Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 53 references

Structural Identifiability of Compartmental Models: Recent Progress and Future Directions

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that structural identifiability of linear compartmental models is now predictable from the graph: for bidirected-tree models with one input and one output, identifiability holds exactly when there is at most one leak…

desk verdict A clean, faithful survey of structural identifiability for compartmental models; no new results but a genuinely useful synthesis that deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04496 v1 pith:62AMUZAW submitted 2025-07-06 stat.ME math.DSq-bio.QM

Nicolette Meshkat , Anne Shiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEmath.DSq-bio.QM
keywords structuralidentifiabilitycompartmentalmodelslinearODEdirectedgraphsleak-interlacingidentifiablefunctionsreparametrizationbidirectedtrees
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 survey argues that for linear compartmental models, structural identifiability—whether parameter values can be recovered, up to a finite set, from perfect input-output data—can often be read directly from the model's graph. It presents recent theorems and tables that give complete graph-theoretic classifications for several model classes, most prominently bidirected trees and directed cycles. It also reviews practical routes for dealing with unidentifiable models, including fixing parameters, adding outputs, simplifying the model, and reparametrizing using identifiable functions. The payoff it claims is that, for these classes, a researcher can look at the graph and know in advance whether generic parameter estimation is feasible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the directed graph attached to a linear compartmental model: vertices are compartments, directed edges are transfers between compartments, and designated node sets record inputs, outputs, and leaks (losses to the environment). The criteria that carry the argument are graph-theoretic conditions—counting leaks, measuring the distance from an input to an output, and checking the interleaving of leaks with inputs and outputs. For reparametrization, the working objects are identifiable functions of the parameters (monomials attached to paths and cycles in the graph) and the linear reparametrizations they generate, for which explicit formulas are available in single-in-single-out cases.

What would settle it

Run a symbolic identifiability check on a small bidirected-tree model with one input, one output, and two leaks, such as a three-compartment tree with input at compartment 1, output at compartment 2, and leaks from compartments 1 and 3; if any such model is generically locally identifiable, Theorem 5.1 is false. A second test is to find a directed-cycle model whose leaks are not interlaced but whose parameters are all generically locally identifiable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that identifiability of linear compartmental models is determined by the structure of the underlying directed graph for a growing list of model classes. The flagship result, Theorem 5.1, states that a bidirected-tree model with one input and one output is generically locally identifiable if and only if it has at most one leak and the distance from the input to the output is at most one, and that a directed-cycle model is generically locally identifiable if and only if its leaks are interlaced—that is, between any two leaks there is an input or an output. The accompanying tables assert complete classifications of identifiable and unidentifiable classes, and identify whole classes of parameters that are globally identifiable or unidentifiable. If these classifications are correct, they turn a symbolic-computation question into a graph-inspection question for those model families.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's practical guidance assumes that the cited classification theorems are correct and that the listed model classes cover all relevant cases; in particular, Theorem 5.1 rests on earlier results about bidirected trees and directed cycles that the paper does not re-derive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any bidirected-tree model with one input and one output, identifiability can be decided by counting leaks and checking whether the input and output are adjacent or distance at most one.
  • For directed-cycle models, identifiability is equivalent to the leak-interlacing condition, with no dependence on the number of compartments.
  • The tables give computation-free identifiability verdicts for further classes such as catenary, mammillary, identifiable-path, and identifiable-cycle models, including at the level of individual parameters.
  • Unidentifiable linear compartmental models can often be repaired without changing the model by a linear reparametrization generated from identifiable functions, with explicit formulas in single-in-single-out cases.
  • Adding inputs or outputs is a reliable route to making a model identifiable, and the survey frames the open problem of finding minimal such configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the graph-theoretic criteria hold, the practical design rule for linear compartment experiments is to put an output next to the input and avoid more than one leak, since those are exactly the conditions that guarantee generic local identifiability in bidirected trees.
  • The theorem naturally invites a multi-input/multi-output version for bidirected trees; such an extension is not proven in the paper, and testing it would require comparing symbolic identifiability results against the new graph conditions.
  • The same graph-first perspective could be applied to model selection: among many plausible compartment graphs, identifiability criteria could filter out models that cannot be calibrated before any data are collected.
  • For nonlinear compartmental models, no comparable structural classification is available, so the survey's graph-based approach is a specifically linear-model achievement rather than a general principle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey reviews recent progress on the structural identifiability of compartmental models. It has three main strands: (i) applications in epidemiology, oncology, and other areas, with a summary of how practitioners adjust unidentifiable models; (ii) theoretical and algorithmic methods for reparametrizing unidentifiable models, illustrated by the worked Example 2.2; and (iii) graph-theoretic criteria for linear compartmental models, highlighted by Theorem 5.1, which states that a bidirected-tree model with one input and one output is generically locally identifiable if and only if it has at most one leak and the input-output distance is at most one, and that a directed-cycle model is generically locally identifiable if and only if its leaks are interlacing. The paper also collects recent classification results in Tables 1–5 and poses several open questions.

