Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Parallel mathematical models of dynamic objects

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that partial fraction decomposition turns any serial linear state-space model into independent parallel channels that solve on separate CPU cores with identical results and over 20% less simulation time.

desk verdict A sound but thinly validated recipe for parallelizing linear simulation via partial fractions; the claimed 24% speedup rests on one unrepeated run and an unspecified serial baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02244 v1 pith:UKS7Z4SZ submitted 2019-08-02 cs.DC

Roman Voliansky , Andri Pranolo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords mathematicalmodelstatespaceequationstransferfunctionnumericalmethodsDCelectricdrivepartialfractiondecompositionparallelcomputingbilineartransform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that any serial mathematical model of a linear dynamical system, given in state-space form, can be rewritten as a set of independent, lower-order parallel channels by decomposing the system's transfer function into partial fractions. If true, each channel can be solved on its own CPU core and the outputs summed, so the same simulation runs noticeably faster without changing the numerical results. The authors demonstrate the method on a fourth-order DC electric drive: the serial model takes 0.4299 s on one core, while the parallel model with three cores takes 0.3266 s, a 24% reduction. They report that the serial and parallel numerical solutions coincide to an accuracy better than the sample time and claim there are no defined calculation errors between the two forms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partial fraction decomposition of the matrix transfer function $W(s)=Y(s)/U(s)$, rewritten as the sum of first- and second-order subsystem transfer functions corresponding to the eigenvalues of the state matrix $A$. Each summand defines a virtual state variable and a parallel channel whose order is lower than the original; the channels are then discretized through the bilinear transform $s\approx \frac{2}{T}\frac{z-1}{z+1}$ and solved as independent mesh equations. Summing the channel outputs reconstructs the original output, which is what lets separate CPU cores carry the computation.

