pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13118 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.SE

Modeling and Simulation Based Engineering in the Context of Cyber-Physical Systems

Alexandre Muzy (ILLS) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords cyber-physical systemsmodeling and simulationexecution semanticsformal verificationvalidationsimulation-based engineeringtheory of modeling and simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Treating execution semantics as first-class entities bridges verified model behaviors to validated physical executions in cyber-physical systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that standard approaches to cyber-physical systems leave a gap between what formal models verify and what actually happens during physical execution because semantics stay implicit. It proposes Modeling and Simulation Based Engineering as a methodology that makes execution conditions explicit through four components and runs them through a repeating cycle of formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation. This cycle is meant to stabilize the admissible model space and treat physical constraints as revisable semantic boundaries rather than hidden implementation details. The approach is demonstrated on human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital-twin systems and presented as applicable to any behavior that depends on defined execution conditions. A sympathetic reader would see this as a way to align model guarantees with real-world outcomes without treating physical limits as afterthoughts.

Core claim

The central claim is that making execution semantics explicit as first-class engineering entities is necessary and sufficient to bridge the gap between verified model behaviors and validated executed behaviors in CPS. MSBE formalizes execution conditions as four components—execution semantics, activity as behaviorally meaningful changes, admissibility constraints as physical bounds, and specified properties as behavioral guarantees—and organizes work around an iterative cycle alternating formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation. Executability is defined as the stabilization of these conditions and the induced admissible model space. The cycle,,

What carries the argument

The MSBE cycle that alternates formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation while defining execution conditions through the four components of semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, and specified properties.

If this is right

  • Execution conditions stabilize to define an admissible model space for any given CPS.
  • The same framework applies to human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital-twin CPS classes.
  • Physical constraints shift from implementation details to revisable semantic boundaries.
  • The methodology extends to any system whose behavior depends on explicitly defined execution conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Existing formal verification tools could be adapted by exposing their semantic assumptions for revision inside the MSBE cycle.
  • Simulation platforms may need explicit interfaces for activity and admissibility constraints to support the proposed validation step.
  • The emphasis on activity-mediated validation could change how engineers prioritize test scenarios in domains like robotics or embedded control.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that defining execution conditions through the four components and cycling through formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation will make semantics revisable and turn physical constraints into semantic boundary conditions.

What would settle it

A concrete CPS case in which the proposed cycle is followed yet verified model behaviors still diverge from observed physical executions because of unaddressed constraints would show the hypothesis does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13118 by Alexandre Muzy (ILLS).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Execution-centered MSBE cycle. Blue: formal domain. Orange: experimental domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hybrid behavior trace bi = b (1) i • b (2) i • b (3) i , segmented at discontinuities t1 and t2. Con￾tinuous portions are shown in blue. Local extrema are marked by green asterisks (∗), including on both sides of each discontinuity; discontinuities (discrete events) are shown by red dashed lines. Horizontal dotted lines indicate quantization levels separated by quantum D. The hybrid activity measure α hyb … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Discrete-event behavior trace b e i = b e(1) i • b e(2) i • b e(3) i , segmented at t3 and t5. The trace alternates between ϕ (no event, blue) and event values (orange, at times t1, . . . , t5). The event count on segment b e(1) i is 3; on b e(2) i it is 2. Admissibility constraints φi may bound the event count or frequency per segment (local), while specified properties Pi hold on the full trace (e.g., to… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Discrete-event behavior trace b e i = b e(1) i • b e(2) i • b e(3) i , segmented at t1 and t2. The trace alternates between ϕ (no event, blue) and event values (orange). The event count on segment b e(1) i is 3; on b e(2) i it is 2. Admissibility constraints φi may bound the event count or frequency per segment (local), while specified properties Pi hold on the full trace (e.g., total event ordering, bound… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) produce behavior through execution on substrates coupling computation with physical processes. However, usual engineering approaches do not treat execution semantics as first-class engineering entities. Formal verification reasons about model behaviors under fixed semantic assumptions that are not revisable and do not account for physical execution constraints. Simulation-based validation explores scenarios under execution semantics that are implicitly determined by the simulation engine. In both cases, physical constraints of the execution substrate are addressed as implementation details rather than as semantic boundary conditions. In this article, it is hypothesized that making execution semantics explicit as first-class engineering entities is necessary and sufficient to bridge the gap between verified model behaviors and validated executed behaviors in CPS. To test this hypothesis, Modeling and Simulation Based Engineering (MSBE) is proposed: a methodology grounded in the Theory of Modeling and Simulation. MSBE formalizes execution conditions as four components: execution semantics, activity (behaviorally meaningful changes), admissibility constraints (physical bounds), and specified properties (behavioral guarantees). MSBE organizes engineering around an iterative cycle alternating formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation. Executability is defined as stabilization of execution conditions and the induced admissible model space. The cycle is applied to four CPS classes (human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital twins). These applications show that the framework generalizes beyond CPS to any system whose behavior depends on explicitly defined execution conditions. Modeling and Simulation-Based Engineering

