Visual ODD: A Standardised Visualisation Illustrating the Narrative of Agent-Based Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agent-based models (ABMs) are commonly used tools across diverse disciplines, from ecology to social sciences and technology. Despite the effectiveness of the widely adopted Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) protocol in ensuring transparency in ABM design and assumptions, the accompanying model descriptions are often lengthy, making quick overviews challenging. To facilitate comprehension, manuscripts, presentations, and posters often include visualisations of the model. Yet, the diversity of visualisation approaches complicates model comparisons and requires additional time for viewers to grasp the figure layouts. Additionally, these visualisations are usually poorly linked to corresponding sections of the written ODD model description. To address these challenges, we propose the standardised visual ODD (vODD) aimed to provide a quick overview of models and simplify the link to the written model description for readers who are more interested in specific elements. The standardised visualisation assigns defined positions for ODD elements for easy reference and comparison. We provide examples and guidance on constructing vODDs, along with templates for modellers to create their own visuals. While advocating for simplicity, we also illustrate how more complex models can still be effectively depicted in such visualisations. By establishing a generalised visualisation applicable to agent-based and other simulation models, we aim to improve the rapid comprehension of models and streamline graphical model representations in manuscripts, presentations, and posters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".