Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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 it