This model is an extension of Wilensky’s (2003) Traffic Grid, a foundational NetLogo model of urban traffic flow. It embeds a dual-process cognitive architecture into each driver agent, transforming the original’s identical reactive units into cognitively heterogeneous individuals whose internal mental state evolves with experience; making the same intersection produce different decisions from different drivers, and different decisions from the same driver across occasions.
The core question the model addresses is the yellow-light dilemma zone: the seconds following amber onset in which a driver can neither stop safely nor clear the intersection before red. Field research documents that behavioral variance at this moment cannot be explained by geometry or legal obligation alone. This model provides the cognitive architecture that has been missing from traffic ABMs.
Each driver routes every amber-onset decision through either System 1 (fast, heuristic, automatic) or System 2 (slow, deliberative, prospect-theoretic), switching dynamically based on cognitive load, accumulated near-miss memory, and situational framing. The result is crash outcomes that are attributable, path-dependent, and sensitive to both driver disposition and signal infrastructure; none of which fixed-rule models can reproduce. Three signal control modes are included: fixed-cycle (replicating Wilensky’s original), adaptive-queue, and smart occupancy-based switching.

LethalGeometry was developed to examine whether territory size influences the mortality risk for individuals within that territory. For animals who live in territoral groups and are lethally aggressive, we can expect that most aggression occurs along the periphery (or border) between two adjacent territories. For territories that are relatively large, the periphery makes up a proportionately small amount of the of the total territory size, suggesting that individuals in these territories might be less likely to die from these territorial skirmishes. LethalGeometry examines this geometric relationship between territory size and mortality risk under realistic assumptions of variable territory size and shape, variable border width, and stochastic interactions and movement.

The individuals (agents) are programmed to walk randomly about their environment, search for and eat food to obtain energy, reproduce if they can, and act aggressively toward individuals of other groups. During each simulation step, individuals analyze their environment and internal state to determine which actions to take. The actions available to individuals include moving, fighting, and giving birth.