Significance. The paper is a well-structured survey that will be useful to both applied modelers and theorists. Its main strengths are the careful synthesis of disparate results into Tables 1–5, the explicit statement of Theorem 5.1 as a readily checkable structural criterion, and the worked reparametrization in Example 2.2, which illustrates the abstract material concretely. The survey does not claim new theorems, but it provides a clear map of what is known and what is open, and it correctly frames the scope of the results, noting, for example, that no complete answer exists even for linear compartmental models. The presentation is faithful to the cited literature as far as I could verify, and the central structural claim in Theorem 5.1 is supported by direct transfer-function computations for small examples. The paper is a valuable service to the community and is suitable for publication.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title in the arXiv header reads 'COMP AR TMENT AL MODELS' with extra spaces; this should be corrected to 'COMPARTMENTAL MODELS'.
  2. [Section 3] In the paragraph on ovarian follicle population dynamics, the Julia package is written as 'StucturalIdentifiability'; the correct spelling is 'StructuralIdentifiability'.
  3. [Section 5] In the sentence before Table 4, 'unidentifable' is missing an 'i' and should be 'unidentifiable'; similarly, Table 5's header 'parameters that unidentifiable' should read 'parameters that are unidentifiable'.
  4. [Theorem 5.1] The phrase 'distance from the input to output' is used without a formal definition in the text; since it is central to the theorem, a one-sentence definition or an explicit reference to the definition in [6] would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey that reports prior theorems, and the central claims are citations to published derivations, not reductions to inputs.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a derivation. Its central claims (e.g., Theorem 5.1 on bidirected-tree and directed-cycle models) are explicitly attributed to prior works [1] and [6], and the paper does not attempt to prove them from the definitions given in its own Section 2. The graph-theoretic criteria are stated as literature results, and the tables (Tables 2–5) summarize those cited results. While several citations are to work by the authors themselves (e.g., [6,7,21,37,38,39]), those cited papers contain independent proofs and are not invoked in a way that reduces the survey's content to its own assumptions. The reparametrization example (Example 2.2) is presented as an illustration of the method of [37], with the identifiable functions computed by software, not fitted to the example's conclusion. There is no equation in the paper that is defined in terms of a claimed output, no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction, and no self-citation that replaces an argument. The only inherent limitation is that a survey does not re-derive every cited theorem; that is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review contributes no new equations or fitted parameters. It rests on the correctness of the cited literature and on the accuracy of the survey's categorizations.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The referenced results from prior work are correct as stated.
    The survey compiles results from [1,6,7,13,21,22,23,37,38,39]; it does not re-derive them, so correctness is assumed.
  • domain assumption The examples and tables accurately represent the cited papers' findings.
    Tables 2-5 classify many model classes; any misclassification would propagate to readers.
  • domain assumption Structural identifiability software cited is reliable for the examples mentioned.
    Example 2.1 states results 'readily computed using software' [17]; the survey assumes these outputs are correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structural Identifiability of Compartmental Models: Recent Progress and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62AMUZAW

