Structured Argumentation for Simulation-Based Research

Scientific research is a vanguard domain of human activity. Researchers aim for a systematic, objective approach, but also for pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge through the use of ever-more advanced instruments and techniques. Computer simulations represent such scientific instruments, capable of harvesting information in response to questions beyond the scope of traditional experimental techniques. The benefits of using them must, however, be considered together with aspects that led to criticism and lack of confidence e.g. they are difficult to analyze and validate, assumptions are only partially managed.

This thesis scopes down the vast domain of simulation-based research, to the use of agent-based simulations for studying complex systems. The use of structured argumentation in a scientific research context is studied as a means for addressing the core limitations of simulation-based research. The Goal Structuring Notation has been used effectively in its originating domain - Safety Critical Systems - in addressing similar problems to simulation-based research. Through the use of this notation, this research emphasizes the difficulty of expressing compelling arguments, even in journal publications; in addition, it propose a set of extensions to the notation in order to adapt it to the scientific discourse. Finally, it shows the implications of studying a model in a rigorous, exhaustive manner, over the claims that can be made through it.