Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 55 references

A Conceptual Introduction to Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Systems-of-Systems

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) gives a single mathematical language that generalizes formal graphs, multi-layer networks, bond graphs, linear graphs, and system dynamics models, while preserving the…

desk verdict Useful tutorial with a load-bearing equation error that undermines a headline claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24046 v1 pith:CNFS565L submitted 2025-05-29 eess.SY cs.SY

Amro M. Farid , Amirreza Hosseini , John C. Little This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords hetero-functionalgraphtheorymodel-basedsystemsengineeringnetworksciencesystems-of-systemsmulti-layernetworksSysMLsystemarchitectureincidencetensor
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

The paper introduces hetero-functional graph theory as a conceptual bridge between model-based systems engineering and network science. It argues that a single mathematical structure can represent the heterogeneity of engineering systems-of-systems that formal graphs and multi-layer networks cannot capture. If HFGT is right, then SysML models can be translated into quantitative graph data structures, and several distinct modeling traditions become special cases of one unifying formalism. A sympathetic reader would take this as a claim about modeling generality, not a proof that all existing models are erroneous.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (1) the system concept matrix $A_S$, a binary matrix recording which resources can execute which processes, (2) the capability set $E_S$ formed by pairing resources with processes, and (3) the third-order hetero-functional incidence tensor $M_\rho = M^+_\rho - M^-_\rho$, whose entries record whether a capability injects or pulls a given operand into or from a given buffer. The hetero-functional adjacency matrix is computed as $A_\rho = M^{+T}_\rho M^-_\rho$, and the paper shows that formal-graph and multi-layer adjacency structures emerge by summing over different dimensions of the same tensor.

What would settle it

Find a realistic system-of-systems in which one process is inherently executed by several resources at once, with the process or resource not decomposable into independent sub-processes or sub-resources; if such a system can be modeled accurately only by allowing multi-resource processes, then the Independence Axiom fails and the binary $A_S$ cannot represent the system without distortion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

HFGT's central claim is that an engineering system is best represented not by nodes and edges that stand for physical things, but by capabilities: actions in which a resource executes a process on an operand. These capabilities form the nodes of a hetero-functional graph, and their allowed sequences form its edges, constructed from a third-order hetero-functional incidence tensor that tracks which capabilities pull operands from buffers and which inject operands into buffers. From this single tensor, the paper derives the adjacency matrix of a hetero-functional graph as well as the adjacency matrices of formal graphs and multi-layer networks by collapsing different dimensions, showing that the earlier representations are projections of the hetero-functional one.

Load-bearing premise

Every process must be completable by a single resource, either as-is or after splitting the process or the resource into smaller pieces, so that the binary system-concept matrix $A_S$ can represent it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SysML models can be translated algorithmically into hetero-functional graphs or Petri nets, giving model-based systems engineering a route to quantitative analysis.
  • Formal graphs, multi-layer networks, bond graphs, linear graphs, and system dynamics models become special cases of one tensor-based representation, so tools built for HFGT could analyze models from all those traditions.
  • A system-of-systems of arbitrary topology and heterogeneous constituent systems can be represented as a single hetero-functional graph and subjected to structural analysis, dynamic simulation, and optimal decision problems.
  • The ontological properties of soundness, completeness, lucidity, and laconicity become checkable properties of the mapping between a SysML model and its graph-theoretic representation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test would be to take an existing SysML model of a critical-infrastructure system-of-systems, translate it into the incidence tensor, and check whether the resulting adjacency matrix preserves every constraint the SysML model expresses; the paper asserts algorithmic translation but does not demonstrate it end to end.
  • The same tensor construction could serve as a normal form for measuring information loss: one could quantify how much of the operand and buffer structure disappears when a hetero-functional graph is projected down to a formal graph or multi-layer network.
  • If the Independence Axiom holds only approximately in practice, the framework might be extended by allowing a weighted or fuzzy system concept matrix instead of a binary one; that extension is not part of the paper.
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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper is a conceptual tutorial introducing hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) as a bridge between model-based systems engineering (MBSE) and network science. It defines an ontology of resources, processes, operands, and capabilities, introduces a SysML-based meta-architecture, and presents hetero-functional incidence tensors and adjacency matrices. The paper claims that HFGT generalizes formal graphs, multi-layer networks, bond graphs, linear graphs, and system dynamics models, and that it can model arbitrary systems-of-systems. The manuscript is primarily an expository account that refers to the authors' prior publications for proofs and applications.

