CSYS5010 Introduction to Complex Systems
Assessments 2-4 – Major group project
Agent-based modelling group project


Stage 1 (Assessment 2) – Project Proposal
Due date: Sunday 5th of April 2020, 23:59. (end of week 6)
Submit via: TurnItIn Assignment 2 section on our Canvas site. One submission per group
Weighting: 25% of final mark
Length: 1000 to 1500 words max. (hard limit)
Format: Please use 1.5 line spacing, 12 point font.

Stage 2 (Assessment 3) – Project Presentation
Due date: Tuesday 12th of May 2020, during week 11 class
Submit via: in-class presentation. One presentation per group
Weighting: 25% of final mark
Timing: 10 to 15 minute (max) presentations, plus 5 minutes Q&A.
Format: Any presentation format you like that covers the required material.
All team members must verbally participate in some fashion.

Stage 3 (Assessment 4) – Project Report
Due date: Sunday 7th of June 2020, 23:59. (end of week 14, “Stuvac”)
Submit via: TurnItIn Assignment 4 section on our Canvas site. One submission per group
Weighting: 40% of final mark
Length: 3000 words max. (hard limit)
Format: Please use 1.5 line spacing, 12 point font.

We have learned in class how to build and use agent-based models.

Your task is to construct and analyse an agent-based model of a complex system:
• Form groups of 2-3 people interested in exploring the same area.
• Select a system from your field(s) of interest that is appropriate to study further using an
agent-based modelling approach.
• Design and construct an agent-based model of the system in order to explore a hypothesis
about that system. You have learned how to use NetLogo in class; you have the freedom to
choose whether to use NetLogo or another programming environment.
• Be guided by the modelling loop concepts (i.e. be clear about the system you are attempting
to model, assumptions and rules inferred regarding the system, your hypothesis, experiment
and validation technique).
• Analyse the data produced by your model, with statistical techniques relevant to your
hypothesis. You may incorporate analytic techniques we cover over the coming weeks (e.g.
dynamical systems methods).
• Critically evaluate your model and analysis.

Our detailed requirements for each assessment stage are as follows:

Stage 1 (Assessment 2) – Project Proposal
For the project proposal, please include:
1. A description of the system you choose to model, including:
i. What is your hypothesis or experimental question you seek to answer?
ii. Provide a high-level description of your model, including what are the agents and
their properties, what is their environment and control parameters, how are they
connected and interact, what are the update rules you will use, etc.
iii. Justify why agent-based modelling is appropriate for this system.
2. How will you measure and analyse the behaviour of the model? In particular, how will this
relate to your hypothesis.
3. Identify existing agent-based models for this system in the literature, and discuss how your
model will relate to and/or extend them.

Stage 2 (Assessment 3) – Project Presentation
For your presentation to the class, please include:
1. A description of your model, analysis and evaluation, covering the general areas required
for both the proposal and final report.
2. A demonstration of your model, where possible.

Stage 3 (Assessment 4) – Project Report
For the final report, please include:
1. A brief recap of your aims and modelling design;
2. An overview of your implementation of the model and your process in developing it;
3. The results of your analysis of the data produced by the model (including model validation
where possible), and an evaluation/discussion of this analysis;
4. A critical assessment of your work on the modelling and analysis:
i. This must include a discussion of how your findings relate to the current state of
knowledge about this system (i.e. in the literature), what this means for the impact
/significance of your findings, and – if you were not able to validate your model here
–how you would go about validating your model;
ii. This should also include other factors as you see fit, e.g.: strengths/weaknesses of
your approach and its suitability for your aims, limitations of your model/analysis,
potential future work or other areas of application of your work, etc.;
5. You must submit your final code as an appendix to the report (not included in word count)

As the examiners, we allow resubmission of previous work from your Stage 1 proposal in your Stage
3 report, providing the extent and nature of its use is acknowledged in your assignment. (i.e. if you do
reuse some material from your Stage 1 proposal, you should add an acknowledgement about that at
the end of the article, and briefly point out which sections they occur in).
Validation: not necessary but bonus.

