pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29291 · v1 · pith:G6TQNZY7new · submitted 2026-06-28 · 🧮 math.DS

A Data-Assimilation-Augmented Optimization Framework for Parameter Estimation in Dynamical Systems

Muhammad Jalil Ahmad , Animikh Biswas , Kathleen Hoffman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 02:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.DS
keywords parameter estimationdata assimilationdynamical systemsinverse problemsLorenz-63optimizationnudged systemchaotic systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

A nudged system driven by partial observations recovers ODE parameters via mismatch-cost optimization without needing accurate initial conditions.

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

The paper develops a data-assimilation-augmented optimization framework for estimating parameters in nonlinear dynamical systems from noisy partial observations of only some state variables. It introduces a nudged copy of the system driven by the observed components and estimates parameters by minimizing a cost functional that penalizes time-delayed mismatch between the data and the corresponding components of the nudged trajectory. Because the nudged system can start from any initial state, the approach removes dependence on accurate initial conditions, which is especially useful in chaotic regimes. Theoretical results establish synchronization when parameters match, stability under mismatch, and well-posedness of the inverse map under nondegeneracy conditions, using the Lorenz-63 system as the test case. Numerical experiments confirm accurate recovery in both chaotic and non-chaotic regimes while showing lower computational cost and better noise tolerance than on-the-fly learning or Bayesian MCMC.

Core claim

The central claim is that parameter estimation in ODEs reduces to minimizing a time-delayed mismatch cost between partial observations and the observed component of a nudged solution driven by those same observations; when parameters agree the nudged solution synchronizes with the true trajectory, when they disagree it remains stable, and the data-to-parameter map is well-posed under suitable nondegeneracy conditions, all without requiring knowledge of the initial state.

What carries the argument

The nudged dynamical system driven by the available observed component, with parameters recovered by minimizing the time-delayed mismatch cost functional over the admissible parameter space.

If this is right

  • Parameters are accurately recovered from noisy partial observations in both chaotic and non-chaotic regimes.
  • Dependence on accurate initial conditions is eliminated because the nudged system can be arbitrarily initialized.
  • Accuracy is maintained at higher noise levels than on-the-fly parameter learning or Bayesian MCMC estimation.
  • Computational cost is substantially lower than MCMC estimation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The synchronization property suggests the method could extend to other systems that admit similar nudging-driven convergence, such as certain reaction-diffusion models.
  • Preceding the optimization with Sobol sensitivity analysis provides a practical way to screen which parameters are identifiable before collecting data.
  • In sensor-limited settings such as biological networks or fluid flows, the framework could support online parameter updates from incomplete measurements without full-state reconstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The observations and system satisfy suitable nondegeneracy conditions that guarantee well-posedness of the data-to-parameter inverse map.

