MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590918356 · doi:10.5555/3108905.3108912

Hybrid system modelling and simulation with Dirac deltas

2017· article· en· W2590918356 on OpenAlexaff
Cláudio Gomes, Yentl Van Tendeloo, Joachim Denil, Paul De Meulenaere, Hans Vangheluwe

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModeling and Simulation Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImpulse (physics)Block diagramBall (mathematics)Differential equationHybrid systemPhysical systemSimulationApplied mathematicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsEngineeringMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a wide variety of problems, creating detailed continuous models of physical systems is impractical. Hybrid models can abstract away short transient behaviour in order to simplify the study of such systems. For example, when modelling a bouncing ball, the bounce can be abstracted as a discontinuous change of the velocity. Impulsive differential equations can be used to model and simulate hybrid systems such as the bouncing ball. In this approach, the force acted on the ball by the floor is abstracted as an impulse. Current simulators cannot handle such approximations well due to the limitations of machine precision.In this paper, we present two approaches for the simulation of impulses: symbolic and numerical. Our contribution is a theoretically founded description of both approaches in a Causal Block Diagram simulator, and an analysis of the conditions for which a symbolic approach is better than a numerical one.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicModeling and Simulation SystemsFrench-language works237,207