The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Structural identifiability analysis via symmetries of differential equations
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Relatively few techniques are available for structural identifiability analysis of nonlinear systems, and significant symbolic computational problems can arise even for relatively simple models.
“In comparison, there are relatively few techniques available for nonlinear systems, and significant (symbolic) computational problems can arise, even for relatively simple models.49, 50, 51”
From Best Practices to Maximize the Use and Reuse of Quantitative and Systems Pharmacology Models: Recommendations From the United Kingdom Quantitative and Systems Pharmacology Network (2019) · cites this paper as [51]
The Introduction (p. 2) says that calculating the basis needed for a nonlinear identifiability method can be computationally difficult even with symbolic software. The Conclusions and Discussion (p. 11) likewise say that other approaches can become computationally intractable. Our copy does not establish that relatively few techniques are available for nonlinear systems or that these problems arise even for relatively simple models. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Yates, J. W. T., Evans, N. D., & Chappell, M. J.
- Affiliations
- AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Yates, James W.T.
- Venue
- Automatica
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2585-2591
- ISSN
- 0005-1098 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092492826
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Automatica (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/E057535/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Statistical and numerical algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control and Stability of Dynamical Systems
- Keywords
- structural identifiability, Lie symmetries, Lie algebras, systems of differential equations, similarity transformation, nonlinear state-space models, model structure, parameter identifiability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