@misc{pith2026250704496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structural Identifiability of Compartmental Models: Recent Progress and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62AMUZAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04496}
}
read the original abstract

We summarize recent progress on the theory and applications of structural identifiability of compartmental models. On the applications side, we review identifiability analyses undertaken recently for models arising in epidemiology, oncology, and other areas; and we summarize common approaches for handling models that are unidentifiable. We also highlight recent theoretical and algorithmic results on how to reparametrize unidentifiable models and, in the context of linear compartmental models, how to predict identifiability properties directly from the model structure. Finally, we highlight future research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04496 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The next example makes use of identifiable functions of parameters, which essentially are the functions of the parameters that can be computed from (input-output) data (see e.g. [42] for a precise definition). Example 2.2 (Unidentifiable model). The linear compartmental model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. A linear compartmental model with In = {1}, Out = {2}, and Leak = {1, 3}. 1 2 3 a21 a13 a23 a32 Output Input a02 a03 a01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A linear compartmental model in In = Out = {1} and Leak = {2, 3}. The identifiable functions (which can be computed readily by software, e.g., using [26]) are found to be k1 := a01, k2 := a02 + a03, k3 := a13a32a21, and k4 := a02a03 − a23a32. We conclude that a01 is (globally) identifiable, and it turns out that the remaining 6 parameters are unidentifiable [37]. Therefore, this model is structurally unidentifiable.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Identifiability of directed-cycle and catenary linear compartment models

    Saber Ahmed, Natasha Crepeau, Paul R. Dessauer Jr., Alexis Edozie, Odalys Garcia-Lopez, Tanisha Grims- ley, Jordy Lopez Garcia, Viridiana Neri, and Anne Shiu. Identifiability of directed-cycle and catenary linear compartmental models. Preprint, arXiv:2412.05283, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    On the existence of identifiable reparametrizations for linear compartment models

    Jasmijn A Baaijens and Jan Draisma. On the existence of identifiable reparametrizations for linear compartment models. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 76(4):1577–1605, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Nonlinear compartmental modeling to monitor ovar- ian follicle population dynamics on the whole lifespan

    Guillaume Ballif, Frederique Clement, and Romain Yvinec. Nonlinear compartmental modeling to monitor ovar- ian follicle population dynamics on the whole lifespan. J. Math. Biol., 89(1), JUL 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Villaverde

    Xabier Rey Barreiro and Alejandro F. Villaverde. On the origins and rarity of locally but not globally identifiable parameters in biological modeling. IEEE Access, 11:65457–65467, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Framing global structural identifiability in terms of parameter symmetries

    Johannes G Borgqvist, Alexander P Browning, Fredrik Ohlsson, and Ruth E Baker. Framing global structural identifiability in terms of parameter symmetries. Preprint, arXiv:2410.03757, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Identifiability of linear compartmental tree models and a general formula for input-output equations

    Cashous Bortner, Elizabeth Gross, Nicolette Meshkat, Anne Shiu, and Seth Sullivant. Identifiability of linear compartmental tree models and a general formula for input-output equations. Adv. in Appl. Math., 146:102490, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Identifiable paths and cycles in linear compartmental models

    Cashous Bortner and Nicolette Meshkat. Identifiable paths and cycles in linear compartmental models. Bull. Math. Biol., 84(5):Paper No. 53, 43, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Browning, Maria Tasca, Carles Falco, and Ruth E

    Alexander P. Browning, Maria Tasca, Carles Falco, and Ruth E. Baker. Structural identifiability analysis of linear reaction–advection–diffusion processes in mathematical biology. Proc. R. Soc. A., 480(20230911), 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Browning, David J

