Simulation Modelling of Group Dynamics
Chandraneil Basa
31746985
University of Southampton, UK
cb1e20@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
The research paper delves at two different approaches
to tackling a simulation modelling problem about how stu-
dents choose and modify techniques over certain time pe-
riod, as well as an approach to potential extension to the
discussion. The very first approach examines into using
differential equations to predict changes in student dynam-
ics. The second strategy looks into using agent-based mod-
elling. The outcomes of both methods are reviewed and
cross-referenced.
1. Introduction
Evolutionary game theoretic models were used to exam-
ine how populations of biological sentient creatures evolved
by adapting and pursuing diverse strategies, making evo-
lutionary game theory an important component of biology.
What distinguishes evolutionary game theory from classical
game theory is that strategies adapt, and it also attempts to
determine which strategies are the most efficient. The sub-
ject addressed in this study is an evolutionary game theory
problem in which an initial student population attempts to
complete assignments in clusters of n students. Individuals
must elect between two tactics at the start of each course:
”H” hard worker or ”L” lazy worker.The following is how
students’ grades are calculated based on their total collabo-
rative effort:
e=h∗H +l∗L (1)
where, e: Total Collective Effort
h: Group’s number of hard workers
l: Total number of freeloaders in the group
H: Effort expended as a hard worker
L: Effort expended as a freeloader.
By dividing the entire group collaborative effort by the n
number of participants in the classroom, all students in the
group receive the same grade.
m = e/n (2)
1
By comparing a metric provided in Equation 3 with another
random student, students adjust their approach for the next
semester. If the selected student’s performance measure is
higher than the student’s current measure, the student imi-
tates that student’s method.
π =m−a∗s (3)
where, m = the student’s grade
a = Initially selected parameter
S = S=H or S=L, Depending on the strategy
The following are the primary questions to be answered
for this problem:
• What would the demographic distribution be in the
long-term run?
• How long does it take to reach stable equilibrium?
• How much would the following variables affect the
outcome:
– Demographics of the population
– Group size (n)
– Cost of effort (a)
– Types of workers’ contributions to joint effort (H,
and L)
The remainder of the report is organized in the following
manner: Section 2 provides demonstration about how to de-
scribe this problem using differential equations and how to
solve it by both analytically and mathematically. The im-
plementation of an agent-based simulation that replicates
the constraints and interactions depicted in the definition of
the problem is specified in Section 3. Section 4 presents
a modification with an possible extension to the problem
and investigates how this modification will impact the solu-
tions. The discoveries of the generated simulated scenarios
and the obstacles of applying them are discussed in Section
5.
2. Methods be used to explain this. As a result, for n = 2 and γ= 3, the
following matrix describes the distributions of techniques
2.1. DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS MOD- used by students in each group type:
ELLING
   
Let M = H, L, to be the set of strategies that students PH(H,H) PH(L,L) PH(H,L) 2/2 0/2 1/2
=
can select from each course. We define xi where i ∈ M , to PL(H,H) PL(L,L) PL(H,L) 0/2 2/2 1/2
be the proportion of students following strategy i. We can (6)
say that the rate of change of population xi with respect to The population state is expressed as the ratio of strategies
time t equals the outflow of students converting from strat- at a given moment in time, where x ∈ ∆m , ∆m = xH , xL ,
egy Xi plus the inflow of students converting from the other where XH and XL are the distributions of students who
strategy to strategy xi . So to model this problem we need follow strategy H and L, respectively. A crucial phrase to
two differential equations, one for each strategy. The first understand is group state, which is defined as z ∈ ∆γ where
simple equation to describe this is: zg represents the fraction of groups of type g. A matching
rule function, f : ∆m → ∆γ , is defined to link the popula-
∂xi tion state with the group state at a given moment.
= −Inf low + Outf low (4)
∂t X
Equation 4 behaves similarly to the generic replication xi = Pig ∗ fg (x) (7)
equation described in 5 for an evolutionary demographic g∈G

scenario, in which a participant’s payoff has an effect on

Finally, wig (x) represents the likelihood that a student of
how the populace will resemble in the next semester, and
type i belongs to the type g group.
this is fully implemented by replicator dynamics based only P ∗f (x)
on moderated payoff. wig (x) = ig xig

