A clear definition of system dynamics modeling can provide shared understanding and clarify the impact of the field. We introduce a set of characteristics that define quantitative system dynamics, selected to capture core philosophy, describe theoretical and practical principles, and apply to historical work but be flexible enough to remain relevant as the field progresses. The defining characteristics are: (1) models are based on causal feedback structure, (2) accumulations and delays are foundational, (3) models are equation‐based, (4) concept of time is continuous, and (5) analysis focuses on feedback dynamics. We discuss the implications of these principles and use them to identify research opportunities in which the system dynamics field can advance. These research opportunities include causality, disaggregation, data science and AI, and contributing to scientific advancement. Progress in these areas has the potential to improve both the science and practice of system dynamics. © 2024 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Measures of simulation model complexity generally focus on outputs; we propose measuring the complexity of a model’s causal structure to gain insight into its fundamental character. This article introduces tools for measuring causal complexity. First, we introduce a method for developing a model’s causal structure diagram, which characterises the causal interactions present in the code. Causal structure diagrams facilitate comparison of simulation models, including those from different paradigms. Next, we develop metrics for evaluating a model’s causal complexity using its causal structure diagram. We discuss cyclomatic complexity as a measure of the intricacy of causal structure and introduce two new metrics that incorporate the concept of feedback, a fundamental component of causal structure. The first new metric introduced here is feedback density, a measure of the cycle-based interconnectedness of causal structure. The second metric combines cyclomatic complexity and feedback density into a comprehensive causal complexity measure. Finally, we demonstrate these complexity metrics on simulation models from multiple paradigms and discuss potential uses and interpretations. These tools enable direct comparison of models across paradigms and provide a mechanism for measuring and discussing complexity based on a model’s fundamental assumptions and design.

Social systems are uniquely complex and difficult to study, but understanding them is vital to solving the world’s problems. The Ground Truth program developed a new way of testing the research methods that attempt to understand and leverage the Human Domain and its associated complexities. The program developed simulations of social systems as virtual world test beds. Not only were these simulations able to produce data on future states of the system under various circumstances and scenarios, but their causal ground truth was also explicitly known. Research teams studied these virtual worlds, facilitating deep validation of causal inference, prediction, and prescription methods. The Ground Truth program model provides a way to test and validate research methods to an extent previously impossible, and to study the intricacies and interactions of different components of research.

A high‐quality simulation model should help its users to easily and appropriately calibrate their trust in the model. Traditional evaluation metrics such as validation and robustness are necessary but insufficient for this task. Trust calibration depends on factors like the model's transparency, applicability to intended use, usability, reputation, and consideration of potential bias. This article proposes a framework for designing and evaluating system dynamics models by considering factors that contribute to the proper calibration of user trust. This framework takes inspiration from trusted artificial intelligence, broadening our traditional concept of model quality and explicitly focusing on what users need to consider a model trustworthy and to understand the model's relevance to its intended purpose. The trusted simulation framework can improve our integration of model quality activities throughout the modeling process, leading to more impactful and better‐targeted model design, development, and evaluation.