MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747730049 · doi:10.1115/1.4037630

The Transfer Matrix Metamodel for Dynamic Systems With Arbitrary Time-Variant Inputs

2017· article· en· W2747730049 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon J. Savage, Young Kap Son

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingular value decompositionMatrix (chemical analysis)MetamodelingComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmComputationTransfer matrixControl theory (sociology)Modal matrixState-transition matrixArtificial intelligenceSymmetric matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectorsDiagonalizable matrix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of mapping a vector of input variables (corresponding to discrete samples from a time-varying input) to a vector of output variables (discrete samples of the time-dependent response). This mapping is typically performed by a mechanistic model. However, when the mechanistic model is complex and dynamic, the computational effort to iteratively generate the response for design purposes can be burdensome. Metamodels (or, surrogate models) can be computationally efficient replacements, especially when the input variables have some amplitude and frequency bounds. Herein, a simple metamodel in the form of a transfer matrix is created from a matrix of a few training inputs and a corresponding matrix of matching responses provided by simulations of the dynamic mechanistic model. A least-squares paradigm reveals a simple way to link the input matrix to the columns of the response matrix. Application of singular value decomposition (SVD) introduces significant computational advantages since it provides matrices whose properties give, in an elegant fashion, the transfer matrix. The efficacy of the transfer matrix is shown through an investigation of a nonlinear, underdamped, double mass–spring–damper system. Arbitrary excitations and selected sinusoids are applied to check accuracy, speed and robustness of the methodology. The sources of errors are identified and ways to mitigate them are discussed. When compared to the ubiquitous Kriging approach, the transfer matrix method shows similar accuracy but much reduced computation time.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207