Systematic Identification of Decoupling in Dynamic System Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a technique to quantitatively and systematically search for decoupling among elements of a dynamic system model, and to partition models in which decoupling is found. The method can validate simplifying assumptions based on decoupling, determine when decoupling breaks down due to changes in system parameters or inputs, and indicate required model changes. A high-fidelity model is first generated using the bond graph formalism. The relative contributions of the terms of the generalized Kirchoff loop and node equations are computed by calculating and comparing a measure of their power flow. Negligible aggregate bond power at a constraint equation node indicates an unnecessary term, which is then removed from the model by replacing the associated bond by a modulated source of generalized effort or flow. If replacement of all low-power bonds creates separate bond graphs that are joined by modulating signals, then the model can be partitioned into driving and driven subsystems. The partitions are smaller than the original model, have lower-dimension design variable vectors, and can be simulated separately or in parallel. The partitioning algorithm can be employed alongside existing automated modeling techniques to facilitate efficient, accurate simulation-based design of dynamic systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".