This model tests whether local housing supply elasticity governs crash severity inside a single metropolitan housing market. Saiz (2010) established that across US metros, regions constrained by geography and regulation experience deeper boom-bust cycles than flexible ones. That finding is routinely applied downward to neighborhoods and ZIP codes as though the mechanism scaled without qualification.

The empirical record for the Washington DC and Northern Virginia region says it does not. Across 84 ZIP codes, measured supply elasticity ranges from 0.35 to 4.95 with a median of 1.21. The worst single-year price decline between 2007 and 2012 averaged 9.6 percent in constrained ZIP codes and 9.0 percent in flexible ones, a gap that cannot be distinguished from noise. Wide variation in the proposed cause, no meaningful separation in the proposed effect.

The model embeds households, houses and a metro-wide credit condition in the real ZIP geography of the region using three GIS layers and an empirical price panel. Local elasticity governs construction, exactly as theory predicts. Prices are driven by a shared macro drift schedule and, under the credit-amplified mode, by a leverage cycle with a financial accelerator and a deviation penalty. The design question is whether those shared forces are sufficient to override local supply differences at the sub-metropolitan scale.

…

MOSAIC is an agent-based NetLogo model of decentralized mission coordination among heterogeneous robots operating under partial observability, limited energy, spatially variable risk, dynamic communication, and individual and cooperative task requirements. Robots discover tasks locally, exchange task information through temporary communication links, submit capability-, energy-, deadline-, and risk-aware bids, compete for individual contracts, and form temporary coalitions for cooperative tasks.

The model integrates decentralized auctions, greedy capability-based coalition formation, contract release and reassignment, four reward regimes, reputation, adaptive bidding strategies, failure traceability, and mission-, network-, information-, inequality-, and coalition-level metrics. It operates without a centralized mission planner or global combinatorial assignment solver.

Seven paired-seed BehaviorSpace experiments comprising 690 official simulation runs evaluate baseline mission viability, reward regimes, communication structure, capability heterogeneity, cooperative-task demand, reputation and adaptive strategies, and mission-incentive strength. The results indicate that structural coordination capacity—particularly information reach, capability compatibility, and feasible coalition construction—has a stronger effect on mission completion than increasing incentive intensity within the tested architecture and parameter ranges.

…

An integrated wildfire and urban growth model for informal settlements.

Fire-WCISG is developed to test the impact of different fire management strategies on the number and type of residents staying in an informal settlement, and the fire-dependent fynbos vegetation that it is next to.

The model uses a hybrid protection motivation theory, place attachment and Turner’s informal residents as described by Christ et al. (2023) (10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102815), for the agents decision making. Wildland vegetation is based on published understanding of fynbos ecology.

…

This model is an extension of Wilensky’s (2003) Traffic Grid, a foundational NetLogo model of urban traffic flow. It embeds a dual-process cognitive architecture into each driver agent, transforming the original’s identical reactive units into cognitively heterogeneous individuals whose internal mental state evolves with experience; making the same intersection produce different decisions from different drivers, and different decisions from the same driver across occasions.
The core question the model addresses is the yellow-light dilemma zone: the seconds following amber onset in which a driver can neither stop safely nor clear the intersection before red. Field research documents that behavioral variance at this moment cannot be explained by geometry or legal obligation alone. This model provides the cognitive architecture that has been missing from traffic ABMs.
Each driver routes every amber-onset decision through either System 1 (fast, heuristic, automatic) or System 2 (slow, deliberative, prospect-theoretic), switching dynamically based on cognitive load, accumulated near-miss memory, and situational framing. The result is crash outcomes that are attributable, path-dependent, and sensitive to both driver disposition and signal infrastructure; none of which fixed-rule models can reproduce. Three signal control modes are included: fixed-cycle (replicating Wilensky’s original), adaptive-queue, and smart occupancy-based switching.

