Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation

Andreas Tolk; John Beverley

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that hybrid modeling and simulation becomes interpretable, reusable, and reliable when ontologies are separated into a methodological layer for how to model and a referential layer for what is modeled, coordinated across…

desk verdict A clearly written synthesis of ontology approaches for hybrid M&S, but the central claim is asserted rather than shown; the new mapping of MS-SDF to interoperability axes is useful but modest. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12290 v1 pith:UXYQEVZQ submitted 2025-06-14 cs.AI

John Beverley , Andreas Tolk This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords hybridmodelingandsimulationontologiesinteroperabilitymethodologicalontologyreferentialsemanticalignmentlayeredarchitectureOWL2/SWRL

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that hybrid modeling and simulation (M&S) suffers less from missing computational power than from missing semantic discipline: different experts and tools describe the same situation in ways that do not line up. The proposed fix is to build simulations with two coordinated kinds of ontology: methodological ontologies that prescribe how something is modeled, and referential ontologies that describe what is modeled, including all the partially conflicting viewpoints stakeholders bring. The paper shows this pairing addresses interoperability along three axes—human to human, human to machine, and machine to machine—and illustrates it with four application cases. A reader should care because, if the argument holds, ontology engineering becomes a standard part of the simulation workflow rather than an optional documentation layer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairing of methodological and referential ontologies. A methodological ontology is a normative blueprint for how to model something using a chosen paradigm, such as discrete-event, agent-based, or system dynamics. A referential ontology is a descriptive, logic-based representation of what is modeled—capable of holding multiple, even mutually inconsistent, stakeholder viewpoints. The argument is carried by coordinating these two layers with the three interoperability axes and with a layered ontology architecture (top-level, mid-level, domain) encoded in decidable languages such as OWL2 and extended by rule languages like SWRL and SHACL. The M&S System Development Framework (MS-SDF) then supplies seven steps in which these ontologies are used, from capturing reality and assumptions through reference and conceptual models to verification and validation.

What would settle it

Take a hybrid simulation project coupling an agent-based and a system-dynamics model, and build it twice: once following the paper's ontology-aligned MS-SDF workflow and once with conventional interfaces and shared data schemas only. If the ontology-driven version shows no measurable reduction in integration errors, rework, or cross-team misunderstanding, the central claim that semantic discipline is the decisive factor is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hybrid M&S becomes interpretable, reusable, and reliable when the referential question of what is modeled is separated from the methodological question of how it is modeled, and the two are explicitly coordinated through formal ontologies. Referential ontologies capture all viewpoints as true/false statements about a system, allowing inconsistent perspectives to coexist in a reference model. Methodological ontologies act as normative blueprints that specify how simulation constructs such as events, entities, and dependencies must be instantiated. Together, aligned with human and machine interoperability requirements, they turn ontologies into the semantic structure of a hybrid simulation: descriptive for the domain, prescriptive for the simulation, and contractual between independent components.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework depends on semantic misalignment being the main obstacle to hybrid M&S interoperability; if non-semantic barriers such as tool coupling, execution-semantics mismatches, and data-format incompatibilities dominate, the proposed ontology discipline cannot deliver the promised benefits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ontology engineering moves from optional documentation to a load-bearing component in hybrid M&S workflows.
A single referential ontology can hold inconsistent expert viewpoints, while each simulation implements a consistent subset, enabling ensembles of models from one knowledge base.
Methodological ontologies as normative artifacts make simulation code generation, constraint validation, and on-the-fly model composition possible.
Shared referential ontologies let independently built simulation components exchange and reason over information without human rewiring.
Verification and validation unify: validation checks the simulation against the referential ontology and modeling question, verification checks the relationships using the methodological ontology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If semantic alignment is truly the bottleneck, then controlled experiments comparing ontology-driven integration with conventional interface-based integration in identical hybrid projects should show large differences in rework and ambiguity; the paper does not run such an experiment.
The same distinction could sharpen explainable AI: referential ontologies say what a model's terms mean, methodological ontologies explain how its outputs were derived, giving regulators precise handles for audit.
A testable extension is to generate hybrid simulation code directly from ontology-encoded constraints with LLM assistance, using the methodological ontology as a guardrail; the paper notes this direction but leaves it open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this before reading: it is a position paper, not an experimental study. The useful part is the stepwise mapping of the MS-SDF development steps onto the three interoperability axes, which gives a concrete way to see where ontologies enter a hybrid M&S workflow. The rest is a well-organized restatement of ideas that Tolk and others have published before.