What would settle it

For the example system, solve the serial model and the parallel model with the paper's equations using sample time $T=10^{-5}\,\mathrm{s}$, and record the maximum absolute difference between the two output sequences. If that maximum is larger than $T$, or if the difference grows with the length of the simulation, the paper's claim that the parallel discretization introduces no calculation errors is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that partial fraction decomposition of an object's transfer function converts a single high-order linear state-space model into several lower-order subsystem models that are mathematically equivalent to the original and can be computed independently. The paper constructs virtual state variables for each channel, writes parallel state-space equations, discretizes each channel separately with the bilinear transform, and solves the resulting mesh equations in parallel. On the fourth-order DC drive example, the fourth-order system becomes two first-order channels and one second-order channel; summing their outputs reproduces the serial result. The authors state that the parallel model is stable, well-convergent, and high-accuracy, with no calculation errors relative to the serial model, and that parallel execution cuts simulation time by more than 20%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that applying the bilinear transform to each decomposed channel separately yields a discrete model whose results coincide with the serial model to within the sample time; the paper states this coincidence but gives no proof or error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A linear state-space model of any order whose transfer function decomposes can be simulated as several smaller independent subsystems, so adding CPU cores reduces wall-clock simulation time.
  • Simulation results are claimed to be unchanged by the parallel split, so existing serial models could be replaced by parallel versions without re-validating their steady-state or transient behavior.
  • Because each channel is lower order, stability and accuracy can be examined channel by channel, simplifying diagnosis of a complex model's dynamic behavior.
  • The same transformation can be applied to other discretization formulas besides the bilinear transform, since the channels are independent before discretization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the reported speedup depends on the slowest channel (0.2615 s) plus summing overhead (0.0651 s), so models with uneven channel dynamics will gain less unless the channels are balanced.
  • Beyond the paper: an error bound for the channel-wise discretization would turn the claimed coincidence with the serial model into a guarantee, making the parallel form a drop-in replacement in safety-critical simulation.
  • Beyond the paper: the same decomposition logic suggests distributing channels across networked machines, with the shared input signal being the main synchronization constraint to solve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes transforming a linear state-space model into a parallel form by partial fraction decomposition of its transfer function, with each channel solved independently on separate CPU cores. A fourth-order DC-electric-drive example is used to demonstrate the approach: the serial continuous model (23) is decomposed into three channels (37), discretized by the bilinear transform (38) with sample time T=1e-5, and solved as mesh equations (41)-(45). The authors report that serial and parallel numerical solutions coincide to within the sample time and that the parallel implementation reduces simulation time from 0.4299 s to 0.3266 s, a 24% reduction. A generalized transformation algorithm is then summarized in Section 3.3.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide a simple recipe for parallelizing simulations of linear state-space models by exploiting the algebraic structure of partial fraction expansions. The core decomposition idea is sound: for a linear time-invariant system, partial fractions give independent low-order subsystems whose solutions sum to the original output, and applying the same Tustin transform to each subsystem is algebraically consistent. The paper gives explicit coefficient formulas (35) and a concrete worked example, which makes the proposed method easy to reproduce. However, the paper's load-bearing empirical claims—exact or near-exact numerical agreement and a >20% wall-clock speedup—are not supported by controlled experiments, a defined error metric, or a documented timing methodology. The manuscript also lacks any code, hardware details, or repeated-run statistics, so the quantitative conclusions in Section 3.2 are not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, timing data] The claimed 24% speedup rests on unreported experimental conditions. The paper states serial simulation time 0.4299 s and parallel time 0.3266 s, but does not specify which numerical method solved the serial equations (23): whether it is the same bilinear discretization at T=1e-5 or a different variable-step solver. If the serial baseline uses a different discretization, the comparison conflates algorithm differences with parallelism. The paper also gives no hardware description, no number of runs, no variance, and no wall-clock vs. CPU-time distinction beyond the implicit max-plus-summation. The sums of the individual channel times (0.0878+0.1347+0.2615+0.0651=0.5491 s) exceed the serial time, so the claimed gain depends critically on parallel execution assumptions that are never verified. A controlled comparison with identical discretization, repeated trials, and full methodology is needed.
  2. [§3.2, accuracy claim] The statement that serial and parallel solutions 'coincide with great accuracy which is less than sample time' is not quantified and is not supported by any error metric, such as maximum absolute error, RMS error, or a norm over the simulated interval. Since the bilinear transform is applied independently to each decomposed channel (Eqs. 38–40), the exact equivalence with the serial discrete model follows only if both use the same transform and the same sample time, a point the paper asserts but never verifies algebraically or numerically. The abstract's stronger phrase 'no defined any calculation errors' is misleading without a precise definition; minor floating-point differences, algebraic equivalence up to roundoff, or discretization error below T should be stated and measured.
  3. [§2.1, Eqs. (15)–(20)] The notation in the derivation of the parallel state-space equations is inconsistent: Eq. (20) is labeled as (30), the virtual state variables Y1, Y2, Y3 are defined without specifying their dimensions or initial conditions, and the transition from the parallel transfer function (15) to the state-space realization (20) is not shown in detail. While the partial-fraction approach is standard, the absence of a clear state-space realization for the parallel channels makes it difficult for a reader to reproduce the mesh equations (41)–(45) or to verify that the channels are in fact independent. Please provide explicit state equations for each channel with proper indexing and a proof or citation that the sum of channel outputs equals the original output under the chosen discretization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract's phrase 'There is no defined any calculation errors' is grammatically unclear and overstates the result; it should read, for example, 'No difference larger than the sample time was observed' or be replaced by a quantitative error statement.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) is referred to as '(30)' in the text; the numbering should be corrected throughout the manuscript.
  3. [§3.1.2, Eq. (40)] The discrete-time equations in (40) contain inconsistently placed indices (e.g., 'y31', 'y32') and the final term of the third channel appears to have a sign or index error; please re-derive and present these equations with clear subscripts.
  4. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a table of parameters used for the DC drive example, including the values of a23, a12, a33, a34, a44, and b4, since these are referenced in the text but not summarized in one place.
  5. [§3.2, Fig. 1] The figure legend does not indicate which curve corresponds to the serial and which to the parallel model, nor the units of the axes; the visual claim of coincidence should be supplemented with an error plot or table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parallel model is an exact algebraic decomposition of the serial model, and the timing claim is an empirical measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation transforms the serial state-space model into parallel channels by partial fraction decomposition of the transfer function (Eqs. 12-15). This is an algebraic identity: the sum of the decomposed terms equals the original transfer function by construction. The discrete-time parallel model (Eqs. 39-40) is obtained by applying the bilinear transform (Eq. 38) to each channel; since the bilinear transform is an algebraic substitution, applying it to the decomposed sum yields the same result as applying it to the original transfer function. No parameters are fitted to simulation data; the partial fraction coefficients are solved from the transfer function coefficients (Eqs. 34-35), and the eigenvalue decomposition is standard linear algebra. The simulation results in Section 3.2 compare serial and parallel models as a consistency check, but this comparison is not used to tune any parameter or to define the model. The timing improvement is a wall-clock measurement, an empirical claim independent of the derivation's correctness. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Potential methodological weaknesses in the timing or discretization comparison would be correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the decomposition coefficients k_i are determined algebraically from the model matrices in Eqs. (34)-(35). The example's physical constants are pre-specified inputs. The method relies on standard linear algebra and partial fractions, plus a domain assumption that the system is linear time-invariant and a practical assumption about parallel execution.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dynamical object is linear, time-invariant, and exactly represented by state-space equations (1) with well-defined A, B, C, D matrices.
    The entire derivation in Section 2.1 starts from (1); nonlinear or time-varying systems are outside the method's scope.
  • standard math The transfer function denominator can be factored into real and complex-conjugate pole groups as in Eq. (11).
    Partial fraction decomposition in Eqs. (13)-(15) requires this factorization; the paper assumes the eigenvalue structure rather than proving it for all systems.
  • domain assumption The bilinear transform (38) is a valid approximation of the derivative and preserves equivalence between serial and parallel discrete models.
    Section 3.1.2 applies (38) without an error or stability proof; the 'no calculation errors' claim relies on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Three parallel channels can be executed on three CPU cores with only 0.0651s summation overhead.
    The timing figure in Section 3.2 assumes this execution model; no hardware, scheduling, or communication details are given.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual state variables y1, y2, y3
    purpose: Represent the outputs of the decomposed parallel channels whose sum equals the original output.
    Introduced in Eqs. (16)-(18) and (36)-(37) as mathematical artifacts; they have no direct physical meaning and no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel mathematical models of dynamic objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKS7Z4SZ