What would settle it

Numerical tests on the Lorenz-63 system with noisy partial observations would falsify the claim if the optimization fails to recover the true parameters even when the nondegeneracy conditions hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29291 by Animikh Biswas, Kathleen Hoffman, Muhammad Jalil Ahmad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Plots of the first-order and total-order Sobol sensitivity indices in the chaotic regime using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plots of the first-order and total-order Sobol sensitivity indices in the non-chaotic regime using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Logarithm (base 10) of the absolute relative errors between the state variables of the Lorenz system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Logarithm (base 10) of the absolute relative errors between the state variables of the Lorenz system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Logarithm (base 10) of the absolute relative errors between the state variables of the Lorenz system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Logarithm (base 10) of the absolute relative errors between the state variables of the Lorenz system and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Failure of convergence when only the z–component is observed. The nudged system does not synchronize with the reference Lorenz trajectory. The abscissa represents time, and the ordinate represents the logarithm of the absolute error between the true and nudged states. 5.3 Parameter Estimation Algorithm 1 is now used to estimate the Lorenz parameters from partial observations. Results are reported for both … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior density estimates obtained using Bayesian MCMC parameter estimation in the chaotic regime with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior density estimates obtained using Bayesian MCMC parameter estimation in the non-chaotic regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Parameter estimation in nonlinear dynamical systems from observational data is a fundamental inverse problem with applications in many disciplines. In practice, this is further complicated by the fact that observations are often noisy, sparse, and available only for a subset of the state variables. Furthermore, the initial condition (IC) may be unknown or inaccurate, causing further complications for chaotic systems with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. In this work, we develop a data-assimilation-augmented optimization framework for parameter estimation in ordinary differential equations using partial state observations. The method introduces a nudged system driven by the available observed component and estimates the unknown parameters by minimizing a cost functional, defined as a time-delayed mismatch between the observations and the corresponding observed component of the nudged solution over the admissible parameter space. Since the nudged system can be arbitrarily initialized, this approach eliminates the dependence on accurate IC. Using the Lorenz-63 system as a test case, we establish theoretical results showing synchronization of the nudged solution under parameter agreement, stability under parameter mismatch, and well-posedness of the data-to-parameter inverse map under suitable nondegeneracy conditions. Structural & practical identifiability, and Sobol sensitivity analyses are incorporated to assess which parameters can be reliably estimated from the observations. Numerical experiments in both chaotic and non-chaotic regimes show that this framework accurately recovers parameters from noisy partial observations. Comparisons with an on-the-fly parameter learning method and with Bayesian MCMC estimation demonstrate that the proposed method remains accurate under partial observations and higher noise levels while requiring substantially lower computational cost.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a data-assimilation-augmented optimization framework for parameter estimation in ODEs from noisy partial observations. A nudged system driven by the observed state components is introduced, and parameters are recovered by minimizing a time-delayed mismatch cost functional over the admissible parameter space; this eliminates dependence on the initial condition. Theoretical results establish synchronization of the nudged solution under parameter agreement, stability under mismatch, and well-posedness of the inverse map under nondegeneracy conditions, using the Lorenz-63 system as the test case. Structural and practical identifiability together with Sobol sensitivity analyses are performed, and numerical experiments in chaotic and non-chaotic regimes demonstrate accurate recovery, with comparisons to on-the-fly learning and Bayesian MCMC showing advantages in accuracy under partial observations and computational cost.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a computationally efficient, theoretically supported method for inverse problems in dynamical systems that handles partial noisy data and unknown initial conditions. The combination of nudging, a mismatch cost, and identifiability/sensitivity analyses, together with explicit numerical validation on Lorenz-63 and direct comparisons to existing methods, constitutes a concrete contribution to parameter estimation in chaotic systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (theoretical results paragraph): well-posedness of the data-to-parameter inverse map is asserted under suitable nondegeneracy conditions, yet the numerical experiments section provides no explicit verification that these conditions hold for the chosen partial observations, nudging strength, time delay, or noise levels in the Lorenz-63 tests. Because the claim of accurate recovery from noisy partial observations rests on this well-posedness, the absence of such a check leaves open whether the reported accuracy is a general consequence of the framework or an artifact of the specific test cases.
  2. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments: the stability result under parameter mismatch is invoked to justify convergence of the optimization, but the manuscript does not quantify how the observed mismatch cost behaves as a function of parameter deviation for the partial-observation operator actually used; without this link the numerical recovery alone does not confirm that the theoretical stability translates to the inverse problem solved in practice.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is dense; separating the statement of the method, the theoretical claims, and the numerical findings into distinct sentences would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (theoretical results paragraph): well-posedness of the data-to-parameter inverse map is asserted under suitable nondegeneracy conditions, yet the numerical experiments section provides no explicit verification that these conditions hold for the chosen partial observations, nudging strength, time delay, or noise levels in the Lorenz-63 tests. Because the claim of accurate recovery from noisy partial observations rests on this well-posedness, the absence of such a check leaves open whether the reported accuracy is a general consequence of the framework or an artifact of the specific test cases.

    Authors: The nondegeneracy conditions are stated explicitly in the theoretical analysis (Section 3) and are satisfied by the partial-observation operators and nudging strengths used in the Lorenz-63 experiments, as these choices ensure the required observability and controllability properties. The numerical recoveries are therefore consistent with the well-posedness result rather than artifacts. To make this link fully explicit, we will add a short verification subsection in the numerical experiments that confirms the conditions hold for the reported parameter values, nudging gains, and noise levels. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments: the stability result under parameter mismatch is invoked to justify convergence of the optimization, but the manuscript does not quantify how the observed mismatch cost behaves as a function of parameter deviation for the partial-observation operator actually used; without this link the numerical recovery alone does not confirm that the theoretical stability translates to the inverse problem solved in practice.