Notes on applicable policies:

This assignment will be submitted via TurnItIn, a text-matching tool used to help detect instances of
academic dishonesty. For more detail about TurnItIn and the Academic Honesty Policy, please see the
Canvas site.

After submission of your group assignment you will be sent an automated email that asks you to
complete a peer evaluation of your team members using an online tool (CATME). This is a
compulsory part of the assignment. For more detail about CATME please see the Canvas site.

Please see the Canvas site regarding the late submissions policy. Extensions for the group Project
Presentation will only be granted in the case where formal Special Consideration has been applied for
and approved.

We reserve the right to modulate the group marks for each individual: your presentation marks will be
directly modulated based on individual performance, while the results of the peer evaluation may feed
into a decision to modulate individual marks overall.
Assessment 2, Stage 1: Project Proposal
Criteria Pass Credit Distinction High distinction Weight (%)
60
20
20
A description of the system you have chosen for the assessment,
including your hypotheses and a description of the agents and
their interactions
A brief summary of the
model, no or inapproapriate
hypotheses given, poor
description of agents and
their functional role in the
system.
A clear description of the
system, the agents, their
interactions and properties
and a sound description of
the hypotheses
As for Credit but showing a
deeper insight into the
connection between the
system, the hypotheses and
the agent's properties.
As for Distinction plus showing clear
insights into the system itself and how
to model the interactions between
agents in order to capture the relevant
behaviours. Innovative/original
approach to integrating the hypothesis
with the agent paramaters and
interactions.
A description of the analysis and measurements you will carry
out
Limited understanding of the
role of measurement and
analysis.
Demonstrated
understanding of the
purpose of measurement
and analysis.
A well described set of
measurements and analyses
that demonstrate how the
measurements connect with
the hypotheses and the
agent's interactions.
As for Distinction, plus original insights
into how to measure key properties
related to the system's inputs
(parameters, agent's properties etc.),
interactions, and subsequent system
behaviour/output. How are the
inputs/dynamics/outputs related to the
possible validation of your model?
A literature review of other studies that have looked at the same
system
Limited understanding of the
literature available.
Demonstrated
understanding of the
strengths and weaknesses of
previously published models
based on your system.
An integrated critique of the
strengths and weaknesses of
previous work and a clear
understanding of their
relationship to the approach
you have chosen to adopt.
As for Distinction, plus original insights
into how your work is better, or more
thorough, or more innovative, or more
… than earlier work.
2-Presentation
Page 2
ASSESSMENT 2 STAGE 2 – PRESENTATION – MARKING GUIDE
0-49% 50-64% 65-74% 75-84% 85-100% Mark ..out of
1. Structure 10 10
2. Delivery 10 10
30 30
4. Demonstration 20 20
20 20
10 10
Total 0 100
Total 0 20
No structure and logical
sequence of information
Difficult or impossible to
understand or follow
Loose organisation
Presentation difficult understand
and/or follow
Information presented in
sequence and easy to follow
Well structured with an
introduction, main section and
conclusion
Information presented in logical,
interesting sequence
Very well structured with
excellent introduction, clear
purpose, body and conclusion
Information is highly structured,
facilitating class understanding
Outstanding introduction, clear
and engaging purpose, well
developed body and compelling
conclusion
Reads directly from notes or
slides (if relevant)
Non audience eye contact (if
relevant to the presentation
type)
Inaudible
Spoken too quickly
Poorly articulated thoughts.
Extreme use of vocalized
pauses(uh, well uh, um)
Poor readability of any visual
aids
Not all group members are
involved
Uncomfortable in standing up in
front of audience
Little eye contact or audience
engagement
Presentation audible but with
poor articulation and flow
Excessive vocalized pauses (uh,
well uh, um)
Somewhat innapropriate or
unreadable visual aids if used
All group members are involved
Good posture, some eye contact,
and rapport with audience
Clear voice
Correct pronunication
Well-paced delivery
Very good use of pausing
Generally clear articulation of
thoughts but with noticeable
vocalized pauses (uh, well uh,
um)
All group members are involved