@misc{pith2026190802244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel mathematical models of dynamic objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKS7Z4SZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02244}
}
read the original abstract

The paper deals with the developing of the methodological backgrounds for the modeling and simulation of complex dynamical objects. Such backgrounds allow us to perform coordinate transformation and formulate the algorithm of its usage for transforming the serial mathematical model into parallel ones. This algorithm is based on partial fraction decomposition of the transfer function of a dynamic object. Usage of proposed algorithms is one of the ways to decrease calculation time and improve PC usage while a simulation is being performed. We prove our approach by considering the example of modeling and simulating of fourth order dynamical object with various eigenvalues. This example shows that developed parallel model is stable, well-convergent, and high-accuracy model. There is no defined any calculation errors between well-known serial model and proposed parallel one. Nevertheless, the proposed approach's usage allows us to reduce calculation time by more than 20% by using several CPU's cores while calculations are being performed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of simulations serial and parallel models Analysis of simulation’s results makes it possible to conclude that serial and parallel models allow us to get the same results. Moreover, numerical solutions for both models coincide with great accuracy which is less than sample time. 3.3. A Generalized Algorithm for Transformation of Serial Models into Parallel Ones Above-given theoretical and numerical results all… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Combined mathematical model of the electrical and mechanical activity of the human ca rdiomyocyte,