    Authors: The stability theorem (Theorem 3.2) is stated for general partial observations satisfying the nondegeneracy assumptions, and the numerical cost functional is precisely the one analyzed in the theorem. While the manuscript does not include explicit plots of cost versus parameter deviation for the specific operator, the observed convergence of the optimizer is consistent with the stability bound. We will add a brief numerical illustration (e.g., a one-dimensional slice of the cost functional around the true parameter) to the experiments section to make the connection direct. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Method defined independently; minor self-citation not load-bearing for central claims.

full rationale

The nudged system and mismatch cost are introduced as independent constructions. Theoretical results invoke synchronization and well-posedness under external nondegeneracy conditions rather than deriving them from fitted quantities. Numerical recovery claims rest on experiments, not on any reduction of predictions to inputs by construction. Any self-citations present are peripheral and do not carry the load-bearing argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on a tunable nudging strength and time-delay parameter plus domain assumptions on nondegeneracy; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • nudging strength
    Controls the strength of the driving term in the nudged system and must be chosen to achieve synchronization.
  • time delay
    Used in the mismatch cost functional between observations and nudged trajectory.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Suitable nondegeneracy conditions hold for the observations and system
    Invoked to establish well-posedness of the data-to-parameter inverse map.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5810 in / 1314 out tokens · 48228 ms · 2026-06-30T02:13:17.580041+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

81 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H. Miao, X. Xia, A. S. Perelson, and H. Wu. On identifiability of nonlinear ode models and applications in viral dynamics. SIAM Review , 53(1):3–39, 2011. doi:10.1137/090757009

    work page doi:10.1137/090757009 2011

  2. [2]

    Ljung and T

    L. Ljung and T. Glad. On global identifiability for arbitrary model parametrizations. Automatica, 30(2):265–276, 1994

    1994

  3. [3]

    Walter and L

    E. Walter and L. Pronzato. Identification of Parametric Models: From Experimental Data . Communications and Control Engineering. Springer, 1997

    1997

  4. [4]

    Anstett-Collin, L

    F. Anstett-Collin, L. Denis-Vidal, and G. Millérioux. A priori identifiability: An overview on definitions and approaches. Annual Reviews in Control , 50:139–149, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.10.006 2020

  5. [5]

    Meshkat and A

    N. Meshkat and A. Shiu. Structural identifiability of compartmental models: Recent progress and future directions. Current Opinion in Systems Biology , page 100559, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Saucedo, A

    O. Saucedo, A. Laubmeier, T. Tang, B. Levy, L. Asik, T. Pollington, and O. P. Feldman. Comparative analysis of practical identifiability methods for an SEIR model. AIMS Mathematics , 9(9):24722–24761, 2024. doi:10.3934/ math.20241204

    2024

  7. [7]

    Tuncer and T

    N. Tuncer and T. T. Le. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of outbreak models. Math. Biosci. , 299:1–18, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2018.02.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2018.02.004 2018

  8. [8]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez, P

    M. Rodriguez-Fernandez, P. Mendes, and J. R. Banga. A hybrid approach for efficient and robust parameter estimation in biochemical pathways. BioSystems, 83(2–3):248–265, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.06. 016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.06 2006

  9. [9]

    H. T. Banks, S. Hu, and W. C. Thompson. Modeling and Inverse Problems in the Presence of Uncertainty . CRC Press, 2014. doi:10.1201/b16760

    work page doi:10.1201/b16760 2014

  10. [10]

    Venzon and S

    D. Venzon and S. Moolgavkar. A method for computing profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) , 37(1):87–94, 1988. doi:10.2307/2347496

    work page doi:10.2307/2347496 1988

  11. [11]

    J. A. Jacquez and T. Perry. Parameter estimation: local identifiability of parameters. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism , 258(4):E727–E736, 1990. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.1990.258.4.E727

    work page doi:10.1152/ajpendo.1990.258.4.e727 1990

  12. [12]

    M. C. Eisenberg and M. A. Hayashi. Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling. Mathematical Biosciences, 256:116–126, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2014.08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2014.08.008 2014

  13. [13]

    F. G. Wieland, A. L. Hauber, M. Rosenblatt, C. Tönsing, and J. Timmer. On structural and practical identifia- bility. Current Opinion in Systems Biology , 25:60–69, 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    A. F. Villaverde, A. Barreiro, and A. Papachristodoulou. Structural identifiability of dynamic systems biology models. PLoS Computational Biology , 12(10):e1005153, 2016. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005153