Significance. If the framework's claims are correct, HFGT offers a genuinely unifying modeling language with potential value for both MBSE practitioners and network scientists. The tutorial's strengths are its explicit ontological definitions, the clear SysML diagrams, and the worked visual example in Figure 5, which help make abstract concepts accessible. The paper also explicitly engages with modeling-fidelity criteria (soundness, completeness, lucidity, laconicity), which is a useful framing. However, the paper's central generalization claim with respect to multi-layer networks rests on a single displayed derivation, Equation (4), which is flawed as printed. The other generalization claims are asserted via citations to the authors' own work rather than demonstrated here. These issues materially affect the paper's reliability as a standalone tutorial.

major comments (1)
  1. [§IV] Equations (1) and (2) define the hetero-functional adjacency matrix only for the same-operand, same-buffer case, because the sums over operands i and buffers y use the same index in both factors. The text claims that the projected adjacency matrix is 'straightforwardly calculated' from the incidence tensors, but for a general capability that pulls one operand and injects a different operand, the formula in (1) is not well-defined. This is closely related to the defect in Eq. (4). Please clarify whether Eq. (1) is intended only for the special case of equal input and output operands, and supply the general formula if not.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§II] The sentence 'The fidelity of the model with respect to the abstraction is determined by four complementary linguistic properties' is clear, but the paper does not give a concrete example of a modeling language that fails each property. One brief example per property would strengthen the tutorial value.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Multilayer generalization rests on Eq. (4), which drops the output-layer index and by construction excludes cross-operand inter-layer edges; the unification claim is then re-asserted through a chain of self-citations.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Definitions 13-14 and Eq. (4)]
    "Additionally, the adjacency tensor pertaining to a multi-layer formal graph can also be calculated from the third order positive and negative hetero-functional incidence tensors [1], [46]. ABS(y1,y2,i1,i2) = OR_psi M-rho(i1,y1,psi) * M+rho(i1,y2,psi) (4)"

    In Eq. (4) the output-layer index i2 never appears: the formula contracts only on i1. By Definitions 13-14, M-rho(i1,y1,psi)=1 means capability psi pulls operand l_i1 from buffer y1, and M+rho(i1,y2,psi)=1 means that same capability injects the same operand l_i1 into y2. A capability that pulls operand i1 and injects a different operand i2 therefore contributes zero, so cross-operand inter-layer edges are structurally absent. The claimed 'multi-layer adjacency tensor' is, by construction, a same-operand multiplex object; the advertised reconciliation and generalization of general multilayer networks is not demonstrated but assumed away.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section III, meta-architecture paragraph; echoed in Section V]
    "Hetero-functional graph theory, as the next section elaborates, utilizes its own meta-architecture, which, in recent years, has been shown to generalize linear graphs, bond graphs, system dynamics, and formal graph theory [1], [33], [34]."

    The central premise that HFGT generalizes linear graphs, bond graphs, system dynamics, and formal graph theory is supported only by citations to the authors' own prior work ([1] Farid, Thompson & Schoonenberg; [33] Ghorbanichemazkati & Farid; [34] Naderi, Harris, Little & Farid). Section V repeats the same claim with the same self-references and no independent benchmark or reproduced derivation appears in the paper. The unifying status of HFGT is thus asserted through the authors' own publication chain rather than established from first principles here, making the tutorial's headline claim load-bearing on self-citation.

full rationale

This is a tutorial of the authors' own theory, so heavy self-citation is expected and, by itself, would not be circular. However, the paper's central unification claim is not independently re-derived in the text; it is imported from [1], [33], [34], [46], all co-authored by the present authors. More importantly, the one explicit derivation offered for the multi-layer network generalization, Eq. (4), is internally inconsistent: the index i2 of the target adjacency tensor A_BS(y1,y2,i1,i2) never appears, so only edges that pull and inject the same operand are representable. The formal graph and multilayer-network generalizations are therefore partially constructed by restricting the target class rather than by reconciling the general multilayer formalism. The Independence Axiom is an additional stated assumption that limits expressiveness, but it is openly declared and not in itself circular. On balance, the generalization from formal/multilayer graphs to HFGT partly reduces to a same-operand by-construction projection plus a self-citation chain, giving a score of 6. The paper remains informative as an ontology and SysML tutorial, and the underlying prior works may well contain valid proofs; but the present text does not exhibit those proofs and its printed Eq. (4) does not support the advertised claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of modeling postulates and constructs that are defined within the paper or inherited from the authors' prior work. No free numerical parameters are fit to data, because the paper is a conceptual tutorial rather than an empirical study.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The entirety of any given process must be completed by a given resource (Independence Axiom).
    Invoked in Section III to justify the binary system concept matrix A_S; if a process can be split across resources without decomposition, the model cannot represent it.
  • ad hoc to paper Engineering systems follow the universal linguistic structure subject + verb + operand.
    Section IV claims HFGT stems from this structure; no independent evidence is given that all engineering systems must conform.
  • domain assumption The four linguistic properties (soundness, completeness, lucidity, laconicity) are the correct criteria for model fidelity.
    Section II adopts these from Guizzardi [18], [19] as the standard; the paper relies on them to argue HFGT is better than multi-layer networks.
invented entities (2)
  • Capability (epsilon_wv)
    purpose: Node of hetero-functional graph representing a resource executing a process
    Defined in Definition 11; it is a conceptual construct with no external falsifiable handle.
  • Operand net
    purpose: Petri net describing state evolution of an operand
    Definition 9; it is a modeling artifact, not an independently observable entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Conceptual Introduction to Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Systems-of-Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNFS565L