    Alexander P. Browning, David J. Warne, Kevin Burrage, Ruth E. Baker, and Matthew J. Simpson. Identifiability analysis for stochastic differential equation models in systems biology. J. R. Soc. Interface, 17(20200652), 2020. STRUCTURAL IDENTIFIABILITY OF COMPARTMENTAL MODELS:RE...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Algebraic identifiability of partial differential equation models

    Helen M Byrne, Heather A Harrington, Alexey Ovchinnikov, Gleb Pogudin, Hamid Rahkooy, and Pedro Soto. Algebraic identifiability of partial differential equation models. Nonlinearity, 38(2):025022, jan 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Structural identifiabil- ity analysis of epidemic models based on differential equations: a tutorial-based primer

    Gerardo Chowell, Sushma Dahal, Yuganthi R Liyanage, Amna Tariq, and Necibe Tuncer. Structural identifiabil- ity analysis of epidemic models based on differential equations: a tutorial-based primer. J. Math. Biol., 87(6):79, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Identifiability of parameters in mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions in humans

    Stanca M Ciupe and Necibe Tuncer. Identifiability of parameters in mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions in humans. Sci. Rep., 12(1):14637, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Parameter identifiability of linear-compartmental mammillary models

    Katherine Clemens, Jonathan Martinez, Anne Shiu, Michaela Thompson, and Benjamin Warren. Parameter identifiability of linear-compartmental mammillary models. Preprint, arXiv:2506.21889, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Cobelli, A

    C. Cobelli, A. Lepschy, and G.Romanin Jacur. Identifiability results on some constrained compartmental systems. Math. Biosci., 47(3):173–195, 1979

    1979

  7. [15]

    Woodall, Margarita Gutova, Bihong T

    Martina Conte, Ryan T. Woodall, Margarita Gutova, Bihong T. Chen, Mark S. Shiroishi, Christine E. Brown, Jennifer M. Munson, and Russell C. Rockne. Structural and practical identifiability of contrast transport models for DCE-MRI. PLOS Comput. Biol., 20(5), May 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Structural identifiability of compartmental models for infectious disease transmission is influenced by data type

    Emmanuelle A Dankwa, Andrew F Brouwer, and Christl A Donnelly. Structural identifiability of compartmental models for infectious disease transmission is influenced by data type. Epidemics, 41:100643, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Harrington, and Gleb Pogudin

    Ruiwen Dong, Christian Goodbrake, Heather A. Harrington, and Gleb Pogudin. Differential elimination for dynamical models via projections with applications to structural identifiability.SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 7(1):194–235, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A confidence building exercise in data and identifiability: Modeling cancer chemotherapy as a case study

    Marisa C Eisenberg and Harsh V Jain. A confidence building exercise in data and identifiability: Modeling cancer chemotherapy as a case study. J. Theor. Biol., 431:63–78, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Rafael Sendra

    Sebastian Falkensteiner, Alexey Ovchinnikov, and J. Rafael Sendra. Algorithm for globally identifiable reparametrizations of ODEs. J. Symbol. Comput., 128:102385, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Database for identifiability properties of linear compartmental models

    Natali Gogishvili. Database for identifiability properties of linear compartmental models. Preprint, arXiv:2406.16132, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Linear compartmental models: input- output equations and operations that preserve identifiability

    Elizabeth Gross, Heather Harrington, Nicolette Meshkat, and Anne Shiu. Linear compartmental models: input- output equations and operations that preserve identifiability. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 79(4):1423–1447, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Joining and decomposing reaction networks

    Elizabeth Gross, Heather Harrington, Nicolette Meshkat, and Anne Shiu. Joining and decomposing reaction networks. J. Math. Biol., 80:1683–1731, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Identifiability of linear compartmental models: The singular locus

    Elizabeth Gross, Nicolette Meshkat, and Anne Shiu. Identifiability of linear compartmental models: The singular locus. Adv. Appl. Math., 133(C), 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Haus, Tormod Drengstig, and Kristian Thorsen

