Automatic Differentiation in Automatic Generation of the Linearized Equations of Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the ongoing search for mathematically efficient methods of predicting the motion of vehicle and other multibody systems, and presenting the associated results, one of the avenues of continued interest is the linearization of the equations of motion. While linearization can potentially result in reduced fidelity in the model, the benefits in computational speed often make it the pragmatic choice. Linearization techniques are also useful in modal and stability analysis, model order reduction, and state and input estimation. This paper explores the application of automatic differentiation to the generation of the linearized equations of motion. Automatic differentiation allows one to numerically evaluate the derivative of any function, with no prior knowledge of the differential relationship to other functions. It exploits the fact that every computer program must evaluate every function using only elementary arithmetic operations. Using automatic differentiation, derivatives of arbitrary order can be computed, accurately to working precision, with minimal additional computational cost over the evaluation of the base function. There are several freely available software libraries that implement automatic differentiation in modern computing languages. In the paper, several example multibody systems are analyzed, and the computation times of the stiffness matrix are compared using direct evaluation and automatic differentiation. The results show that automatic differentiation can be surprisingly competitive in terms of computational efficiency.
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".