Physics-Informed Regression: Parameter Estimation in Parameter-Linear Nonlinear Dynamic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new efficient hybrid parameter estimation method based on the idea, that if nonlinear dynamic models are stated in terms of a system of equations that is linear in terms of the parameters, then regularized ordinary least squares can be used to estimate these parameters from time series data. We introduce the term "Physics-Informed Regression" (PIR) to describe the proposed data-driven hybrid technique as a way to bridge theory and data by use of ordinary least squares to efficiently perform parameter estimation of the model coefficients of different parameter-linear models; providing examples of models based on nonlinear ordinary equations (ODE) and partial differential equations (PDE). The focus is on parameter estimation on a selection of ODE and PDE models, each illustrating performance in different model characteristics. For two relevant epidemic models of different complexity and number of parameters, PIR is tested and compared against the related technique, physics-informed neural networks (PINN), both on synthetic data generated from known target parameters and on real public Danish time series data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark. Both methods were able to estimate the target parameters, while PIR showed to perform noticeably better, especially on a compartment model with higher complexity. Given the difference in computational speed, it is concluded that the PIR method is superior to PINN for the models considered. It is also demonstrated how PIR can be applied to estimate the time-varying parameters of a compartment model that is fitted using real Danish data from the COVID-19 pandemic obtained during a period from 2020 to 2021. The study shows how data-driven and physics-informed techniques may support reliable and fast -- possibly real-time -- parameter estimation in parameter-linear nonlinear dynamic 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".