356 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO.
3, AUGUST 1998
Automated Mathematical Modeling
from Experimental Data: An
Application to Material Science
Antonio C. Capelo, Liliana Ironi, and Stefania Tentoni
Abstract— Automated model formulation is a crucial issue
toward the construction of computational environments that can
reason about the behavior of a physical system. The procedure
of mathematically modeling a given physical system is quite
complex and basically involves three fundamental entities: the
experimental data, a set of candidate models, and rules for
determining in such a set the “best” model that reproduces the
measured data. The construction of the candidate models is do-
main dependent and based on specific knowledge and techniques
of the application domain. The choice of the best model is guided
by the data themselves; a first rough guess, which is suggested
by the qualitative properties of the observed behavior, is refined
through system identification techniques so that the quantitative
properties of the observed behavior are assessed. Therefore,
automating such a procedure requires handling and integrating
different formalisms and methods, both qualitative and quantita-
tive. This paper describes a comprehensive environment that aims
at the automated formulation of an accurate quantitative model
of the mechanical behavior of an actual viscoelastic material
in accordance with the observed response of the material to
standard experiments. To this end, algorithms and methods for
both the generation of an exhaustive library of models of ideal
materials and the selection of the most “accurate” model of a
real material have been designed and implemented. The model
selection phase occurs in two main stages; at first, the subset of
most plausible candidate models for the material is drawn out
from the library in accordance with the qualitative properties of
the material that are highlighted by the experimental data; then,
the most accurate model of the material is identified within such
a set by exploiting both statistical and numerical methods.
Index Terms— Automated modeling, identification, materials
science and technology, qualitative interpretation of data, quali-
tative simulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE MODEL formulation problem is central to a thorough
study of physical domains. Nevertheless, the actual dif-
ficulties in building and exploiting models of the behavior of
physical systems, which can mainly be ascribed to the required
large body of knowledge, have often been a serious deterrent
Manuscript received May 18, 1996; revised December 7, 1997 and January
30, 1998.
A. C. Capelo is with the Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, University
of Padova, 35123 Padova, Italy, and with the Istituto di Analisi Numerica,
National Council of Researches (CNR), 27100 Pavia, Italy.
L. Ironi and S. Tentoni are with the Istituto di Analisi Numerica,
National Council of Researches (CNR), 27100 Pavia, Italy (e-mail:
ironi@dragon.ian.pv.cnr.it).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1094-6977(98)03908-X.
1094–6977/98$10.00  1998 IEEE
from using models and have made a purely experimental study
be preferred in spite of its costs and limits. Hence, the need
arises for building intelligent computational environments that
have the necessary methodological knowledge for both au-
tomating the model formulation phase and assisting the user
to properly exploit the model during his/her problem-solving
activity.
Recent research work carried out within the qualitative
physics framework focuses on the automated model formu-
lation problem and suggests two main general approaches
[1], [2] as well as a number of extensions and implemented
systems [3]–[7]. Such an issue, which is crucial toward the
realization of tools capable to reason automatically about
physical systems, involves both the construction of the model
space for a given application domain, which we call model
library, and the selection, within such a library, of the most
appropriate model for a given task. In the “Graph of Models”
(GoM) approach [1], the model library contains complete
models of the artifact or device under study; each model, built
manually, is characterized by different assumptions, and the
whole library is explicitly represented by a directed graph.
In this approach, model selection turns out to be a search
process through the graph with the goal of finding the model
whose predictions are “close” to the observations [8]. In the
“Compositional Modeling” (CM) approach [2], the task is to
formulate an appropriate model for answering a user’s query
about the device behavior: such a model must be both adequate
and as simple as possible. The model library is organized
into pieces of knowledge, called model fragments, about
various aspects of the physical world; the model construction
problem involves the selection and composition of those model
fragments that are most appropriate to answer a specific
query.
This paper describes our approach to the automated formu-
lation of the most accurate quantitative model that explains
a set of observations, in which the term “accurate” means
that the generated model must both capture all and none
but the physical features of the system and best reproduce
the measured data. As modeling activity cannot occur apart
from the given physical domain, our approach is tailored on
a specific application; nevertheless, most ideas and techniques
underlying it can be applied to other domains when the goal
is to build an accurate quantitative model that explains a set
of experimental data. The novelty of our approach consists in
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL
its ability both to automatically generate a library of complete
models, each of them characterized by structures of different
complexity, and to select within it the proper one.