What the paper does well: the methodological/referential distinction is explained cleanly, the layered ontology strategy (top, mid, domain) is presented with relevant examples, and the four case studies give a fair picture of what has been tried. The two external cases—Jurasky et al. and Teng et al.—provide independent grounding, which is more than many papers of this kind offer.

Soft spots, in proportion: the gap between the claimed demonstration and what is actually shown. The central claim in the Discussion—that ontologies provide the semantic discipline needed for interpretable, reusable, reliable simulations—is asserted rather than demonstrated. None of the four use cases includes a baseline or controlled comparison showing that the ontology-driven approach beats conventional integration methods on development time, conflict detection, or reusability. The paper itself acknowledges that ontology development is resource intensive and that tool integration is lacking, which is honest but undercuts the unconditional version of the claim. That said, the stress-test concern is a fair reading but not a fatal one, because the paper reads better as an advocacy piece and framework proposal than as an empirical proof. If the authors had said "we propose a framework and review supportive evidence" instead of "we demonstrate," the gap would be minor.

Circularity: the MS-SDF and two of the four case studies come from the authors' own prior work. That is a real weakness, but the external cases corroborate the general point, so it is not damning. The original contribution is modest—the mapping of MS-SDF steps to the interoperability axes—but that mapping is a legitimate pedagogical and analytic device.

Who this is for: readers in the M&S community who want a compact overview of how ontologies are used for hybrid modeling, and who want a structured way to choose where ontology support can help. It would be a good introduction for someone new to the area. A reader looking for hard evidence or new results will be disappointed.

Recommendation: yes, send it to peer review. It is a coherent position paper from people who know the field, and the mapping deserves referee time. The referee should push for the authors to either soften the demonstration language or add at least one baseline comparison. I would accept it as a conference paper with minor revisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that ontology engineering, organized around the distinction between methodological ontologies (how to model) and referential ontologies (what is modeled), should be a standard component of hybrid modeling and simulation (M&S) workflows. It maps these two ontology types onto three interoperability axes—Human–Human, Human–Machine, and Machine–Machine—and uses the M&S System Development Framework (MS-SDF) to show where ontological strategies enter the M&S lifecycle. Four application examples—sea-level rise analysis, Industry 4.0 modeling, artificial societies for policy support, and cyber threat evaluation—are presented as evidence of feasibility. The paper closes with challenges, including the resource intensity of ontology development, nontrivial semantic alignment in practice, and the lack of native integration between ontology tools and simulation engines.