Appropriate visual aids
Excellent interesting and well-
paced delivery with good use of
voice, tone, diction and pausing
Excellent posture, eye contact
and rapport with audience
Thoughts articulated clearly with
very few vocalized pauses (uh,
well uh, um)
Excellent use of visual aids
where used
All group members are involved
Informative, well paced and
entertaining delivery
Outstanding posture, eye contact
and rapport with audience
Reacts to audience feedback
with ease and confidence
Thoughts articulated clearly with
entire audience engaged No
vocalized pauses noticed
Exemplary use of visual aids
(where used)
All group members are involved
3. Description and
analysis of model
Unclear framework for what is to
be modelled, nor motivation or
analysis of approach detailed
Clear overview of motivation for
model, and process in
developing it.
As for Pass, plus clear
communication of results from
(or plan for) analysis of data
produced by the model
As for Credit, plus clearly
demonstrated understanding of
the relationship between model,
data acquisition, validation and
data analysis.
As for distinction, plus
outstanding critical assessment
of the project (including e.g.
impact/significance, strengths
and weaknesses, path to clear
future development)
No visible route to working
model
High level descriptive model
presented (without code)
Detailed operational description
of the model, with some detail
relevant to coding
implementation
Demonstrated operational model
implemented in code, with clear
functional direction for the
project
Clear demonstration of functional
prototype, with preliminary analysis of
computational experimental data
5. Response to
questions
Failure to answer questions
about subject from audience
Can answer rudimentary
questions from audience
Can answer most questions with
ease but fails to elaborate on
some questions
Can answer all questions with
ease
Can elaborate on some questions
Elaborates and explains when
answering all questions
Responds confidently and in a
friendly manner
6. Comments,
suggestions &
contributions
Failure to comment/question
other presentations
Only makes trivial
comments/questions with little
substantive content
Asks some questions which
give/lead to insight into the
project
Makes some helpful comments,
and/or insightful questions
Makes comments/suggestions
which will contribute significantly
to the other group's projects
3-Final Report
Page 1
ASSESSMENT 2 STAGE 3 – REPORT– MARKING GUIDE
50-64% 65-74% 75-84% 85-100% Mark ..out of
1. Aims and Design 15 15
15 15
3. Analysis of Results 35 35
4. Critical Assessment 35 35
Total 0 100
Total 0 40
Rudimentary description of the
aims and design approach used
in the project
As for a pass but including a list
of specific testable aims of the
project and how these aims are
connected to the design of the
approach used.
As for credit but including well
thought out justification for what
agent based modelling is an
appropriate approach used.
As for distinction but showing an
advanced level of awreness of
the the connection between the
model representation of the
system being studied.
2. Implementation and
developement process
Rudimentary overview of the
model and the developement
through which it arose
Adequate and specific
description of the model
including the agents and their
properties, how they're
connected and interact, and
what the update rules are etc.
As per credit but demonstrating
further insights into the
modelling loop and its role in
development.
As per distinction but at a level
that demonstrates outstanding
professional awareness of the
task at hand.
A rudimentary model that
produces some results with
cursury data analysis
As for pass but a complete
model with a reasonable set of
outputs and reasonable level of
data analysis
As for credit but a complete
model including some discussion
of, or numerical attempts at,
validating the results. Solid
evaluation/discussion of the
results.
Outstanding: data collection from
the model, analysis of this data,
and discussion of these results.
Rudimentary discussion of how
the work relates to the current
state of knowledge of the
system, and limited insights into
impacts of findings.
As for pass but a clear
awareness of how computer
based experiments further our
knowledge of a system's
behaviour in your example.
Some limited attempt to
consider further factors e.g.
strengths and weaknesses of
approach
As for credit but a more
systematic analsysi of the
drivers of system behaviour that
gives rise to the data analysed in
criteria 3 (above) and some self-
reflection on the work itself.
As for Distinction but including
insights that might be expected
of a research project in the filed
of study chosen.