MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544622152 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2003.1272521

Identifiability of linear time-invariant differential-algebraic systems application of differential algebra

2004· article· en· W1544622152 on OpenAlexaff
Amos Ben‐Zvi, P. James McLellan, Kimberley B. McAuley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifiabilityDifferential algebraOdeAlgebraic differential equationLTI system theoryMathematicsNonlinear systemApplied mathematicsDifferential algebraic geometryOrdinary differential equationDifferential algebraic equationAlgebraic numberRealization (probability)Linear systemDifferential equationLinear differential equationDifferential (mechanical device)Algebra over a fieldInvariant (physics)Mathematical analysisPure mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A system is identifiable if and only if the relationship between the parameters and the input-output behaviour of the system is unique. If a system is not identifiable, then accurate parameter estimation is not possible because identical input-output behaviour can be obtained for several values of the parameters. Most identifiability work in the literature has focused on ordinary differential equation (ODE) models. In this work we propose a method for testing linear time-invariant (LTI) differential-algebraic (DAE) systems for identifiability. Our method is computationally efficient, allows the treatment of systems that are nonlinear in the parameters, and allows the construction of an identifiable realization of the system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207