Significance. As a conceptual synthesis, the paper has value: the methodological/referential distinction is clearly presented, the three interoperability axes provide a useful organizing scheme, and the inclusion of external examples by Jurasky et al. (2021) and Teng et al. (2025) shows that the approach is not exclusively an artifact of the authors' own prior work. The paper also names concrete mechanisms—competency questions, ontology design patterns, layered architectures, and SWRL rules—rather than remaining at the level of general promises. However, the manuscript's central conclusion is stronger than the evidence supports. No quantitative, controlled, or baseline evidence is provided that ontology-driven workflows improve reliability, reusability, or interpretability relative to conventional integration practice, and the two most fully described workflows come from the authors' own prior publications. The paper is best read as a position statement and research agenda, not as a demonstrated result.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, especially §4.1 and §4.4] The four application examples are summaries of previously published work, and none includes a baseline or comparison condition. For example, §4.1 reports that the ontology-aligned approach 'aided the identification' of areas to protect, but no measure of correctness, development cost, or comparison with a non-ontology integration method is reported. Similarly, §4.4 states that OntoCPS4PMS 'was able to simulate' the 2015 Ukrainian power grid attack, but no evaluation metrics, runtime behavior, or comparison with a hand-coded rule-based simulation is provided. Since the Discussion's central claim is that ontologies make simulations interpretable, reusable, and reliable, the evidence as presented is insufficient to support the causal/benefit formulation. I recommend explicitly reframing the paper as a perspective or roadmap, treating the four cases as existence proofs of feasibility, and adding a short discussion of what empirical evidence would be needed to test the claim that ontology-enabled workflows outperform conventional integration.
[Section 1 and Section 2] The paper's load-bearing premise is that semantic misalignment is a primary barrier to hybrid M&S interoperability, and this premise is asserted rather than argued. It enters through the 'WHAT is modeled' argument in §1 and is built into §2, where interoperability is effectively defined through ontology-style semantic alignment along the three axes. However, §5 itself acknowledges that ontology tools are not natively integrated with simulation engines and that semantic alignment in practice is non-trivial. The manuscript does not address the possibility that non-semantic barriers—tool coupling, execution semantics, data-format conversion, or performance—might dominate interoperability effort in hybrid M&S. A concrete strengthening would be to discuss or propose a controlled comparison of an ontology-enabled integration against a conventional mediator-based integration on a common task, isolating the contribution of the semantic layer.
[Section 3.3 and §4.1/§4.3] The MS-SDF framework in §3.3 and the sea-level rise use case in §4.1 both draw directly on Tolk et al. (2013), and §4.3 is based on Clemen et al. (2025), work in which the second author is involved. Using these self-cited cases to validate the framework creates a circularity: the framework is claimed to be useful, and the main evidence of its usefulness comes from studies that presuppose it. The external cases in §4.2 and §4.4 mitigate this concern, but the manuscript should explicitly classify the self-cited examples as the authors' prior work and state that they are existence proofs rather than independent validation. This would also make the degree of independent support for the central claim more transparent.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.3] Figure 1 is referenced ('as shown in Figure 1'), but no figure content appears in this preprint; the camera-ready version should include the diagram, since the seven steps are central to the argument being made.
[Section 4.1] The passage 'Thehybridsimulationwasthendevelopedusingthealignedreferentialontologiestoderivetheconceptualmodel' is missing spaces and should read 'The hybrid simulation was then developed using the aligned referential ontologies to derive the conceptual model'.
[References] The reference 'Natasha Noy and Alan Rector 2006, April' is inconsistent with the citation style used elsewhere; in the text the authors are referred to by first names and the year, but the reference list entry should follow the same format as the other entries.
[Section 2] The sentence 'Despite the importance of interoperability, the term itself is highly ambiguous' is followed by a long list of citations without a synthesis; consider briefly stating which dimensions of ambiguity are most relevant to hybrid M&S, so the subsequent three-axis distinction is better motivated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an advocacy/overview whose self-cited examples and framework are not used to force the central claim by construction.

full rationale

This manuscript is a position/overview paper rather than a derivation. The central claim—that coordinating referential and methodological ontologies supports interpretable, reusable, reliable hybrid simulations—is argued through reasoning about three interoperability axes and illustrated with four application cases. No equation, fitted parameter, or quantitative prediction is present, so there is no input-output relation that could reduce to itself by construction. The methodological/referential distinction is attributed to Hofmann et al. (2011), an independent source, and the case-study evidence includes external work (Jurasky et al. 2021; Teng et al. 2025; Bullock et al. 2023). Several citations are to the authors' own prior publications (Tolk et al. 2012, 2013, 2018, 2021; Beverley et al. 2024; Jensen et al. 2024), and the MS-SDF framework and two of the four examples originate in that prior work. However, those citations are used to attribute provenance and to summarize previously published applications; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem, nor does the paper define its outcome in terms of its self-cited inputs. The absence of baseline comparisons or controlled experiments is a genuine evidentiary limitation, but per the review rules that is a correctness/evidence concern, not circularity. The paper thus receives a low score reflecting non-load-bearing self-citation, not a finding of circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no free parameters or invented entities because the paper introduces no new numerical model, particle, force, or entity. Its claims rest on domain assumptions, mostly inherited from the authors' earlier work and from the cited literature.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ontologies are controlled vocabularies representing entities in a domain and logical relationships among them.
Invoked in Section 1 as the foundation for semantic rigor; if ontologies could not represent domain knowledge, the paper's thesis fails.
domain assumption Interoperability decomposes cleanly into Human-Human, Human-Machine, and Machine-Machine axes.
Section 2 uses this tripartite decomposition as the organizing framework; if the axes are not exhaustive or independent, the mapping argument weakens.
domain assumption Methodological ontologies (how to model) and referential ontologies (what is modeled) are complementary and jointly sufficient for hybrid M&S semantics.
Section 3 builds the entire framework on this Hofmann et al. distinction; no proof of sufficiency is provided.
domain assumption A layered strategy of top-level, mid-level, and domain ontologies preserves semantic coherence while supporting reuse.
Sections 2 and 5 rely on layering, with BFO and CCO as examples, to guarantee interoperability; empirical support is only referenced, not demonstrated.
domain assumption OWL2, SWRL, and SHACL are expressive and tractable enough to model hybrid simulation semantics and to execute simulation logic.
Sections 2 and 4.4 assume these standards can carry simulation logic, such as the SWRL attack rule; Section 5 concedes tool integration is lacking.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXYQEVZQ

@misc{pith2026250612290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXYQEVZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12290}
}

read the original abstract

We explore the role of ontologies in enhancing hybrid modeling and simulation through improved semantic rigor, model reusability, and interoperability across systems, disciplines, and tools. By distinguishing between methodological and referential ontologies, we demonstrate how these complementary approaches address interoperability challenges along three axes: Human-Human, Human-Machine, and Machine-Machine. Techniques such as competency questions, ontology design patterns, and layered strategies are highlighted for promoting shared understanding and formal precision. Integrating ontologies with Semantic Web Technologies, we showcase their dual role as descriptive domain representations and prescriptive guides for simulation construction. Four application cases - sea-level rise analysis, Industry 4.0 modeling, artificial societies for policy support, and cyber threat evaluation - illustrate the practical benefits of ontology-driven hybrid simulation workflows. We conclude by discussing challenges and opportunities in ontology-based hybrid M&S, including tool integration, semantic alignment, and support for explainable AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings ONTOLOGY ENABLED HYBRID MODELING AND SIMULATION John Beverley1 and Andreas Tolk2 1Dept. of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY , USA Orcid: 0000-0002-1118-1738 2The MITRE Corporation, Charlottesville, V A, USA Orcid: 0000-0002-4201-8757 ABSTRACT We explore the role ...

work page 2025
[2]

Establish Assumptions/Constraints: Represent stakeholder assumptions as explicit statements that can be evaluated as true/false, in the ontology (Human-Machine). Iterate through these assumptions, determining which to keep and which to discard, using a process to navigate the insight space for interdisciplinary teams (Shults and Wildman 2020). The result ...

work page 2020
[7]

Validation relates the simulation to the conceptual model, modeling question, reference model, and the assumptions as axioms, captured in the referential ontology

Verification and Validation: Verification and validation become unified. Validation relates the simulation to the conceptual model, modeling question, reference model, and the assumptions as axioms, captured in the referential ontology. Verification examines relationships between these elements using the methodological ontology, where model checking tools...

work page 2012
[11]

4.3 Use Case: Artificial Societies for Policy Support The third example uses artificial societies to provide a variety of options for better policy support (Clemen et al

describes the simulation ontology in detail and even provides access to the online version provided as a data annex by the publisher. 4.3 Use Case: Artificial Societies for Policy Support The third example uses artificial societies to provide a variety of options for better policy support (Clemen et al. 2025). Artificial societies extend the agent metapho...

work page 2025
[13]

While many current publications focus on the use of LLMs to construct ontologies, the idea to use ontologies to inform LLMs better is a topic of growing interest

that can be facilitated by ontologies is the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) with focus on Large Language Models (LLM) to provide a language for the agents, but also to improve their behavior and other aspects of the artificial society, particularly when used as a societal digital twin. While many current publications focus on the use of LL...

work page 2023
[14]

2020), and aligning with the goals of D3FEND (Kaloroumakis and Smith

and CAPEC (Strom et al. 2020), and aligning with the goals of D3FEND (Kaloroumakis and Smith

work page 2020
[15]

for defense-centric modeling, they construct a multi-layered ontology that represents attackers, methods, vulnerabilities, and impacts in a unified semantic model. At its core, OntoCPS4PMS combines static knowledge representation and dynamic inference by modeling entities and their interrelations across five dimensions: Attacker, Attack Method, Target, Im...

work page 2004
[17]

Technical report, Univeristy of Helsinki, InterOP Network of Excellence-Contract no.: IST-508

“State-of-the Art for Interoperability Architecture Approaches—Model Driven and Dynamic, Federated Enterprise Interoperability PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings Architectures and Interoperability for Non-Functional Aspects”. Technical report, Univeristy of Helsinki, InterOP Network of Excellence-Contract no.: I...

work page 2025

Show all 45 references

[21]

Creating artificial societies for policy decision support: a research agenda and call to action

“Creating artificial societies for policy decision support: a research agenda and call to action”. Simulation 101(6):645–660 https://doi.org/10.1177/00375497241295765. Curts, R., and D. Campbell

doi
[22]

Ontologies for modeling and simulation: issues and approaches

“Ontologies for modeling and simulation: issues and approaches”. In Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 259–264. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2004.1371324. Ford, T. C., J. M. Colombi, S. R. Graham, and D. R. Jacques

2004 arXiv
[24]

Epistemic and normative aspects of ontologies in modelling and simulation

“Epistemic and normative aspects of ontologies in modelling and simulation”. Journal of Simulation 5(3):135–146 https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2011.13. Horrocks, I., P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, M. Dean et al

2011 doi
[25]

The Common Core Ontologies

“The Common Core Ontologies”. ArXiv abs/2404.17758. Jurasky, W., P. Moder, M. Milde, H. Ehm, and G. Reinhart

arXiv
[26]

Transformation of semantic knowledge into simulation-based decision support

“Transformation of semantic knowledge into simulation-based decision support”. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 71:102174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102174. Kaloroumakis, P. E., and M. J. Smith

2021
[28]

Ontologies and simulation: a practical approach

“Ontologies and simulation: a practical approach”. Journal of Simulation 5(3):190–201 https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2011.3. Mustafee, N., S. Brailsford, A. Djanatliev, T. Eldabi, M. Kunc, and A. Tolk

2011 doi
[29]

Purpose and benefits of hybrid simulation: contributing to the convergence of its definition

“Purpose and benefits of hybrid simulation: contributing to the convergence of its definition”. In Proceedings of the 2017 winter simulation conference, 1631–1645. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2017.8247903. Neuhaus, F

2017
[30]

Ontologies in the era of large language models -– a perspective

“Ontologies in the era of large language models -– a perspective”. Applied Ontology 18(4):399–407 https: //doi.org/10.3233/AO-230072. PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings Neuhaus, F., and J. Hastings

2025 doi
[32]

BFO: Basic formal ontology

“BFO: Basic formal ontology”. Applied Ontology 17(1):17–43 https: //doi.org/10.3233/AO-220262. Pease, A., and C. Benzmueller

doi
[33]

A semantic approach to mapping the Provenance Ontology to Basic Formal Ontology

“A semantic approach to mapping the Provenance Ontology to Basic Formal Ontology”. Scientific Data 12:282 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04580-1. Rabe, M., and P. Gocev

doi
[35]

Hybrid conceptual modeling for simulation: an ontology approach during COVID-19

“Hybrid conceptual modeling for simulation: an ontology approach during COVID-19”. In Proceedings of the 2021 Winter Simulation Conference: IEEE Press https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC52266.2021.9715298. Shearer, R., B. Motik, and I. Horrocks

2021
[36]

Human simulation and sustainability: Ontological, epistemological, and ethical reflections

“Human simulation and sustainability: Ontological, epistemological, and ethical reflections”. Sustainability 12(23):10039 https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310039. Silver, G. A., J. A. Miller, M. Hybinette, G. Baramidze, and W. S. York

doi
[37]

DeMO: An ontology for discrete-event modeling and simulation

“DeMO: An ontology for discrete-event modeling and simulation”. Simulation 87(9):747–773 https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/0037549710386843. Sirin, E., B. Parsia, B. C. Grau, A. Kalyanpur, and Y . Katz

doi
[38]

The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration

“The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration”. Nature Biotechnology 25(11):1251–1255 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1346. Strom, B. E., A. Applebaum, D. Miller, K. C. Nickels, A. G. Pennington, and C. Thomas

doi
[40]

The Elusiveness of Simulation Interoperability—What is Different from other Interoperability Domains?

“The Elusiveness of Simulation Interoperability—What is Different from other Interoperability Domains?”. In Proceedings of the 2018 Winter Simulation Conference, 679–690. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2018.8632363. Tolk, A., S. Y. Diallo, J. J. Padilla, and H. Herencia-Zapana

2018
[41]

Reference modelling in support of M&S—foundations and applications

“Reference modelling in support of M&S—foundations and applications”. Journal of Simulation 7(2):69–82 https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2013.3. Tolk, A., S. Y. Diallo, J. J. Padilla, and C. D. Turnitsa

2013 doi
[42]

Hybrid models as transdisciplinary research enablers

“Hybrid models as transdisciplinary research enablers”. European Journal of Operational Research 291(3):1075–1090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.10.010. Vanamala, M., J. Gilmore, X. Yuan, and K. Roy

2020 doi
[43]

Recommending Attack Patterns for Software Requirements Document

“Recommending Attack Patterns for Software Requirements Document”. 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI):1813–1818. W3C

2020
[45]

Using meta-level ontology relations to measure conceptual alignment and interoperability of simulation models

“Using meta-level ontology relations to measure conceptual alignment and interoperability of simulation models”. In Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, 1090–1099. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2007.4419708. DISCLAIMER This preprint has been accepted for pr...

2007
[1996]

Interoperability

“Interoperability”. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 28(1):285–287. PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings Yilmaz, L

2025
[2004]

2018), enabling machines to parse, validate, and enforce simulation PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings specifications

and the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) (Gayo et al. 2018), enabling machines to parse, validate, and enforce simulation PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings specifications. For example, they may specify which components are mandato...

2018
[2007]

2022), to defense and intelligence (Wade and Martell 2024)

and industrial manufacturing (Drobnjakovic et al. 2022), to defense and intelligence (Wade and Martell 2024). Here we provide examples of modern ontological techniques used to support the unambiguous representation of methodological and referential aspects of hybrid M&S. In do...

2022
[2008]

and Pellet (Sirin et al. 2007). The third axis – Machine–Machine Interoperability – focuses on enabling autonomous systems to exchange, interpret, and reason over information without human intervention. Whereas Human–Human and Human–Machine Interoperability deal with aligning ...

2007
[2011]

Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the standardization of ontology development, computational support, and deployment strategies

which introduces the idea of separating between methodological and referential ontologies to address both aspects of conceptualization of the problem and implementation of these concepts as a computer simulation. Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the stan...

2024
[2012]

Applying Semantic Web technologies for efficient preparation of simulation studies in manufacturing

“Applying Semantic Web technologies for efficient preparation of simulation studies in manufacturing”. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, a259. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2012. 6465185. Saleh, N., D. Bell, and Z. Sulaiman

2012 doi
[2013]

Interoperability, composability, and their implications for distributed simulation: Towards mathematical foundations of simulation interoperability

“Interoperability, composability, and their implications for distributed simulation: Towards mathematical foundations of simulation interoperability”. In 2013 IEEE/ACM 17th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications, 3–9. IEEE https://doi.org/...

2013 doi
[2014]

Multi-method modelling: AnyLogic

“Multi-method modelling: AnyLogic”. In Discrete-event simulation and system dynamics for management decision making, 248–279. Wiley Online Library https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762745.ch12. Bullock, J., J. E. Lane, I. Mikloušic, and F. L. Shults

doi
[2015]

Fishwick and Miller (2004) are among the first to show possible applications of ontology methods

– in support of M&S is not a new topic. Fishwick and Miller (2004) are among the first to show possible applications of ontology methods. Their main focus was to describe the simulation part, and how to capture the many aspects of developing a simulation and applying it. A mor...

2004
[2017]

Cambridge University Press https: //doi.org/10.1017/9781139025355

An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press https: //doi.org/10.1017/9781139025355. Berre, A.-J., A. Hahn, D. Akehurst, J. Bézivin, A. Tsalgatidou, F. Vermaut, et al

doi
[2018]

In Validating RDF Data, Synthesis Lectures on Data, Semantics, and Knowledge

“SHACL”. In Validating RDF Data, Synthesis Lectures on Data, Semantics, and Knowledge. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79478-0_5. Hofmann, M., J. Palii, and G. Mihelcic

doi
[2019]

Ontologies for Industry 4.0

“Ontologies for Industry 4.0”. The Knowledge Engineering Review 34:e17 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888919000109. McGinnis, L. F., E. Huang, K. S. Kwon, and V . Ustun

doi
[2020]

Which resources are assigned to emergency zones after a flood event?

and ontology design patterns (Carriero 2024). Competency questions are natural language prompts that reflect questions an ontology should be designed to answer, serving both as requirements and for validation. For example, in a logistics-focused simulation, a competency questi...

