MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088015348 · doi:10.1021/ie030534j

Identifiability of Linear Time-Invariant Differential-Algebraic Systems. 2. The Differential-Algebraic Approach

2004· article· en· W2088015348 on OpenAlexaff
Amos Ben‐Zvi, P. James McLellan, Kimberley B. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModeling and Simulation Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifiabilityLTI system theoryMathematicsRealization (probability)Applied mathematicsRepresentation (politics)Algebraic numberInvariant (physics)Linear systemDifferential algebraDifferential equationDifferential (mechanical device)Set (abstract data type)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mathematical model is identifiable if and only if there is a unique relationship between each parameter value and the input−output behavior of the model. If a model is not identifiable, there is no unique solution to the parameter estimation problem, regardless of the number and type of experiments that are performed. A method for testing the identifiability of linear time-invariant (LTI) differential-algebraic equation (DAE) systems, based on differential algebra, is presented. In the proposed approach, the LTI DAE system is treated as a set of linear mappings in the input, output, and state variables. The proposed treatment allows the input−output representation of the system to be obtained by combining and differentiating elements of this set. The identifiability of the system is tested by checking whether the relationship between the model parameters and the coefficients in the input−output representation of the system is one-to-one. One benefit of the proposed method is that it readily produces a simplified realization of the system that is identifiable even when the original LTI DAE model is not identifiable. Necessary and sufficient conditions for local and global identifiability are presented, and the application of the proposed method is illustrated using a simplified gas-phase reaction model.

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)0.014
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicModeling and Simulation SystemsFrench-language works237,207