@misc{pith2026250524046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Conceptual Introduction to Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Systems-of-Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNFS565L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24046}
}
read the original abstract

A defining feature of twenty first century engineering challenges is their inherent complexity, demanding the convergence of knowledge across diverse disciplines. Establishing consistent methodological foundations for engineering systems remains a challenge -- one that both systems engineering and network science have sought to address. Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) has recently emerged as a practical, interdisciplinary approach for developing complex systems from concept through implementation. In contrast, network science focuses on the quantitative analysis of networks present within engineering systems. This paper introduces hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) as a conceptual bridge between these two fields, serving as a tutorial for both communities. For systems engineers, HFGT preserves the heterogeneity of conceptual and ontological constructs in MBSE, including system form, function, and concept. For network scientists, it provides multiple graph-based data structures enabling matrix-based quantitative analysis. The modeling process begins with ontological foundations, defining an engineering system as an abstraction and representing it with a model. Model fidelity is assessed using four linguistic properties: soundness, completeness, lucidity, and laconicity. A meta-architecture is introduced to manage the convergence challenges between domain-specific reference architectures and case-specific instantiations. Unlike other meta-architectures, HFGT is rooted in linguistic structures, modeling resources as subjects, system processes as predicates, and operands-such as matter, energy, organisms, information, and money-as objects. These elements are integrated within a system meta-architecture expressed in the Systems Modeling Language (SysML). The paper concludes by offering guidance for further reading.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ullman’s Triangle [18]: It’s ontological definition. On the left, the relationship between reality, the understanding of reality, and the description of reality. On the right, the instantiated version of the definition. absence of completeness results in one or more concepts in the domain abstraction not being represented by a modeling primitive). ■ Definition 4 – Lucidity [19]: A language is lucid with respect to a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SysML Block Definition Diagram. Systems architecture can be represented at three levels of abstraction: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A SysML Block Diagram of the HFGT Formal Meta-Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A SysML Activity Diagram of the HFGT Functional Meta-Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A Visual Comparison of a Formal Graph (FG) and a Hetero-functional Graph (HFG) Model of the Same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,

    A. M. Farid, D. Thompson, and W. C. Schoonenberg, “A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,”Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 18805, pp. 1–22, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19333-y

    doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19333-y 2022

  2. [2]

    O. L. De Weck, D. Roos, and C. L. Magee,Engineering systems: meeting human needs in a complex technological world. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=4611http://mitpress-ebooks.mit.edu/product/ engineering-systems

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2015

    SE Handbook Working Group,Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Weilkiens,Systems engineering with SysML/UML modeling, analysis, design

    T. Weilkiens,Systems engineering with SysML/UML modeling, analysis, design. Burlington, Mass.: Morgan Kaufmann, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Friedenthal, A

    S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner,A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language, 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    W. C. Schoonenberg, I. S. Khayal, and A. M. Farid,A Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Modeling Interdependent Smart City Infrastructure. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99301-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99301-0 2019

  7. [7]

    Barab ´asiet al.,Network science

    A.-L. Barab ´asiet al.,Network science. Cambridge university press, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Multilayer networks,

    M. Kivel ¨a, A. Arenas, M. Barthelemy, J. P . Gleeson, Y. Moreno, and M. A. Porter, “Multilayer networks,”Journal of complex networks, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 203–271, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    A Development of Degrees of Freedom for Manufacturing Systems,

    A. M. Farid and D. C. McFarlane, “A Development of Degrees of Freedom for Manufacturing Systems,” inIMS’2006: 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems: Agents and Virtual Worlds, Sakarya, Turkey, 2006, pp. 1–6. [Online]. Available: http://engineering.da...