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper hypothesizes that making execution semantics explicit as first-class engineering entities is necessary and sufficient to bridge the gap between verified model behaviors and validated executed behaviors in Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). It proposes the Modeling and Simulation Based Engineering (MSBE) methodology grounded in the Theory of Modeling and Simulation, which formalizes execution conditions as four components (execution semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, and specified properties) and organizes engineering around an iterative cycle of formal execution, experimental execution, verification, and activity-mediated validation. Executability is defined as stabilization of these conditions and the induced admissible model space. The framework is applied conceptually to four CPS classes (human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital twins), claiming generalization to any system whose behavior depends on explicitly defined execution conditions.

Significance. If empirically substantiated, the explicit formalization of execution conditions and the iterative cycle could provide a structured approach for treating physical constraints as revisable semantic boundary conditions rather than implementation details, potentially improving reliability in CPS design. The conceptual contribution of defining executability via stabilization and organizing work around activity-mediated validation offers a clear framework for addressing model-execution discrepancies, though the manuscript supplies no quantitative evidence, derivations, or baseline comparisons to support the necessity or sufficiency claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Hypothesis] Abstract and central hypothesis: the claim that MSBE is necessary and sufficient to bridge verified model behaviors to validated executed behaviors rests on unshown material; the four CPS applications are described only as conceptual mappings without derivations, quantitative metrics of gap reduction, or demonstrations that the cycle revises semantics or treats physical constraints as boundary conditions.
  2. [Definition of Executability] Definition of executability: defining executability as stabilization of the execution conditions (semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, specified properties) introduced by the framework, with validation also mediated by activity inside the same framework, renders the central claim largely self-referential; no external benchmarks or comparisons to standard verification/simulation methods are provided to assess whether the gap is actually bridged.
  3. [Applications to Four CPS Classes] Applications section: the mappings to human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital-twin CPS classes illustrate generalization but supply no metrics (e.g., discrepancy measures between model and physical execution), no comparisons to baseline engineering approaches, and no evidence that physical constraints function as semantic boundary conditions in practice, leaving sufficiency untested.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Overall Presentation] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit diagram or table summarizing the four components of execution conditions and the iterative cycle to improve clarity of the proposed process.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. The manuscript presents a conceptual framework rather than an empirical study, and we address each major point below by clarifying scope, acknowledging limitations, and indicating planned revisions to improve clarity without altering the core contribution.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Hypothesis] Abstract and central hypothesis: the claim that MSBE is necessary and sufficient to bridge the gap between verified model behaviors to validated executed behaviors rests on unshown material; the four CPS applications are described only as conceptual mappings without derivations, quantitative metrics of gap reduction, or demonstrations that the cycle revises semantics or treats physical constraints as boundary conditions.

    Authors: We agree that the necessity and sufficiency claims are hypothesized rather than empirically demonstrated. The manuscript tests the hypothesis through conceptual mappings to four CPS classes to illustrate generalization of the framework. No quantitative metrics or derivations appear because the work is a theoretical proposal grounded in the Theory of Modeling and Simulation. In revision we will update the abstract and add an explicit limitations section stating that empirical validation of gap reduction remains future work, while outlining example metrics (such as iteration count to condition stabilization) that could be used in subsequent studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Definition of Executability] Definition of executability: defining executability as stabilization of the execution conditions (semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, specified properties) introduced by the framework, with validation also mediated by activity inside the same framework, renders the central claim largely self-referential; no external benchmarks or comparisons to standard verification/simulation methods are provided to assess whether the gap is actually bridged.

