Theory development definition. What is very clear that theory is a container concept and is used for a lot of science activities with varying object, scope, testable/tested etc. This diversity or ambiguity of the word led to a discussion in which a wide variety was advocated for to make this container more clear by advocating for anything within the range of:  <not using the word -to- an intens need for deciding on a definition>. It was my impression that theory building was by most considered to be work on a generalor abstract theory.

Usefulness of ABM in science. Discussions often converged around what would make ABM more useful in science. Going to a more deeper issue in agent-based modelling as the method is not always easily accepted within disciplines for a variety of reasons. So many sub-discussions led to the need for clarity, transparency of model communication, the use of models and how it should be evaluated or validated. How much guidelines are needed but also when there are guidelines how much should they be forced to followed. Theory building in that case an very relevant means for making ABM’s contributions in science.

Model Myth busting. The invited speakers were all carefully selected and often had very though and discussion provoking talks. I particularly would like the highlight the talk by ‘Eckhart Arnold, Research without a cause: When models fail to be relevant’.He was very good in stressing how some general and famous models (e.g. by Axelrod and Schelling) that keep on being used while they fail to capture relevant aspects of the subject that they were meant to model. It was a proper mirror to our practices, how we stay unaware or maybe even ignore new evidence. Refining the discusion of usefulness, because a model may have been useful but should stop being used when proven not to be anymore. It was intriguing to observe the responses and may me wonder how active and brave we scientist/modellers are in our work to re-evaluate our models (sometimes almost being like our lovers).