The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Agent-based Simulation Platforms: Review and Development Recommendations
Abstract
Five software platforms for scientific agent-based models (ABMs) were reviewed by implementing example models in each. NetLogo is the highest-level platform, providing a simple yet powerful programming language, built-in graphical interfaces, and comprehensive documentation. It is designed primarily for ABMs of mobile individuals with local interactions in a grid space, but not necessarily clumsy for others. NetLogo is highly recommended, even for prototyping complex models. MASON, Repast, and Swarm are “framework and library” platforms, providing a conceptual framework for organizing and designing ABMs and corresponding software libraries. MASON is least mature and designed with execution speed a high priority. The Objective-C version of Swarm is the most mature library platform and is stable and well organized. Objective-C seems more natural than Java for ABMs but weak error-handling and the lack of developer tools are drawbacks. Java Swarm allows Swarm’s Objective-C libraries to be called from Java; it does not seem to combine the advantages of the two languages well. Repast provides Swarm-like functions in a Java library and is a good choice for many, but parts of its organization and design could be improved. A rough comparison of execution speed found MASON and Repast usually fastest (MASON 1-35% faster than Repast), Swarm (including Objective-C) fastest for simple models but slowest for complex ones, and NetLogo intermediate. Recommendations include completing the documentation (for all platforms except NetLogo), strengthening conceptual frameworks, providing better tools for statistical output and automating simulation experiments, simplifying common tasks, and researching technologies for understanding how simulation results arise.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Systems Science Methods in Public Health: Dynamics, Networks, and Agents
Luke, D. A., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2012) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101222 · Cited by 710
Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor
Rand, W., & Rust, R. T. (2011) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.04.002 · Cited by 536
Key challenges in agent-based modelling for geo-spatial simulation
Crooks, A., Castle, C., & Batty, M. (2008) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.09.004 · Cited by 388
Agent‐based modeling in ecological economics
Heckbert, S., Baynes, T., & Reeson, A. (2010) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05286.x · Cited by 291
A Third Wave in the Economics of Climate Change
Farmer, J. D., Hepburn, C., Mealy, P., & Teytelboym, A. (2015) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9965-2 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Railsback, S. F., Lytinen, S. L., & Jackson, S. K.
- Venue
- SIMULATION
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 609-623
- ISSN
- 0037-5497 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3133
- OpenAlex
- W2130071305
- Cited by
- 781
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Agent-based Simulation Platforms: Review and Development Recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0037549706073695
- The paper
- Railsback, S. F., Lytinen, S. L., & Jackson, S. K. (2006). Agent-based Simulation Platforms: Review and Development Recommendations. SIMULATION. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549706073695
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.