Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critically examines the concept of credibility within simulation architectures, arguing that the credibility of individual models does not necessarily translate to the credibility of the overall architecture. By comparing various assessment techniques—including sensitivity analysis, expert qualitative analysis, and AI explainability—the authors highlight the limitations and strengths of existing methods. The key finding reveals that a more holistic approach to evaluating simulation architectures is necessary to ensure reliable outcomes in complex systems.
Assessing the credibility of simulation architectures reveals that individual model trustworthiness is insufficient for overall reliability, challenging conventional evaluation methods.
Credibility of a simulation model is an important topic. Several approaches try to quantify the credibility of simulation. However, models are mostly assembled within a simulation architecture. Can the credibility of a simulation architecture be assessed based on the credibility of the models that comprise it? This paper aims to address this issue by providing an overview of the current state of the art in the field of assembly credibility. It will compare sensitivity analysis techniques, qualitative analysis by experts, explainability in AI, and networks. Finally, an assessment of the proposed approaches, based on criteria such as rigor, generalization, and resource requirements, will reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.