Extending Identifiability Results From Continuous to Discrete-Space Systems
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
Researchers develop models to explain the unknowns. These models typically involve parameters that capture tangible quantities, the estimation of which is desired. Parameter identifiability investigates the recoverability of the unknown parameters given the error-free outputs, inputs, and the developed equations of the model. Different notions of and methods to test identifiability exist for dynamical systems defined in the continuous space. Yet little attention was paid to the identifiability of discrete space systems, where variables and parameters are defined in a discrete space. We develop the identifiability framework for discrete space systems and highlight that this is not an immediate extension of the continuous space framework. Unlike the continuous case, local identifiability concepts are sensitive to how a “neighborhood” is defined. Moreover, results on algebraic identifiability that proved useful in the continuous space are less so in their discrete form as the notion of differentiability disappears.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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