STiMUS-HAI (Stigmergic–Mutualistic IMOI Model, Human-AI extension) is an agent-based model of teamwork in socio-technical systems where human and AI contributors collaborate through shared digital artefacts — wiki pages, code files, issue tickets, project cards, Scratch projects — represented as patches in a NetLogo world. It extends the human-only base model STiMUS v2.2, which established that two coordination mechanisms — stigmergy (indirect coordination through traces left in the environment) and mutualism (mutual benefit between contributors and the artefacts they tend) — can be decoupled: stigmergy decides where a contributor works, mutualism decides with what effort. STiMUS-HAI preserves this decoupling unchanged and adds two further theoretical questions: whether mixing AI agents into a human team distorts human coordination in ways that aggregate indicators hide, and whether AI’s cost to team outcomes depends on the type of work AI performs, not only on how much of it is present.

Two breeds of turtle — humans and ai-agents — follow identical target-selection, pheromone, and mutualism rules, so that any behavioural difference is attributable to team composition rather than a built-in advantage. The one designed asymmetry: AI agents never accumulate shared-mental-model and their motivation is fixed rather than adaptive. On top of this v3.0 baseline, v3.1 adds a task-type dimension to artefacts (“prediction” versus “judgment”, set via a judgment-share slider) that scales down AI edit-power specifically on judgment-requiring artefacts, and an ai-trust mechanic: humans build or lose trust in AI contributions based on the population-relative percentile rank of observed AI work quality (bottom-quartile work counts as an observed “error”), and that trust gates how much mutualistic benefit a human derives from continuing an AI’s work. Trust erodes quickly on a single error and recovers only after a streak of confirmed successes — an intentional asymmetry.

Party Competition with Costly Voting builds upon the baseline model in Chapter 5 from Laver and Sergenti’s Party Competition (2011); it adds voting costs to generate variable turnout.

STiMUS (Stigmergic–Mutualistic IMOI Model) is an agent-based model of teamwork in socio-technical systems where contributors collaborate through shared digital artefacts — wiki pages, code files, issue tickets, project cards, Scratch projects — represented as patches in a NetLogo world. The model integrates two coordination mechanisms. Stigmergy is indirect coordination through traces left in a shared environment: each edit deposits a pheromone that diffuses to neighbouring patches and evaporates over time, so recent activity attracts further contributions. Mutualism is a reciprocal benefit loop in which valuable, well-maintained artefacts raise contributor motivation and shared understanding, while motivated contributors improve artefacts.

Contributors (turtles of the contributor breed) carry individual state: skill, motivation, shared-mental-model, specialty, benefit-gain, and an explicit-mode flag. At each tick every contributor selects a target artefact with an ant-colony-optimization-style rule weighing the artefact’s pheromone, incompleteness (1 - completeness), resource-value, and topic match between specialty and the artefact’s topic-tag; with probability p-explicit it instead takes the patch with the highest maintenance-need, modelling explicit task assignment. Each edit increases pheromone, quality, completeness and reuse-count, raises resource-value, lowers maintenance-need, and appends the editor to the artefact’s edit-authors list. When the previous last-editor-id differs from the current editor, the Edit Succession Ratio rises, the editor’s shared-mental-model grows, and a co-editing link is created — operationalising the idea that repeated cross-author succession on the same artefact builds shared understanding. Contributors’ motivation is updated from the benefit drawn from the visited artefact.

Each patch maintains a stigmergic layer (pheromone, quality, completeness, recentness, last-editor-id, edit-count, edit-authors) and a mutualistic layer (resource-value, reuse-count, maintenance-need, topic-tag), plus task flags (is-task?, task-complexity). Global monitors report the Edit Succession Ratio (ESR = cross-author-edits / total-edits, and an alternative esr-value = share of edited patches with more than one distinct author), mean-quality, mean-resource-value, a mutualism-index averaging contributor benefit and resource value, coediting-density (network density of the co-editing graph), active-pages-share, and task-completion-rate. The model logs every edit as a bipartite edge (tick, author_id, pageid, specialty, topic_tag, quality), exportable to CSV.

…

We combine a model of parties adjusting their position to recruit voters, and voters adjusting their opinions due to social influence and party positions.

Political parties compete for voters by (re-) positioning themselves within the opinion space.

Demo model that shows how continuous opinions change due to interactions with other agents. Agents move towards similar opinions and repel away from intolerable opinions.