    Authors: The definition is deliberately internal to create a coherent organizing principle that elevates execution conditions to first-class status. This is not intended as a replacement for existing verification or simulation techniques but as a complementary methodology that makes physical constraints revisable semantic boundaries. No external benchmarks are supplied because the paper does not perform comparative experiments. We will add a new subsection relating MSBE to model-based systems engineering and formal methods, emphasizing the distinct treatment of activity-mediated validation. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Applications to Four CPS Classes] Applications section: the mappings to human-centric, biophysical, technological, and digital-twin CPS classes illustrate generalization but supply no metrics (e.g., discrepancy measures between model and physical execution), no comparisons to baseline engineering approaches, and no evidence that physical constraints function as semantic boundary conditions in practice, leaving sufficiency untested.

    Authors: The applications are provided as conceptual illustrations of how the four execution-condition components can be instantiated across CPS categories. As a theoretical paper they contain no empirical metrics or baseline comparisons. We acknowledge that this leaves practical sufficiency untested. In revision we will augment each application with a brief discussion of how the iterative cycle could generate measurable indicators (for example, reduction in admissibility-constraint violations across iterations) to make the boundary-condition concept more concrete. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central hypothesis reduces to self-referential definition of executability via framework components

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "In this article, it is hypothesized that making execution semantics explicit as first-class engineering entities is necessary and sufficient to bridge the gap between verified model behaviors and validated executed behaviors in CPS. ... MSBE formalizes execution conditions as four components: execution semantics, activity (behaviorally meaningful changes), admissibility constraints (physical bounds), and specified properties (behavioral guarantees). ... Executability is defined as stabilization of execution conditions and the induced admissible model space."

    The necessity and sufficiency of explicit semantics for bridging the gap is hypothesized, yet executability (the bridged outcome) is defined as stabilization of the exact four execution conditions introduced by the MSBE framework. This renders the central claim tautological: the framework succeeds by definition when its own conditions stabilize, without independent external validation or falsifiable metrics of reduced model-physical discrepancy.

full rationale

The paper's derivation starts from the hypothesis that explicit execution semantics are necessary and sufficient to bridge verified model and validated executed behaviors. It then introduces MSBE with four components (semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, specified properties) and defines executability directly as stabilization of those same conditions. This makes the claimed sufficiency equivalent to the framework's own definitional inputs by construction. Applications are conceptual mappings to CPS classes without external benchmarks or independent criteria for gap reduction. No equations or self-citations create additional circularity, but the core claim is self-definitional.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central hypothesis rests on the applicability of the Theory of Modeling and Simulation and on the sufficiency of the four introduced components to capture all relevant execution constraints.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Theory of Modeling and Simulation supplies the foundational principles for formalizing execution conditions as first-class entities.
    Invoked as the grounding for MSBE without further elaboration or proof in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Execution semantics, activity, admissibility constraints, and specified properties as the four components of execution conditions no independent evidence
    purpose: To make execution semantics explicit and treat physical bounds as semantic boundary conditions.
    These components are defined within the paper to operationalize the hypothesis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5549 in / 1393 out tokens · 59403 ms · 2026-05-10T16:06:58.443735+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MIT Press, 2015

    Rajeev Alur.Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems. MIT Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    SysML models veri- fication and validation in an industrial context: Challenges and experimentation

    Ronan Baduel, Mohammad Chami, Jean-Michel Bruel, and Ileana Ober. SysML models veri- fication and validation in an industrial context: Challenges and experimentation. InProc. Eu- ropean Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA 2018), volume 10890 ofLNCS, pages 132–146. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Verification, validation, and testing

    Osman Balci. Verification, validation, and testing. In Jerry Banks, editor,Handbook of Simu- lation: Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications, and Practice, pages 335–393. Wiley, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Modeling formalisms for dynamic structure systems.ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), 7(4):501–515, 1997

    Fernando J Barros. Modeling formalisms for dynamic structure systems.ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), 7(4):501–515, 1997. 23

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    The foundations of Esterel.Proof, Language, and Interaction: Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, pages 425–454, 2000

    G´ erard Berry. The foundations of Esterel.Proof, Language, and Interaction: Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, pages 425–454, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    On the unification power of models.Software and Systems Modeling, 4(2):171– 188, 2005

