Co-Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling and simulation techniques are today extensively used both in industry and science. Parts of larger systems are, however, typically modeled and simulated by different techniques, tools, and algorithms. In addition, experts from different disciplines use various modeling and simulation techniques. Both these facts make it difficult to study coupled heterogeneous systems. Co-simulation is an emerging enabling technique, where global simulation of a coupled system can be achieved by composing the simulations of its parts. Due to its potential and interdisciplinary nature, co-simulation is being studied in different disciplines but with limited sharing of findings. In this survey, we study and survey the state-of-the-art techniques for co-simulation, with the goal of enhancing future research and highlighting the main challenges. To study this broad topic, we start by focusing on discrete-event-based co-simulation, followed by continuous-time-based co-simulation. Finally, we explore the interactions between these two paradigms, in hybrid co-simulation. To survey the current techniques, tools, and research challenges, we systematically classify recently published research literature on co-simulation, and summarize it into a taxonomy. As a result, we identify the need for finding generic approaches for modular, stable, and accurate coupling of simulation units, as well as expressing the adaptations required to ensure that the coupling is correct.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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".