The work described here aims at developing a comprehen-
sive environment that automates the formulation of a model
of the mechanical behavior of an actual viscoelastic material
[9]. The whole formulation process occurs in the following
two main stages.
1) Exhaustive, but minimal, library of complete models of
ideal viscoelastic materials, which differ from each other
in structure, is automatically generated.
2) Accurate model of an actual material is built in ac-
cordance with the observed response of the material to
either creep or relaxation experiments.
Each model in the library is described in two different for-
malisms; at first, its structure, symbolically expressed by a
rheological formula (RF), is generated; then its correspond-
ing parametric ordinary differential equation (ODE) is built.
The structures are automatically enumerated by analogy with
mechanical devices in which components that reproduce the
fundamental elastic and viscous responses are connected either
in series or in parallel. Then, by exploiting suitable connection
rules and mathematical models of the basic components,
the ODE model of each RF is generated. Adequate filter
procedures, based on the algebraic properties of the con-
nection operators and on the mechanical equivalence that is
captured by the ODE’s, allow us to control the combinatorial
explosion of the model generation process and limit the
model space dimension. Moreover, we give a characterization
of the generated ODE’s and prove [3] that the space of
possible linear models of viscoelastic materials is represented
by four classes of ODE’s. This is an important result since
understanding the space of candidate models is an essential
step in the construction of computational environments that
aim at selecting the most appropriate model.
The model selection problem is solved by a mixture of
qualitative and quantitative techniques that require both sym-
bolic and numeric computations. More precisely, we exploit
qualitative reasoning to select the class of ODE’s that describe
the qualitative behavior of the material, and then, within the
selected class, we identify the equation, namely, its order
and the numeric values of its parameters, which refines the
quantitative properties of the material. The selection of the
plausible class occurs on the ground of the comparison of
the simulated qualitative behaviors with the observed ones.
To this end, algorithms for both qualitative simulation of the
response of materials to creep and relaxation experiments,
and qualitative interpretation of experimental data have been
implemented. The order of the most accurate ODE model is
easily determined when the expert knows the number of either
retardation or relaxation times [10], [11] as it can be correlated
with such a number. Therefore, in this case, the model selec-
tion is reduced to a parameter identification problem. When
this information is not available, the order of the equation
is determined through an optimization technique based on
a criterion [12] that guarantees that both the goodness of
experimental data fitting and the significance of the numerical
values of the parameters themselves are balanced.
357
A. Motivations for the Choice of the Physical Domain
The study of materials is of great interest and practical value
for the variety of both methodological problems and industrial
applications it offers. From a mechanical perspective, the
properties that characterize the responses of materials to the
action of external mechanical forces are elasticity, viscosity,
and plasticity. As a matter of fact, the behavior of almost all
materials is featured by the combination, at various degrees,
of the three mentioned fundamental properties. Moreover, the
mechanical properties of a material may be correlated to some
of its other properties (for example, adhesion, hydrophilia,
capacity either to absorb or release active ingredients, sen-
sitivity to erosion, thyxotropy, and so on), whose knowledge
is of fundamental importance to the assessment of the material.
These latter properties are often more difficult and expensive
to be measured than the mechanical ones. Hence, experiments
that aim at measuring the mechanical features of a material are
often preferred, as they make the assessment of the properties
of interest more economic. However, the study of a material
at a purely experimental level does not allow us to capture
the same richness of information that could be provided by
a model. The actual difficulties in building models by hand
have been so far a serious deterrent from using them, in spite
of their capability to make the assessment of the material
properties more robust and the experimental protocol more
economic. Therefore, a system that automatically maps any
actual material to a “good” model of its mechanical behavior
should issue a new challenge in the study of materials.
The current implementation of the system is bounded to
viscoelastic materials, that is, materials whose composite re-
sponses are the results of a combination of elastic and viscous
responses. Viscoelastic models describe the behavior of a wide
set of actual materials; for example, the mechanical behavior
of polymers, whose study is of great practical importance,
is dominated by viscoelastic phenomena [9], [10]. The ex-
tension to the plastic case, though conceptually compatible
with the adopted approach, still poses some major problems in
representing the discontinuity of the behavior of the material.
