사고실험-시뮬레이션 연계 분석 틀의 제안: 병력 대체 가능성 분석 사례를 중심으로

Abstract

This study proposes an analytical framework that links thought experiments and simulation in military and policy analysis, where direct experimentation is often constrained. Although thought experiments have long been used in such fields, they have generally been treated as intuitive or supplementary reasoning rather than as an explicit analytical stage. To address this limitation, the study redefines the thought experiment as a formal stage within the analytical process and presents a stepwise framework composed of thought experiment, scenario construction, agent-based modeling (ABM), and probabilistic abstraction. In this framework, thought experiments clarify key hypotheses and causal structure, scenarios translate them into analyzable conditions, ABM explores relative performance across conditions, and probabilistic abstraction converts results into a generalized structure for interpretation. As an illustrative case, this study applies the framework to the analysis of personnel substitution potential in manned-unmanned maritime patrol operations. The proposed analytical framework contributes by making explicit the role of thought experiments in simulation-based analysis and by providing a structured basis for linking assumptions, simulation design, and result interpretation.