    T. Sulman, O. Solovyova, and L. Katsnelson, “Combined mathematical model of the electrical and mechanical activity of the human ca rdiomyocyte,” in 2018 Ural Symposium on Biomedical Engineering, Radioelectronics and Information Technology (USBEREIT) , 2018, pp. 25 –28, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/USBEREIT.2018.8384541

    work page arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Integral mathematical model of power quality disturbances,

    R. Igual, C. Medrano, F. J. Arcega, and G. Mantescu, “Integral mathematical model of power quality disturbances,” in 2018 18th International Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power (ICHQP), 2018, pp. 1–6, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHQP.2018.8378902

    work page arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Mathematical model and verification of electric field and dielectrophoresis in a microfluidic device,

    F. Alhammadi, W. Waheed, B. El -Khasawneh, and A. Alazzam, “Mathematical model and verification of electric field and dielectrophoresis in a microfluidic device,” in 2018 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) , 2018, pp. 1 –5, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICASET.2018.8376900

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Diagnostic mathematical model of radio -electronic devices,

    M. Kasian and K. Kasian, “Diagnostic mathematical model of radio -electronic devices,” in 2018 14th International Conference on Advanced Trends in Radioelecrtronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering (TCSET), 2018, pp. 766–770, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSET.2018.8336312

    work page arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Research on the Early Intelligent Warning System of Lost Circulation Based on Fuzzy Expert System,

    Y. Xu and C. Li, “Research on the Early Intelligent Warning System of Lost Circulation Based on Fuzzy Expert System,” in 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS), 2018, pp. 540–544, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITBS.2018.00142

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Detecting outliers in multivariate non - Gaussian data on the basis of normalizing transformations,

    S. Prykhodko, N. Prykhodko, L. Makarova, and K. Pugachenko, “Detecting outliers in multivariate non - Gaussian data on the basis of normalizing transformations,” in 2017 IEEE First Ukraine Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (UKRCON) , 2017, pp. 846–849, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1109/UKRCON.2017.8100366

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    New mathematical models to estimate wheat Leaf Chlorophyll Content based on Artificial Neural Network and remote sensing data,

    M. Awad, “New mathematical models to estimate wheat Leaf Chlorophyll Content based on Artificial Neural Network and remote sensing data,” in 2016 IEEE International Multidisciplinary Conference on Engineering Technology (IMCET), 2016, pp. 86–91, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCET.2016.7777432

    work page arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Estimation of induction generator overload capacity under connected direct current consumers,

    M. Zagirnyak, I. Zachepa, and V. Chenchevoi, “Estimation of induction generator overload capacity under connected direct current consumers,” Acta Tech. , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 149 –169, 2014, available at : http://journal.it.cas.cz/59(14)2-Contents/59(14)2c.pdf

    work page 2014

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    The transformation of linear dynamical object’s equation to Brunovsky canonical form,

    R. S. Voliansky and A. V. Sadovoi, “The transformation of linear dynamical object’s equation to Brunovsky canonical form,” in 2017 IEEE 4th International Conference Actual Problems of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle s Developments (APUAVD), 2017, pp. 196–199, doi: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Interval model of the piezoelectric drive,

    R. Voliansky, A. Sadovoi, and N. Volianska, “Interval model of the piezoelectric drive,” in 2018 14th International Conference on Advanced Trends in Radioelecrtronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering (TCSET), 2018, pp. 1–6, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSET.2018.8336211

    2018

  3. [11]

    Research on mathematical model of electrode b oiler based on neural network,

    X. Zhi, W. Chunling, Q. Shuo, and M. Jin, “Research on mathematical model of electrode b oiler based on neural network,” in 2017 13th IEEE I nternational Conference on Electronic Measurement & Instruments (ICEMI), 2017, pp. 281–285, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEMI.2017.8265792

