling meaning from data”. In: Nature 455.30 (2008).
[115] ScienceSim. url: http://www.sciencesim.com.
[116] S. Bryson. “Virtual Reality in Scientific Visualization”. In: COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
39.5 (May 1996).
[117] Joseph J. LaViola et al. “Virtual Reality-Based Interactive Scientific Visualization Environments”. In: Trends in Interactive Visualization. Ed. by Robert Liere,
Tony Adriaansen, and Elena Zudilova-Seinstra. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. 10.1007/978-1-84800-269-2 10. Springer London, 2009, pp. 1–26. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-269-2\textunderscore10.
[118] Germans D. et al. “VIRPI: A high-level toolkit for interactive scientific visualization in virtual
reality”. In: IPT/EGVE (2001).

35
[119] Araki F., Kawahara S., and Ohno N. “Annual Report of the Earth Simulator Center”. In: 2008.
Chap. Study of Large-Scale Data Visualization, pp. 273–277.
[120] VFIVE
:
Virtual
Reality
Visualization
Software
for
CAVE
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/Perception/vfive.en.html.
[121] Top 500 supercomputer sites. url: http://www.top500.org.

System.

url:

