# Experimenting with Agent-Based Model Simulation Tools
## 1 Introduction
[5] presented a concise characterization of all the ABM frameworks and tools existing back then, providing a valuable reference for researchers and developers, and identified future priorities around adopting ABMs platforms. In 2020, [PERSON] et al. [19] recently presented a review of the existing ABM platforms, including active platforms and those no longer under development or unclear status, providing a historical perspective of this domain area. Table 1 compares the existing reviews about ABM tools with our article. Contribution.This paper proposes an overview of the open-source general-purpose ABM tools from the two-fold perspective of their available features and the perceived program \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Year** & **Selection Criteria** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number** \\ **of** \\ **Tools** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Comparison Criteria** \\ **of** \\ **of** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Benchmark** \\ **Experience** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hands-on** \\ **Experience** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [16] & 2006 & Publicly released ABM tools & 4 & \begin{tabular}{c} Agent-related functionalities \\ (e.g., movement, scheduling), \\ scalability, reproducibility \\ \end{tabular} & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [15] & 2010 & Authors’ curated list & 31 & \\ [PERSON] et al. [17] & 2015 & Actively supported ABM tools & 24 & \begin{tabular}{c} Security, performance, user support, \\ scalability, license, learning curve \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [18] & 2016 & \begin{tabular}{c} Parallel and distributed ABM \\ computing tools \\ \end{tabular} & 10 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Agent-related functionalities \\ (e.g., movement, scheduling), \\ reproducibility \\ \end{tabular} & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [5] & 2017 & - & 85 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Programming language, GUI, OS \\ Support, ease of use, scalability, \\ license \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline
**Ours** & 2022 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Open-source actively supported \\ ABM tools, associated with \\ peer-reviewed articles \\ \end{tabular} & 23 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Available features (e.g., visual \\ programming, HPC-related), ease of \\ use, efficiency \\ \end{tabular} & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the existing ABMs reviews. The symbol ”-” means that the authors did not explicitly state any constraints on the ABM tools considered in their review. ming experience. Specifically, we first compare the existing ABM tools based on their characteristics (e.g., programming model, analytical features), ease of use, and efficiency according to their authors and based on the referring peer-reviewed articles, documentation, and websites. Then, we assess the experience of developing and running four ABM models with some available ABM tools. We finally report the obtained performance. Although several works examine existing ABM tools, this article reviews the state of the art from the novel perspective of standing as a guide for newcomers in the world of ABM tools. With this work, we aim to provide the reader with a clear perspective of what each tool can offer, how fast it can be, and the skills required to build and run simulation models.