    Jean B´ ezivin. On the unification power of models.Software and Systems Modeling, 4(2):171– 188, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Multi-valued symbolic model-checking.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 12(4):371–408, 2003

    Marsha Chechik, Ben Devereux, Steve Easterbrook, and Arie Gurfinkel. Multi-valued symbolic model-checking.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 12(4):371–408, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Execution of UML models: a systematic review of research and practice.Software and Systems Modeling, 18(3):2313–2360, 2019

    Federico Ciccozzi, Ivano Malavolta, and Bran Selic. Execution of UML models: a systematic review of research and practice.Software and Systems Modeling, 18(3):2313–2360, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    France, Jean-Marc J´ ez´ equel, and Jeff Gray

    Benoˆ ıt Combemale, Julien DeAntoni, Benoit Baudry, Robert B. France, Jean-Marc J´ ez´ equel, and Jeff Gray. Globalizing modeling languages.Computer, 47(6):68–71, 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Lee, Michael Masin, and Stavros Tripakis

    Fabio Cremona, Marten Lohstroh, David Broman, Edward A. Lee, Michael Masin, and Stavros Tripakis. Hybrid co-simulation: It’s about time.Software and Systems Modeling, 18(3):1655– 1679, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Verification of temporal properties of neuronal archetypes modeled as synchronous reactive systems

    Elisabetta De Maria, Alexandre Muzy, Daniel Gaff´ e, Annie Ressouche, and Franck Grammont. Verification of temporal properties of neuronal archetypes modeled as synchronous reactive systems. InHybrid Systems Biology (HSB 2016), volume 9957 ofLNCS, pages 97–112. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Janneck, Edward A

    Johan Eker, Jorn W. Janneck, Edward A. Lee, Jie Liu, Xiaojun Liu, Jozsef Ludvig, Stephen Neuendorffer, Sonia Sachs, and Yuhong Xiong. Taming heterogeneity—the Ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1):127–144, 2003

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    The relationship of system engineering to the project cycle

    Kevin Forsberg and Harold Mooz. The relationship of system engineering to the project cycle. InProc. First Annual Symposium of the National Council on Systems Engineering (NCOSE), pages 57–65, Chattanooga, TN, 1991

    work page 1991

  14. [14]

    CRC press, 2018

    Daniele Gianni, Andrea D’Ambrogio, and Andreas Tolk.Modeling and simulation-based sys- tems engineering handbook. CRC press, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    An architecture for coupled digital twins with semantic lifting.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1379–1404, 2025

    Santiago Gil, Eduard Kamburjan, Prasad Talasila, and Peter Gorm Larsen. An architecture for coupled digital twins with semantic lifting.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1379–1404, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Co-simulation: a survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 51(3):49:1–49:33, 2018

    Cl´ audio Gomes, Casper Thule, David Broman, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Hans Vangheluwe. Co-simulation: a survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 51(3):49:1–49:33, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    VerChor: A framework for the design and verification of choreographies.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 9(4):647–660, 2016

    Matthias G¨ udemann, Pascal Poizat, Gwen Sala¨ un, and Lina Ye. VerChor: A framework for the design and verification of choreographies.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 9(4):647–660, 2016

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Executable object modeling with statecharts.Computer, 30(7):31– 42, 1997

    David Harel and Eran Gery. Executable object modeling with statecharts.Computer, 30(7):31– 42, 1997

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Henzinger

    Thomas A. Henzinger. The theory of hybrid automata. InProc. 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 278–292. IEEE, 1996. 24

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    Kokar, Stephen Baccei, and Yaman Eracar

    Mieczyslaw M. Kokar, Stephen Baccei, and Yaman Eracar. Control systems development using model-based design.IEEE Control Systems, 19(5):53–61, 1999

    work page 1999

  21. [21]

    Edward A. Lee. Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. InProc. 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), pages 363–369. IEEE, 2008

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Model- based engineering in the embedded systems domain: an industrial survey on the state-of- practice.Software and Systems Modeling, 17:91–113, 2018

    Grischa Liebel, Nadja Marko, Matthias Tichy, Andrea Leitner, and J¨ orgen Hansson. Model- based engineering in the embedded systems domain: an industrial survey on the state-of- practice.Software and Systems Modeling, 17:91–113, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Marten Lohstroh, Christian Menard, Soroush Bateni, and Edward A. Lee. Toward a lingua franca for deterministic concurrent systems.ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Sys- tems, 20(4):36:1–36:27, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    xMOF: Executable DSMLs based on fUML

    Tanja Mayerhofer, Philip Langer, Manuel Wimmer, and Gerti Kappel. xMOF: Executable DSMLs based on fUML. InProc. 6th International Conference on Software Language Engi- neering (SLE), pages 56–75. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Mellor, Kendall Scott, Axel Uhl, and Dirk Weise.Model-Driven Architecture

    Stephen J. Mellor, Kendall Scott, Axel Uhl, and Dirk Weise.Model-Driven Architecture. Addison-Wesley, 2004

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Reusing model validation methods for the continuous valida- tion of digital twins of cyber-physical systems.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1427–1449, 2025

    Joost Mertens and Joachim Denil. Reusing model validation methods for the continuous valida- tion of digital twins of cyber-physical systems.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1427–1449, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Con- tinuous evolution of digital twins using the DarTwin notation.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1405–1426, 2025

    Joost Mertens, Stefan Klikovits, Francis Bordeleau, Joachim Denil, and Øystein Haugen. Con- tinuous evolution of digital twins using the DarTwin notation.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:1405–1426, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Alexandre Muzy. Exploiting activity for the modeling and simulation of dynamics and learn- ing processes in hierarchical (neurocognitive) systems.Computing in Science & Engineering, 21(1):84–93, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Designing prima: A precise visual language for modeling with agents in a physical environment

    Alexandre Muzy, Juan de Lara, and Esther Guerra. Designing prima: A precise visual language for modeling with agents in a physical environment. InProceedings of MSV, pages 231–238, 2007

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    A framework for visual specification and simulation of cellular systems

    Alexandre Muzy, Eduardo Innocenti, Enrique Posse, Antoine Muzy, and Hans Vangheluwe. A framework for visual specification and simulation of cellular systems. InSimulation Series, volume 38, page 23, 2006

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Alexandre Muzy and Bernard P. Zeigler. Specification of dynamic structure discrete event systems using single point encapsulated control functions.International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing, 5(03):1450012, 2014

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Iterative specification as a model- ing and simulation formalism for I/O general systems.IEEE Systems Journal, 12(3):2982–2993, 2017

    Alexandre Muzy, Bernard P Zeigler, and Franck Grammont. Iterative specification as a model- ing and simulation formalism for I/O general systems.IEEE Systems Journal, 12(3):2982–2993, 2017

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Springer, 2018

    Andr´ e Platzer.Logical Foundations of Cyber-Physical Systems. Springer, 2018. 25

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution

    Ragunathan Rajkumar, Insup Lee, Lui Sha, and John Stankovic. Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. InProc. 47th Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 731–736. ACM, 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Adding higher-level semantics to functional mock-up units for easier, faster, and more robust co-simulation connections.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:471–487, 2025

    Martin Rindarøy, H˚ avard Nordahl, Severin Sadjina, Stian Skjong, and Marianne Hagaseth. Adding higher-level semantics to functional mock-up units for easier, faster, and more robust co-simulation connections.Software and Systems Modeling, 24:471–487, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Capturing the dual relationship between sim- ulation models and their context.Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 14(2):126–142, 2006

    Mamadou Kaba Traor´ e and Alexandre Muzy. Capturing the dual relationship between sim- ulation models and their context.Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 14(2):126–142, 2006

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Wayne Wymore.A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements

    A. Wayne Wymore.A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967

    work page 1967

  38. [38]

    Wayne Wymore.Model-Based Systems Engineering

    A. Wayne Wymore.Model-Based Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1993

    work page 1993

  39. [39]

    Zeigler.Theory of Modeling and Simulation

    Bernard P. Zeigler.Theory of Modeling and Simulation. Wiley, New York, 1976

    work page 1976

  40. [40]

    Zeigler, Alexandre Muzy, and Ernesto Kofman.Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Discrete Event and Iterative System Computational Foundations

    Bernard P. Zeigler, Alexandre Muzy, and Ernesto Kofman.Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Discrete Event and Iterative System Computational Foundations. Academic Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    World Scientific, 2023

    Lin Zhang and Chun Zhao.Modeling and simulation based systems engineering: Theory and practice. World Scientific, 2023. 26

    work page 2023