Identifiability of dynamic networks with part of the nodes noise-free
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dynamic network identification a major goal is to uniquely identify the topology and dynamic links between the measured node variables. It is common practice to assume that process noises affect every output in multivariable system identification, and every node in dynamic networks with a full rank noise process. For many practical situations this assumption might be overly strong. This leads to the question of how to handle situations where the process noise is not full rank, i.e. when the number of white noise processes driving the network is strictly smaller than the number of nodes. In this paper a first step towards answering this question is taken by addressing the case of a dynamic network where some nodes are noise-free, and others are disturbed with a (correlated) process noise. In this situation the predictor filters that generate the one-step-ahead prediction of the node signals are non-unique, and the appropriate identification criterion leads to a constrained optimization problem. It is assessed when it is possible to distinguish between models on the basis of this criterion, leading to new notions of network identifiability. It appears that a sufficient condition for network identifiability is that every node signal in the network is excited by an external excitation signal or a process noise signal that is uncorrelated with other node excitations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".