    Eivind S. Haus, Tormod Drengstig, and Kristian Thorsen. Structural identifiability of biomolecular controller motifs with and without flow measurements as model output. PLOS Comput. Biol., 19(8):1–33, 08 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Global identifiability of differential models

    Hoon Hong, Alexey Ovchinnikov, Gleb Pogudin, and Chee Yap. Global identifiability of differential models. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 73(9):1831 – 1879, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    SIAN: software for structural identifiability analysis of ODE models

    Hoon Hong, Alexey Ovchinnikov, Gleb Pogudin, and Chee Yap. SIAN: software for structural identifiability analysis of ODE models. Bioinformatics, 35(16):2873–2874, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Web-based structural identifiability analyzer

    Ilia Ilmer, Alexey Ovchinnikov, and Gleb Pogudin. Web-based structural identifiability analyzer. In Computa- tional Methods in Systems Biology: 19th International Conference, CMSB 2021, Bordeaux, France, September 22–24, 2021, Proceedings 19, pages 254–265. Springer, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    A mathematical model for the role of vaccination and treatment in measles transmission in Turkey

    Osman Rasit Isik, Necibe Tuncer, and Maia Martcheva. A mathematical model for the role of vaccination and treatment in measles transmission in Turkey. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 457, MAR 15 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Three novel approaches to structural identifiability analysis in mixed-effects models

    David LI Janz´ en, Mats Jirstrand, Michael J Chappell, and Neil D Evans. Three novel approaches to structural identifiability analysis in mixed-effects models. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 171:141–152, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Determining minimal output sets that ensure structural identifiability

    D Joubert, JD Stigter, and J Molenaar. Determining minimal output sets that ensure structural identifiability. PLoS One, 13(11):e0207334, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Dominique Joubert, J. D. Stigter, and Jaap Molenaar. Assessing the role of initial conditions in the local structural identifiability of large dynamic models. Sci. Rep.-UK, 11(16902), 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Maini, Daniel J

    Yue Liu, Kevin Suh, Philip K. Maini, Daniel J. Cohen, and Ruth E. Baker. Parameter identifiability and model selection for partial differential equation models of cell invasion. J. R. Soc. Interface, 21(2023060), 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Liyanage, Gerardo Chowell, Gleb Pogudin, and Necibe Tuncer

    Yuganthi R. Liyanage, Gerardo Chowell, Gleb Pogudin, and Necibe Tuncer. Structural and practical identifia- bility of phenomenological growth models for epidemic forecasting. Viruses, 17(4), 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Liyanage, Omar Saucedo, Necibe Tuncer, and Gerardo Chowell

    Yuganthi R. Liyanage, Omar Saucedo, Necibe Tuncer, and Gerardo Chowell. A tutorial on structural identifia- bility of epidemic models using StructuralIdentifiability.jl. Preprint, arXiv:2505.10517, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Structural identifiability and observability of compartmental models of the COVID-19 pandemic

    Gemma Massonis, Julio R Banga, and Alejandro F Villaverde. Structural identifiability and observability of compartmental models of the COVID-19 pandemic. Annu. Rev. Control, 51:441–459, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Finding and breaking Lie symmetries: implications for structural identifiability and observability in biological modelling

    Gemma Massonis and Alejandro F Villaverde. Finding and breaking Lie symmetries: implications for structural identifiability and observability in biological modelling. Symmetry, 12(3):469, 2020. 10 NICOLETTE MESHKAT AND ANNE SHIU

    2020

  29. [37]

    Algorithm to find new identifiable reparametriza- tions of parametric rational ODE models

    Nicolette Meshkat, Alexey Ovchinnikov, and Thomas Scanlon. Algorithm to find new identifiable reparametriza- tions of parametric rational ODE models. IEEE T. Automat. Contr., pages 1–16, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Identifiable reparametrizations of linear compartment models

    Nicolette Meshkat and Seth Sullivant. Identifiable reparametrizations of linear compartment models. J. Symb. Comput., 63:46–67, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Identifiability results for several classes of linear com- partment models