    2006

  2. [10]

    Reconfigurability Measurement in Automated Manufacturing Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “Reconfigurability Measurement in Automated Manufacturing Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge Engineering Department Institute for Manufacturing, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/liines/resources/ Theses/IEM-TP00.pdf

    2007

  3. [11]

    Production degrees of freedom as manufacturing system reconfiguration potential measures,

    A. M. Farid and D. C. McFarlane, “Production degrees of freedom as manufacturing system reconfiguration potential measures,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B (Journal of Engineering Manufacture) – invited paper, vol. 222, no. B10, pp. 1301–1314, 2...

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    Product Degrees of Freedom as Manufacturing System Reconfiguration Potential Measures,

    A. M. Farid, “Product Degrees of Freedom as Manufacturing System Reconfiguration Potential Measures,”International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications – invited paper, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 227–242, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/ liines/...

    2008

  5. [13]

    Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Axiomatic Design Model and Measures,

    ——, “Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Axiomatic Design Model and Measures,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–12, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2428284

    2015

  6. [14]

    Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,

    W. C. Schoonenberg and A. M. Farid, “Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,”Sustainable Energy Grids and Networks, vol. 31, no. 100749, pp. 1–18, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2022.100749

    2022

  7. [15]

    Crawley, B

    E. Crawley, B. Cameron, and D. Selva,System Architecture: Strategy and Product Development for Complex Systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall Press, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    W. C. Schoonenberg, I. S. Khayal, and A. M. Farid,A Hetero-functional graph theory for modeling interdependent smart City infrastructure. Springer, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Mathematical formulation of multilayer networks,

    M. De Domenico, A. Sol ´e-Ribalta, E. Cozzo, M. Kivel ¨a, Y. Moreno, M. A. Porter, S. G ´omez, and A. Arenas, “Mathematical formulation of multilayer networks,”Physical Review X, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 041022, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta) models,

    G. Guizzardi, “On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta) models,”Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 155, p. 18, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models,

    ——, “Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models,” 2005

    2005

  12. [20]

    N. P . Suh,Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    H. M. Paynter,Analysis and design of engineering systems. MIT press, 1961

    1961

  14. [22]

    Karnopp, D

    D. Karnopp, D. L. Margolis, and R. C. Rosenberg,System dynamics: a unified approach, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1990. [Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0650/90012110-t.html

    1990

  15. [23]

    F. T. Brown,Engineering System Dynamics, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    H. E. Koenig, Y. TOKAD, and H. K. Kesavan,ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE PHYSICAL SYSTEMS.McGraw-Hill, 1967

    1967

  17. [25]

    W. A. Blackwell,Mathematical modeling of physical networks. Collier-Macmillan, 1968. 11

    1968

  18. [26]

    J. L. Shearer, A. T. Murphy, and H. H. Richardson,Introduction to system dynamics. Addison-Wesley Reading, 1967, vol. 7017

    1967

  19. [27]

    B. C. Kuo,Linear networks and systems. McGraw-Hill, 1967

    1967

  20. [28]

    Chan, S.-Y

    S.-P . Chan, S.-Y. Chan, S.-G. Chanet al.,Analysis of linear Networks and Systems. Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1972

    1972

  21. [29]

    Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers,

    J. W. Forrester, “Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers,”Harvard Business Review, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 37–66, 1958

    1958

  22. [30]

    J. D. Sterman,Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill Boston, 2000, vol. 19

    2000

  23. [31]

    van Steen,Graph Theory and Complex Networks: An Introduction

    M. van Steen,Graph Theory and Complex Networks: An Introduction. Maarten van Steen, 2010, no. January

    2010

  24. [32]

    Newman,Networks: An Introduction

    M. Newman,Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009. [Online]. Available: http: //books.google.ae/books?id=LrFaU4XCsUoC

    2009

  25. [33]

    Generalizing Linear Graphs and Bond Graph Models with Hetero-functional Graphs for System-of-Systems Engineering Applications,

    E. Ghorbanichemazkati and A. M. Farid, “Generalizing Linear Graphs and Bond Graph Models with Hetero-functional Graphs for System-of-Systems Engineering Applications,”Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03630, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03630

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Simulating mono lake system: Convergence paradigm by the hetero-functional graph theory approach or a system dynamics model?