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005153 2016

  15. [15]

    Marino, I

    S. Marino, I. B. Hogue, C. J. Ray, and D. E. Kirschner. A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 254(1):178–196, 2008

    2008

  16. [16]

    Zhang, M

    X.-Y. Zhang, M. N. Trame, L. J. Lesko, and S. Schmidt. Sobol sensitivity analysis: A tool to guide the development and evaluation of systems pharmacology models. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology , 4(2):69–79, 2015

    2015

  17. [17]

    Bidah, O

    S. Bidah, O. Zakary, and M. Rachik. Stability and global sensitivity analysis for an agree-disagree model: Par- tial rank correlation coefficient and Latin hypercube sampling methods. International Journal of Differential Equations, 2020:1–14, 2020

    2020

  18. [18]

    I. M. Sobol. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 55(1-3):271–280, 2001

    2001

  19. [19]

    Hoare, D

    A. Hoare, D. G. Regan, and D. P. Wilson. Sampling and sensitivity analyses tools (SaSAT) for computational modelling. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling , 5(1):4, 2008

    2008

  20. [20]

    Saltelli and J

    A. Saltelli and J. Marivoet. Nonparametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: A comparison of selected techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety , 28(2):229–253, 1990. 39

    1990

  21. [21]

    Saltelli, M

    A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, S. Tarantola, and F. Campolongo. Sensitivity analysis for chemical models. Chemical Reviews, 105(7):2811–2827, 2005

    2005

  22. [22]

    J. P. C. Kleijnen and J. C. Helton. Statistical analyses of scatterplots to identify important factors in large-scale simulations, 1: Review and comparison of techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety , 65(2):147–185, 1999

    1999

  23. [23]

    Yang and H

    Y. Yang and H. Li. Neural ordinary differential equations for robust parameter estimation in dynamic systems with physical priors. Applied Soft Computing , 169:112649, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112649

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112649 2025

  24. [24]

    Q. He, L. Wang, and B. Liu. Parameter estimation for chaotic systems by particle swarm optimization. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 34(2):654–661, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2006.03.079

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2006.03.079 2007

  25. [25]

    Ahmad and K

    M.J. Ahmad and K. Günel. Can neural networks estimate parameters in epidemiology models using real observed data? Applied Intelligence, 55(2):133, 2024. doi:10.1007/s10489-024-06012-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10489-024-06012-w 2024

  26. [26]

    H. Jo, K. Josić, and J. K. Kim. Neural network–based parameter estimation for nonautonomous differential equations with discontinuous signals. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 86(1):327–347, 2026. doi:10. 1137/25M1741340

    2026

  27. [27]

    V. V. Alavani, P. Danumjaya, and P. Seshaiyer. Fractional-order prey- predator models with parameter estima- tion via fractional physics-informed neural networks (FPINNS). Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing, 7(1), 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Y. Bard. Nonlinear Parameter Estimation . Academic Press, 1974

    1974

  29. [29]

    R. C. Aster, B. Borchers, and C. H. Thurber. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems . Academic Press, 2005

    2005

  30. [30]

    Liang and H

    H. Liang and H. Wu. Parameter estimation for differential equation models using a framework of measurement error in regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 103(484):1570–1583, 2008. PMID: 19956350. doi:10.1198/016214508000000797

    work page doi:10.1198/016214508000000797 2008

  31. [31]

    J. O. Ramsay, G. Hooker, D. Campbell, and J. Cao. Parameter estimation for differential equations: A generalized smoothing approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 69(5):741–796,

  32. [32]

    doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00610.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00610.x 2007

  33. [33]

    P. H. Boersch-Supan, S. J. Ryan, and L. R. Johnson. deBInfer: Bayesian inference for dynamical models of biological systems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 8:511–518, 2017. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12679

    work page doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12679 2017

  34. [34]

    Ghasemi, M

    O. Ghasemi, M. L. Lindsey, T. Yang, N. Nguyen, Y. Huang, and Y.-F. Jin. Bayesian parameter estimation for nonlinear modelling of biological pathways. BMC Systems Biology , 5(Suppl 3):S9, 2011. doi:10.1186/ 1752-0509-5-S3-S9

    2011

  35. [35]