    2017

  4. [12]

    Research for Equivalent Mathematical Model of MMC -DPFC,

    Y.-L. Jin, A.-H. Tang, Y. Huang, X. Zheng, and Q.-S. Xu, “Research for Equivalent Mathematical Model of MMC -DPFC,” in 2017 International Conference on Industrial Informati cs - Computing Technology, Intelligent Technology, Industrial Information Integration (ICIICII) , 2017, ...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Mathematical model of the semiconductor converter with twelve -zone regulation of output voltage,

    V. V. Mykhailenko, S. O. Buryan, T. B. Maslova, L. M. Naumchuk, J. M. Chunyak, and O. S. Charnjak, “Mathematical model of the semiconductor converter with twelve -zone regulation of output voltage,” in 2017 IEEE First Ukraine Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (...

    2017

  6. [14]

    A novel mathematical model to improve the power output of a solar panel using reflectors,

    D. T. P. Wijesuriya, L. S. Wijesinghe, K. D. S. H. Wickramathilaka, D. M. Vithana, and H. Y. R. Perera, “A novel mathematical model to improve the power output of a solar panel using reflectors,” in 2016 131 International Journal of Advances in Intelligent Informatics ISSN 244...

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    A mathematical model of a novel automated medical device for needle insertions,

    I. M. Buzurovic and S. Salinic, “A mathematical model of a novel automated medical device for needle insertions,” in 2015 IEEE 15th I nternational Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE) , 2015, pp. 1–5, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBE.2015.7367697

    2015

  8. [16]

    The mathematical modeling of a novel anchor based on vortex induced vibration,

    X. An, B. Song, Z. Mao, and C. Ma, “The mathematical modeling of a novel anchor based on vortex induced vibration,” in OCEANS 2016 - Shanghai, 2016, pp. 1 –5, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANSAP.2016. 7485461

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    The antisurge protection of a centrifugal compressor,

    M. Antonova, E. Vasilieva, and I. Zhezhera, “The antisurge protection of a centrifugal compressor,” in 2017 International Conference on Modern Electrical and Energy Systems (MEES) , 2017, pp. 80 –83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/MEES.2017.8248958

    2017

  10. [18]

    S. I. Gordon and B. Guilfoos, Introduction to Modeling and Simulation with MATLAB®and Python. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017, available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781498773881

    2017

  11. [19]

    On the use of intermediate solutions in parallel model predictive control based on matrix spl itting,

    N. Hara and K. Konishi, “On the use of intermediate solutions in parallel model predictive control based on matrix spl itting,” in 2017 11th Asian Control Conference (ASCC) , 2017, pp. 2280 –2285, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ASCC.2017.8287530

    2017

  12. [20]

    A coarse-grained parallelization of genetic algorithms,

    M. R. Rathomi and R. Pulungan, “A coarse-grained parallelization of genetic algorithms,” Int. J. Adv. Intell. Informatics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Apr. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.26555/ijain.v4i1.137

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Mathematical Modeling of Dynamics Parallel Manipulator- Tripod with Six Degrees of Freedom,

    A. M. Yu, A. A. Gunkin, and A. S. Ananenkov, “Mathematical Modeling of Dynamics Parallel Manipulator- Tripod with Six Degrees of Freedom,” World Appl. Sci. J. , vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1298 –1305, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.30.10.14170

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Szederkényi, R

    G. Szederkényi, R. Lakner, and M. Gerzson, Intelligent control systems: an introduction with examples, vol. 60. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006, available at: https://books.google.com

    2006

  15. [23]

    Three Brick Method of the Partial Fraction Decomposition of So me Type of Rational Expression,

    D. Słota and R. Wituła, “Three Brick Method of the Partial Fraction Decomposition of So me Type of Rational Expression,” 2005, pp. 659–662, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/11428862_89

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.