∂xi 2.1.2 Group Payoffs

= xi (πi − π̄) (5)
∂t
The matrix A ∈ Rn∗γ describes the payment that students
where, πi = i Strategy’s payoff receive for being in a certain group, where Aig is the pay-
π̄= The population’s average payout out for a student adopting strategy i in group type g. For
The key distinction observed is the payoff’s fluctuating instance:
over time depending on the membership configuration of AH(H,H) = m − 12 = ne − 12 = nh − 12 = 22 − 21 = 12
the groups. This section will examine and see how we might We may improve the chances of that student being in that
include it into the basic replicator equation. group by the total payout for a student adopting method i in
a group type g and get the following:
2.1.1 Groups Formation X
Fi (x) = ig (x) ∗ Aig (8)
Individuals are randomly randomised into groups of size w
n at the start of each course, as previously outlined. The
payout that each student can obtain is determined by the Assuming students are placed in clusters at random, the
composition of students in the groups, and the aggregate uniformly random pairing criteria for n = 2 is as follows:
performance of the population determines how the percent-
age of students changes in the following course, according f(2,0) (XH , XL ) = Xh2 (9)
to the replicator equation. The method used to calculate
f(1,1) (XH , XL ) = 2 ∗ Xh ∗ XL (10)
the changing group fitness over time was inspired by the
work of Jensen et al, in his research Evolutionary games f(0,2) (XH , XL ) = XL2 (11)
and matching rules.
The set of n students in a group is specified as a group
2.1.3 Model Dynamics
type, where gi is a member of group g who is following
strategy i which is either H or L. Depending on the number Since the structure of groups and student payoffs change
of iterations, a student types can evolve in a group of size n and evolve with time, several of the equations developed in
with two methods is defined as γ= (n+2−1)!
n! . For example, earlier phases must be updated. The population configura-
we have γ value as for n = 2, This implies we have three tion at time t is specified as x t, which is then translated
different sorts of groupings: ”H,H,” ”L,L,” and ”H,L,” re- to the distribution of group types using the matching rules
spectively. Pig = gi /n denotes the percentage of students of function f (x )t. Equation 8 becomes as follows under these
class i in group type g. The matrix P ∈Rmγ might likewise conditions:

