Agent‐based models of scientific interaction

Abstract

The paper examines recent developments in agent‐based modeling of scientific inquiry with a special focus on network epistemology. It provides a survey of different types of ABMs studying network effects in scientific inquiry: ABMs based on bandit problems, ABMs based on epistemic landscapes and ABMs based on argumentative dynamics. It further presents models that study the impact of biased and deceptive researchers on the success of collective inquiry. The paper concludes with a discussion on the contribution of ABMs to the broader field of philosophy of science given their highly idealized nature.

A Systematic Approach to Autonomous Agents

“…A review of the recent literature on agent-based models and multi-agent systems shows that ABMs are used in many scientific domains, including biology (e.g., population dynamics, stochastic gene expression, morphogenesis, evolution, development) ecology, epidemiology (spread of epidemics, and strategies to manage epidemics), networks, economics, and even philosophy [65].…”

Key Science Goals for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope

“…16 For lessons learnt regarding knowledge formation, governance, organisational structure, decision-making, diversity, accountability, creativity, credit assignment and the role of consensus, from a range of perspectives across the humanities and social sciences, see e.g., (a) in general: Galison and Hevly [272], Knorr Cetina [273], Sullivan [274], Shrum et al [275], Boyer-Kassem et al [276] and references therein; (b) for specific collaborations and institutions: Collins [277], Nichols [278] on LIGO; Boisot et al [279], Ritson [280], Sorgner [281], Merz and Sorgner [282] on ATLAS and/or CERN; Jebeile [283] on the IPCC; Smith et al [284], Vertesi [285] on NASA; and Traweek [286] on SLAC and KEK. 17 Regarding network analysis, communication structures and epistemic communities, see for instance the following texts and references therein: Kitcher [290,291], Zollman [292,293,294], Longino [295], Lalli et al [296,297], Light and Moody [298], Wüthrich [299], Šešelja [300]. 18 Regarding authorship challenges and possible solutions relevant to the ngEHT context, see e.g., Resnik [301], Boyer-Kassem et al [276], Rennie et al [302], Cronin [303], Galison [304], Wray [305], McNutt et al [306], Bright et al [307], Heesen [308], Dang [309], Nogrady ...…”