ArticleF1000Research2023
Agent-based models under uncertainty.
Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven fungicide design: From target identification to field application.Plant communications · 2026Review
- A scoping review of mathematical modeling techniques for gingival keratinization: A framework for periodontal research.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Monte Carlo (MC) is often used when trying to assess the consequences of uncertainty in agent-based models (ABMs). However, this approach is not appropriate when the uncertainty is epistemic rather than aleatory, that is, when it represents a lack of knowledge rather than variation. The free-for-all battleship simulation modelled here is inspired by the children's battleship game, where each battleship is an agent. Methods: The models contrast an MC implementation against an interval implementation for epistemic uncertainty. In this case, our epistemic uncertainty is in the form of an imperfect radar. In the interval method, the approach occludes the status of the agents (ships) and precludes an analyst from making decisions about them in real-time. Results: In a highly uncertain environment, after many time steps, there can be many ships remaining whose status is unknown. In contrast, any MC simulation invariably tends to conclude with a small number of the remaining ships after many time steps. Thus, the interval approach misses the quantitative conclusion. However, some quantitative results are generated by the interval implementation, e.g. the identities of the surviving ships, which are revealed to be nearly mutual with the MC implementation, though with fewer identities in total compared to MC. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is possible to implement intervals in an ABM, but the results are broad, which may be useful for generating the overall bounds of the system but do not provide insight on the expected outcomes and trends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.