    M. Naderi, M. Harris, J. C. Little, and A. M. Farid, “Simulating mono lake system: Convergence paradigm by the hetero-functional graph theory approach or a system dynamics model?” in1st Workshop of Systems of Systems Applications of Hetero-functional Graph Theory, Annapolis, M...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hoyle,ISO 9000 pocket guide

    D. Hoyle,ISO 9000 pocket guide. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ els033/99163006.html

    1998

  28. [36]

    Delligatti,SysML distilled: A brief guide to the systems modeling language

    L. Delligatti,SysML distilled: A brief guide to the systems modeling language. Addison-Wesley, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Friedenthal, A

    S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner,A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language. Morgan Kaufmann, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Girault and R

    C. Girault and R. Valk,Petri nets for systems engineering: a guide to modeling, verification, and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Architecting a System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,

    I. S. Khayal and A. M. Farid, “Architecting a System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,”Complexity, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8457231

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    A Dynamic Model for the Energy Management of Microgrid-Enabled Production Systems,

    W. C. Schoonenberg and A. M. Farid, “A Dynamic Model for the Energy Management of Microgrid-Enabled Production Systems,”Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.119

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    A. M. Farid and N. P . Suh,Axiomatic Design in Large Systems: Complex Products, Buildings and Manufacturing Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32388-6

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Coordination and Control of Future Power Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Coordination and Control of Future Power Systems,”Intelligent Industrial Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 255–269, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40903-015-0013-x

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    An Axiomatic Design Approach to Passenger Itinerary Enumeration in Reconfigurable Transportation Systems,

    A. Viswanath, E. E. S. Baca, and A. M. Farid, “An Axiomatic Design Approach to Passenger Itinerary Enumeration in Reconfigurable Transportation Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 915 – 924, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx...

    2014

  36. [45]

    A Hybrid Dynamic System Model for Multi-Modal Transportation Electrification,

    A. M. Farid, “A Hybrid Dynamic System Model for Multi-Modal Transportation Electrification,”IEEE Transactions on Control System Technology, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–12, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2016.2579602

    2016

  37. [46]

    Reconciling formal, multi-layer, and hetero-functional graphs with the hetero-functional incidence tensor,

    D. Thompson and A. M. Farid, “Reconciling formal, multi-layer, and hetero-functional graphs with the hetero-functional incidence tensor,” inIEEE Systems of Systems Engineering Conference, Rochester, NY, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  38. [47]

    Design of large engineering systems,

    G.-J. Park and A. M. Farid, “Design of large engineering systems,” inDesign Engineering and Science, N. P . Suh, M. Cavique, and J. Foley, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2021, pp. 367–415. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8 14

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    A Hetero-functional Graph Resilience Analysis of the Future American Electric Power System,

    D. Thompson, W. C. Schoonenberg, and A. M. Farid, “A Hetero-functional Graph Resilience Analysis of the Future American Electric Power System,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 68 837–68 848, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077856

    2021

  40. [49]

    A hetero-functional graph structural analysis of the american multi-modal energy system,

    D. Thompson and A. M. Farid, “A hetero-functional graph structural analysis of the american multi-modal energy system,”Sustainable Energy, Grids, and Networks, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 101 254–101 269, 2024

    2024

  41. [50]

    A Dynamic System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,

    I. S. Khayal and A. M. Farid, “A Dynamic System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 138 267–138 282, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3118010

    2021

  42. [51]

    An Axiomatic Design of a Multi-Agent Reconfigurable Mechatronic System Architecture,

    A. M. Farid and L. Ribeiro, “An Axiomatic Design of a Multi-Agent Reconfigurable Mechatronic System Architecture,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1142–1155, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TII.2015.2470528

    2015

  43. [52]

    Measures of Reconfigurability and Its Key Characteristics in Intelligent Manufacturing Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “Measures of Reconfigurability and Its Key Characteristics in Intelligent Manufacturing Systems,”Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 353–369, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0983-7

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    A hybrid dynamic system assessment methodology for multi-modal transportation-electrification,

    T. J. van der Wardt and A. M. Farid, “A hybrid dynamic system assessment methodology for multi-modal transportation-electrification,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 653, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10050653

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Electrified transportation system performance: Conventional vs. online electric vehicles,

    A. M. Farid, “Electrified transportation system performance: Conventional vs. online electric vehicles,” inThe On-line Electric Vehicle: Wireless Electric Ground Transportation Systems, N. P . Suh and D. H. Cho, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2017, ch. 20, pp. 279–313. [On...

    2017

  46. [55]

    Axiomatic Design Based Volatility Assessment of the Abu Dhabi Healthcare Labor Market,

    I. S. Khayal and A. M. Farid, “Axiomatic Design Based Volatility Assessment of the Abu Dhabi Healthcare Labor Market,”Journal of Enterprise Transformation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 162–191, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2015.1056449

    2015

  47. [56]

    A Hetero-functional Graph Resilience Analysis for Convergent Systems-of-Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “A Hetero-functional Graph Resilience Analysis for Convergent Systems-of-Systems,”Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04936, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04936

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.