Relating simulation studies by provenance—Developing a family of Wnt signaling models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many biological systems, a variety of simulation models exist. A new simulation model is rarely developed from scratch, but rather revises and extends an existing one. A key challenge, however, is to decide which model might be an appropriate starting point for a particular problem and why. To answer this question, we need to identify entities and activities that contributed to the development of a simulation model. Therefore, we exploit the provenance data model, PROV-DM, of the World Wide Web Consortium and, building on previous work, continue developing a PROV ontology for simulation studies. Based on a case study of 19 Wnt/β-catenin signaling models, we identify crucial entities and activities as well as useful metadata to both capture the provenance information from individual simulation studies and relate these forming a family of models. The approach is implemented in WebProv, a web application for inserting and querying provenance information. Our specialization of PROV-DM contains the entities Research Question, Assumption, Requirement, Qualitative Model, Simulation Model, Simulation Experiment, Simulation Data, and Wet-lab Data as well as activities referring to building, calibrating, validating, and analyzing a simulation model. We show that most Wnt simulation models are connected to other Wnt models by using (parts of) these models. However, the overlap, especially regarding the Wet-lab Data used for calibration or validation of the models is small. Making these aspects of developing a model explicit and queryable is an important step for assessing and reusing simulation models more effectively. Exposing this information helps to integrate a new simulation model within a family of existing ones and may lead to the development of more robust and valid simulation models. We hope that our approach becomes part of a standardization effort and that modelers adopt the benefits of provenance when considering or creating simulation models.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".