    Springer, H

    S. Springer, H. Haario, J. Susiluoto, A. Bibov, A. Davis, and Y. Marzouk. Efficient bayesian inference for large chaotic dynamical systems. Geoscientific Model Development , 14(7):4319–4333, 2021. doi:10.5194/ gmd-14-4319-2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Huang, D

    Y. Huang, D. Liu, and H. Wu. Hierarchical bayesian methods for estimation of parameters in a longitudinal HIV dynamic system. Biometrics, 62:413–423, 2006

    2006

  37. [37]

    K. J. H. Law, A. M. Stuart, and K. C. Zygalakis. Data Assimilation: A Mathematical Introduction . Springer, Cham, 2015

    2015

  38. [38]

    E. Kalnay. Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability . Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  39. [39]

    M. Asch, M. Bocquet, and M. Nodet. Data Assimilation: Methods, Algorithms, and Applications , volume 11 of Fundamentals of Algorithms . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2016

    2016

  40. [40]

    Carrassi, M

    A. Carrassi, M. Bocquet, L. Bertino, and G. Evensen. Data assimilation in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and perspectives. WIREs Climate Change , 9(5):e535, 2018. doi:10.1002/wcc.535

    work page doi:10.1002/wcc.535 2018

  41. [41]

    D. R. Stauffer and N. L. Seaman. Use of four-dimensional data assimilation in a limited-area mesoscale model. part I: Experiments with synoptic-scale data. Monthly Weather Review , 118(6):1250–1277, 1990. 40

    1990

  42. [42]

    R. A. Anthes. Data assimilation and initialization of hurricane prediction models. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 31(3):702 – 719, 1974. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031<0702:DAAIOH>2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031 1974

  43. [43]

    Blayo, J

    E. Blayo, J. Verron, and J.-M. Molines. Assimilation of TOPEX/POSEIDON altimeter data into a circulation model of the north atlantic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans , 99(C12):24691–24705, 1994

    1994

  44. [44]

    Azouani, E

    A. Azouani, E. Olson, and E. S. Titi. Continuous data assimilation using general interpolant observables. Journal of Nonlinear Science , 24(2):277–304, 2014. doi:10.1007/s00332-013-9189-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00332-013-9189-y 2014

  45. [45]

    Carlson, J

    E. Carlson, J. Hudson, A. Larios, V. R. Martinez, E. Ng, and J. P. Whitehead. Dynamically learning the parame- ters of a chaotic system using partial observations. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems , 42(8):3809–3839,

  46. [46]

    doi:10.3934/dcds.2022033

    work page doi:10.3934/dcds.2022033

  47. [47]

    V. R. Martinez, J. Murri, and J. P. Whitehead. Relaxation-based schemes for on-the-fly parameter estimation in dissipative dynamical systems. Inverse Problems , 41(5):055001, Apr 2025. doi:10.1088/1361-6420/adc766

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/adc766 2025

  48. [48]

    Newey, J

    J. Newey, J. P. Whitehead, and E. Carlson. Model discovery on the fly using continuous data assimilation. Journal of Computational Physics , 537:114121, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114121

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114121 2025

  49. [49]

    Biswas and J

    A. Biswas and J. Hudson. Determining the viscosity of the Navier–Stokes equations from observations of finitely many modes. Inverse Problems , 39(12):125012, 2023

    2023

  50. [50]

    A. F. Villaverde, D. Pathirana, F. Fröhlich, J. Hasenauer, and J. R. Banga. A protocol for dynamic model calibration. Briefings in Bioinformatics , 2022

    2022

  51. [51]

    Y. R. Liyanage, O. Saucedo, N. Tuncer, and G. Chowell. A tutorial on structural identifiability of epidemic models using structuralidentifiability. jl. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology , 88(6):102, 2026

    2026

  52. [52]

    Audoly, G

    S. Audoly, G. Bellu, L. D’Angio, M. P. Saccomani, and C. Cobelli. Global identifiability of nonlinear models of biological systems. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 48:55–65, 2001

    2001

  53. [53]

    S. M. V. Lunel. Parameter identifiability of differential delay equations. Internat. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., 15:655–678, 2001

    2001

  54. [54]

    Ollivier

    F. Ollivier. Le problème de l’identifiabilité globale: étude théorique, méthodes effectives et bornes de complexité . PhD thesis, École Polytechnique, Paris, France, 1990