    Nicolette Meshkat, Seth Sullivant, and Marisa Eisenberg. Identifiability results for several classes of linear com- partment models. B. Math. Biol., 77(8):1620–1651, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Structural and practical identifiability analysis of a multi- scale immuno-epidemiological model

    Laura Nemeth, Necibe Tuncer, and Maia Martcheva. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of a multi- scale immuno-epidemiological model. In Computational and mathematical population dynamics, pages 169–201. World Scientific, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    On the importance of structural identifiability for machine learning with partially observed dynamical systems

    Janis Norden, Elisa Oostwal, Michael Chappell, Peter Tino, and Kerstin Bunte. On the importance of structural identifiability for machine learning with partially observed dynamical systems. Preprint, arXiv:2502.04131, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Computing all identifiable functions of parameters for ODE models

    Alexey Ovchinnikov, Anand Pillay, Gleb Pogudin, and Thomas Scanlon. Computing all identifiable functions of parameters for ODE models. Systems & Control Letters, 157:105030, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Multi-experiment parameter identifia- bility of ODEs and model theory

    Alexey Ovchinnikov, Anand Pillay, Gleb Pogudin, and Thomas Scanlon. Multi-experiment parameter identifia- bility of ODEs and model theory. SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 6(3):339–367, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Identifiable specializations for ODE models

    Alexey Ovchinnikov, Anand Pillay, Gleb Pogudin, and Thomas Scanlon. Identifiable specializations for ODE models. Preprint, arXiv:2308.16273, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Input-output equations and identifiability of linear ODE models

    Alexey Ovchinnikov, Gleb Pogudin, and Peter Thompson. Input-output equations and identifiability of linear ODE models. IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 68(2):812–824, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Structural identifiability analysis of age-structured PDE epidemic models

    Marissa Renardy, Denise Kirschner, and Marisa Eisenberg. Structural identifiability analysis of age-structured PDE epidemic models. J. Math. Biol., 84(9), 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Benchmarking tools for a priori identifiability analysis

    Xabier Rey Barreiro and Alejandro F Villaverde. Benchmarking tools for a priori identifiability analysis. Bioin- formatics, 39(2):btad065, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    The union between structural and practical identifiability makes strength in reducing oncological model complexity: a case study

    Maria Pia Saccomani and Karl Thomaseth. The union between structural and practical identifiability makes strength in reducing oncological model complexity: a case study. Complexity, 2018(1):2380650, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Mahdiar Sadeghi, Irina Kareva, Gleb Pogudin, and Eduardo D. Sontag. Quantitative pharmacology methods for bispecific T Cell engagers. Bull. Math. Biol., 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Structural identifiability of linear-in-parameter parabolic PDEs through auxiliary elliptic operators

    Yurij Salmaniw and Alexander P Browning. Structural identifiability of linear-in-parameter parabolic PDEs through auxiliary elliptic operators. Preprint, arXiv:2411.17553, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Computing measures of identifiability, observability, and controllability for a dynamic system model with the StrucID App

    JD Stigter and D Joubert. Computing measures of identifiability, observability, and controllability for a dynamic system model with the StrucID App. IF AC-PapersOnLine, 54(7):138–143, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Parameter identi- fiability and optimal control of an SARS-CoV-2 model early in the pandemic

    Necibe Tuncer, Archana Timsina, Miriam Nuno, Gerardo Chowell, and Maia Martcheva and. Parameter identi- fiability and optimal control of an SARS-CoV-2 model early in the pandemic. J. Biol. Dynam., 16(1):412–438, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Egan, Nivedhitha Swaminathan, Carlos A

    Linda Wanika, Joseph R. Egan, Nivedhitha Swaminathan, Carlos A. Duran-Villalobos, Juergen Branke, Stephen Goldrick, and Mike Chappell. Structural and practical identifiability analysis in bioengineering: a beginner’s guide. J. Biol. Eng., 18(1), March 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.