2
 X grows when a strategy payout exceeds the average payoff
FiA,f (xt ) = wig (x) ∗ Aig (12)
g∈G
The average return on invested payback period for both
techniques is as follows:
A,f
2
X values of group size n ¿ 2. Figure 2 depicts this behaviour.
F (xt ) = xti ∗ FiA,f (xt ) (13)
i=1
When the payoffs of the student groupings are entered
into the replicator Equation 5, the following two expres-
sions explain the rate of fluctuations of the hard and lazy
worker populations over time:
∂xH A,f A,f
= xtH (FH (xt ) − F (xt )) (14)
∂t
∂xL A,f
= xtL (FLA,f (xt ) − F (xt )) (15)
∂t
These equations work for any group size value n number,
but the matching function f must be adjusted to account for
the change in students’ constitution with in the group.
3. AGENT-BASED MODELLING
Modelling the problem was considerably easier to ex-
ecute using an agent-based approach. It was built from
the initial scratch concept using the Python programming
software. To construct the simulation of this situation, two
classes were required. The first class (Agent) is associated
with the student and contains data which include the agent
strategies (hard or lazy worker), the student’s grade, and fi-
nal payoff performance. Switching techniques, as well as
establishing and measuring the student’s performance, re-
quired many approaches. The second class (Group) kept
track of which agents were assigned to which groups. The
approaches involved estimating the collective effort and
then determining the appropriate performance metric for
each agent.The following processes were implemented in
each simulated virtual environment runs: first, agents were
selected at random to be assigned groups based on the group
size n. Then every group’s payoff exertion was evaluated,
and each student’s grade and performance were recorded.
Afterwards when agents conducted a random piece-wise
pairing interaction with several other agents in which they
compared their performance evaluation measurements and
only tried switching strategies with the probability of 50%
if the resulting payoff of theirs was inferior than the other
comparing agent. To begin with the experimentation, The
population was initially divided in 50%, among which Half
were dedicated workers, while the other half were freeload-
ers.
The findings acquired using this method reflected the
replicator equation’s behaviour, in which a population
3
of the two populations, and decreases when the converse is
true. In accordance w ith the earliest circumstances stated
in the original problem, lethargic workers students dom-
inated the population after a reasonably small number of
runs which was approximately around 40 iterations for all
In the fourty fourth run, 74 percent of the population were
sluggish employees, while just 26% were dedicated work-
ers. The proportions of the population fluctuated for a long
time in group size n = 2, but after running it more than
25,000 times, it ultimately obtained the same outcome as
previously, where lethargic workers dominated the popula-
tion. I suppose the explanation for this is because groups
of two with two lazy employees have a measure of zero,
and if the population is made up of such group formations,
lazy workers will always have a lower measure than other
hard workers. This will only change if a specific amount of
group types comprising hard and lazy employees are em-
ployed to map the population, causing the lazy workers to
have a value greater than zero.
When the value was growing towards 1, the cost of ef-
fort (a) with group size n ¿ 2 had no effect. When the value
falls below a particular threshold, (a 0.24), the proportions
reverse, and hard workers take over the population. Modi-
fying the effort of being a hard or lazy worker (H,L), with
group size n > 2, lazy workers always ended up taking the
whole population as long as L is smaller than H. The pro-
portions are inverted when L ¿ H, and hard workers take
over the population. When H and L have the same cost, the
population will remain the same and will not change.
4. Problem Expansion
Whenever a simulation is performed for a long stretch of
time period, lethargic employees will dominate the popula-
tion, as can be seen in Agent-based modelling solution. This
means that students will never be capable of passing a cur-
riculum again in the future. The alteration recommended in
this study is that students will remember their previous run’s
mark which they scored, and if it was not a passing mark
(below 0.5), they will switch strategies 50% of the time.
Similarly to the prior challenge, group sizes of 2 behaved
differently than those with the values greater than 2. For n
¿ 2, this solution resulted in a more evenly distributed per-
centage of hard and lazy employees throughout time, with
a trend to have more hard workers in the end.
Figure 4 demonstrates how the population of sluggish
employees becomes extinct when the group size is n = 2.
Both simulation computations were repeated 1000 folds
with a demographic community of 10,000 students and in-
deed with the identical baseline parameters as the original
challenge. Only the agent-based model continued to ob-
tain updates with an the extension. It was unclear how
this new behaviour might be reflected on its performance
in the differential Equations 14,and 15. In the agent-based
method, however, this was quite simple to implement be-
cause the state of the previous run can be simply preserved
and verified when constructing new groups in the following
run.This new modified extension is more in accordance with
how students actually behave when faced with the choice
of working hard or slacking behind, as most students will
base their decision on their previous grades, hoping to avoid
making the same mistakes by switching to a hard worker
strategy and securing a higher grade.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, it was clear that the agent-based method
was far easier to model and execute than working out the
model’s differential equations. Both procedures are ob-
served to provide considerably similar results, especially
when the simulation is conducted for a long enough period.
Modifying and expanding the agent-based technique is eas-
ier, and it allows you to consider additional circumstances,
which allows you to better represent real-world behaviours.

6. Future Scope
References
[1] R. F. Antonio Torralba and W. T. Freeman, “Computer
science and artificial intelligence laboratory technical
report,” CSAIL, 2007.

[2] G. Amato and F. Falchi, “Knn based image classifica-

tion relying on local feature similarity,” 01 2010, pp.
101–108.
[3] H. Le, T. Le, S. Tran, H. Tran, and N. Thuy, “Image
classification using support vector machine and artifi-
cial neural network,” 05 2012.
[4] A. Karim and R. Sameer, “Image classification using
bag of visual words (bovw),” pp. 76–82, 12 2018.
[5] T. D. Science.