2024
[2021]

as necessarily having material parts from domain ontologies that represent targets more flexibly, by encoding these semantic differences explicitly, even if the same label

– demonstrate this function by enabling automated translation from conceptual design to executable simulation artifacts across modeling paradigms. In each case, the methodological ontology serves as more than a descriptive vocabulary: it is a normative artifact that defines ho...

2013
[2022]

Ontology development is consensus creation, not (merely) representation

“Ontology development is consensus creation, not (merely) representation”. Applied Ontology 17(4):495–513 https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220273. Natasha Noy and Alan Rector 2006, April. “Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web”. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Group Note. ...

2006 doi
[2023]

Modeling nationalism, religiosity, and threat perception: During´ the COVID-19 pandemic

“Modeling nationalism, religiosity, and threat perception: During´ the COVID-19 pandemic”. Plos one 18(4):e0281002 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281002. Carriero, V . A

doi
[2024]

Middle architecture criteria

“Middle architecture criteria”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17757. Borshchev, A

arXiv
[2025]

is the need to exchange information between real world observations, artificial societies, and vice versa, enabling a social digital twin that observes the real world state, instantiates the elements of the artificial society, then provides services to the decision makers with...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings ONTOLOGY ENABLED HYBRID MODELING AND SIMULATION John Beverley1 and Andreas Tolk2 1Dept. of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY , USA Orcid: 0000-0002-1118-1738 2The MITRE Corporation, Charlottesville, V A, USA Orcid: 0000-0002-4201-8757 ABSTRACT We explore the role ...

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Establish Assumptions/Constraints: Represent stakeholder assumptions as explicit statements that can be evaluated as true/false, in the ontology (Human-Machine). Iterate through these assumptions, determining which to keep and which to discard, using a process to navigate the insight space for interdisciplinary teams (Shults and Wildman 2020). The result ...

work page 2020

[3] [7]

Validation relates the simulation to the conceptual model, modeling question, reference model, and the assumptions as axioms, captured in the referential ontology

Verification and Validation: Verification and validation become unified. Validation relates the simulation to the conceptual model, modeling question, reference model, and the assumptions as axioms, captured in the referential ontology. Verification examines relationships between these elements using the methodological ontology, where model checking tools...

work page 2012

[4] [11]

4.3 Use Case: Artificial Societies for Policy Support The third example uses artificial societies to provide a variety of options for better policy support (Clemen et al

describes the simulation ontology in detail and even provides access to the online version provided as a data annex by the publisher. 4.3 Use Case: Artificial Societies for Policy Support The third example uses artificial societies to provide a variety of options for better policy support (Clemen et al. 2025). Artificial societies extend the agent metapho...

work page 2025

[5] [13]

While many current publications focus on the use of LLMs to construct ontologies, the idea to use ontologies to inform LLMs better is a topic of growing interest

that can be facilitated by ontologies is the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) with focus on Large Language Models (LLM) to provide a language for the agents, but also to improve their behavior and other aspects of the artificial society, particularly when used as a societal digital twin. While many current publications focus on the use of LL...

work page 2023

[6] [14]

2020), and aligning with the goals of D3FEND (Kaloroumakis and Smith

and CAPEC (Strom et al. 2020), and aligning with the goals of D3FEND (Kaloroumakis and Smith

work page 2020

[7] [15]

for defense-centric modeling, they construct a multi-layered ontology that represents attackers, methods, vulnerabilities, and impacts in a unified semantic model. At its core, OntoCPS4PMS combines static knowledge representation and dynamic inference by modeling entities and their interrelations across five dimensions: Attacker, Attack Method, Target, Im...

work page 2004

[8] [17]

Technical report, Univeristy of Helsinki, InterOP Network of Excellence-Contract no.: IST-508

“State-of-the Art for Interoperability Architecture Approaches—Model Driven and Dynamic, Federated Enterprise Interoperability PREPRINT – To Be Published in the 2025 Winter Simula=on Conference Proceedings Architectures and Interoperability for Non-Functional Aspects”. Technical report, Univeristy of Helsinki, InterOP Network of Excellence-Contract no.: I...

work page 2025