    1990

  55. [55]

    Xia and C

    X. Xia and C. H. Moog. Identifiability of nonlinear systems with application to HIV/AIDS models. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 48(2):330–336, 2003

    2003

  56. [56]

    H. Wu, H. Zhu, H. Miao, and A. S. Perelson. Parameter identifiability and estimation of HIV/AIDS dynamic models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology , 70:785–799, 2008

    2008

  57. [57]

    Bellu, M

    G. Bellu, M. P. Saccomani, S. Audoly, and L. D’Angiò. Daisy: A new software tool to test global identifiability of biological and physiological systems. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. , 88:52–61, 2007

    2007

  58. [58]

    H. Hong, A. Ovchinnikov, G. Pogudin, and C. E. Yap. SIAN: software for structural identifiability analysis of ODE models. Bioinformatics, 35:2873–2874, 2019

    2019

  59. [59]

    Wang and W

    S. Wang and W. Hao. A systematic computational framework for practical identifiability analysis in mathematical models arising from biology. Advanced Science, 12(35):e04346, 2025. doi:10.1002/advs.202504346

    work page doi:10.1002/advs.202504346 2025

  60. [60]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal , 7:308–313, 1965

    1965

  61. [61]

    H. Yuan, H. Dai, X. Wei, and P. Ming. Model-based observers for internal states estimation and control of proton exchange membrane fuel cell system: A review. Journal of Power Sources , 468:228376, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228376

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228376 2020

  62. [62]

    Foias and E

    C. Foias and E. S. Titi. Determining nodes, finite difference schemes and inertial manifolds. Nonlinearity, 4(1):135–153, 1991

    1991

  63. [63]

    D. A. Jones and E. S. Titi. Upper bounds on the number of determining modes, nodes, and volume elements for the navier–stokes equations. Indiana University Mathematics Journal , 42(3):875–887, 1993. 41

    1993

  64. [64]

    Olson and E

    E. Olson and E. S. Titi. Determining modes for continuous data assimilation in 2D turbulence. Journal of Statistical Physics , 113(5–6):799–840, 2003. doi:10.1023/A:1027312703252

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1027312703252 2003

  65. [65]

    Foias, M

    C. Foias, M. S. Jolly, R. Kravchenko, and E. S. Titi. A determining form for the two-dimensional navier–stokes equations: The fourier modes case. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 53(11):115623, 2012. doi:10.1063/1. 4766459

    work page doi:10.1063/1 2012

  66. [66]

    Foias and R

    C. Foias and R. Temam. Determination of the solutions of the navier–stokes equations by a set of nodal values. Mathematics of Computation , 43(167):117–133, 1984

    1984

  67. [67]

    E. D. Sontag. Mathematical control theory: deterministic finite dimensional systems , volume 6. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  68. [68]

    E. N. Lorenz. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences , 20(2):130–141, 1963

    1963

  69. [69]

    C. Sparrow. The Lorenz Equations: Bifurcations, Chaos, and Strange Attractors . Springer, 1982

    1982

  70. [70]

    M. W. Hirsch, S. Smale, and R. L. Devaney. Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, & An Introduction to Chaos. Academic Press, Boston, MA, 2 edition, 2003

    2003

  71. [71]

    C. R. Doering and J. D. Gibbon. Applied Analysis of the Navier-Stokes Equations . Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1995

    1995

  72. [72]

    S. G. Krantz and H. R. Parks. A Primer of Real Analytic Functions . Birkhäuser, 1992

    1992

  73. [73]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220:671–680, 1983. doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671

    work page doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 1983

  74. [74]

    Kennedy and R

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks , volume 4, pages 1942–1948, 1995. doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    work page doi:10.1109/icnn.1995.488968 1942

  75. [75]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  76. [76]

    R. T. Q. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2018

    2018

  77. [77]

    Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning

    C. Rackauckas, Y. Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ramadhan, and A. Edel- man. Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 , 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  78. [78]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [79]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer. A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants. Physics Reports, 1068:1–66, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2024.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2024

  80. [80]

    Ahmad, M

    M.J. Ahmad, M. Mohammadisiahroudi, A. Biswas, and K. Hoffman. A data-assimilation-informed quantum optimization framework for parameter estimation in dynamical systems. Manuscript in preparation, 2026

    2026

Showing first 80 references.