II. AUTOMATED GENERATION OF A
LIBRARY OF CANDIDATE MODELS
For the sake of clarity and completeness, we briefly recall
the basic assumptions, definitions, and methods underlying
our work. A material is assumed to be a continuous, homo-
geneous, and isotropic medium, and processes are supposed
to take place in isothermal conditions so that the mechanical
aspects can be separated from the thermodynamical ones. Only
stable materials are considered; therefore, the deformation
of a body solely occurs when mechanical energy has been
provided. Deformation phenomena are here investigated at a
macroscopic level by means of macroscopic variables that
are stress [ ] and strain [ ]. Ignoring the real internal
structure of materials has the major advantages of simplifying
the task of establishing their constitutive laws, which state a
direct cause–effect relation between stress and strain. As many
rheological experiments are carried out in one dimension, that
is, mechanical energy is supplied through longitudinal traction
358 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998
Fig. 1. Model library generation stage: 1) RF’s are enumerated, 2) the corresponding ODE’s are generated, and 3) their qualitative behaviors are simulated.
or compression forces, we consider one-dimensional (1-D)
deformation processes only.
The method adopted for building the model of a material
comes from rheology [13] and is based on a component-
connection paradigm and internal state variables. Each fun-
damental response, in our case the elastic and viscous ones,
corresponds to an ideal material that can be represented by
a mechanical analogous device. More precisely, the purely
elastic response is associated with a material analogically
represented by a spring; similarly, the purely viscous response
corresponds to a material analogically represented by a
dashpot. Structures of complex materials are built by analogy
with mechanical devices, which are obtained by suitably
assembling, either in parallel or in series, and elements
so that the whole device behaves analogously to an actual
material. The symbolic description of such an analogical
structure, RF, represents a model of the corresponding material
at the lowest level of description.
At a mathematical level, the pure elastic response is de-
scribed by Hooke’s law of linear elasticity
(1)
and the viscous one by Newton’s law of linear viscosity
(2)
where both and are positive constants that depend on
the material and dot denotes the time derivative. Although the
constitutive law of a material may be nonlinear and contain
unconstant coefficients, we consider linear viscoelastic models,
i.e., models whose viscoelastic behavior is described by linear
ODE’s with constant coefficients. As a matter of fact, most
materials show a linear time-dependent behavior in the limit
of infinitesimal deformation and even in finite deformation as
long as the strain remains below a certain limit, which depends
on the material.
Mathematical models of complex RF’s are built by ex-
ploiting the basic models and suitable connection rules. More
precisely, when components and (not necessarily basic
components) are connected in parallel ( ), they undergo
the same elongation, while the total stress gets distributed
among the components; when and are connected in
series ( – ), each component takes the same load and
the total elongation is the sum of the elongation of each
component. Summarizing, the total stress and strain can be
expressed in terms of internal variables by the following laws:
(parallel connection) (3)
(series connection) (4)
where are the internal variables, whose time
evolution is expressed either directly by the basic models or
by differential equations obtained by the recursive application
of the connection rules starting from the basic models.
The model library is automatically generated in three steps
and includes the following (Fig. 1):
1) RF’s of all unequivalent analogical structures made up
of components variously connected in
series or in parallel;
2) corresponding ODE models;
3) simulated qualitative responses of the generated models
to standard experiments.
A. Enumeration of the RF’s
The enumeration of all admissible structures is a combina-
torial problem. Such a problem is controlled by filtering the
built set with respect to mechanical equivalences that are either
directly suggested by the algebraic properties of the connection
operators or captured by the generated ODE’s.
The underlying data structures for representing a RF is
provided by a rooted binary tree-like graph, whose internal
node labels take value in the set and leaf labels
in the set . More precisely, we consider trees
with leaves and internal nodes that have exactly
two children subtrees (Fig. 2). Let us remark that, as an
obvious consequence of (1)–(4), the connection operators
fulfill algebraic equivalence relations, such as commutativity
and associativity, and another property, denoted by absorption,
which states the mechanical behavioral equivalence of two
connected equal basic components to a single one.
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 359

corresponding ODE model is derived through ad hoc designed

symbolic procedures. The hierarchical information that is
captured by the labeled trees allows us to define a recursive
algorithm, which composes models of two components by
exploiting the connection laws (3) and (4) and eliminating
the internal variables.
Definition 1: Let us call the mathematical model associated
(a) (b) (c) with a formula the differential equation whose general form
Fig. 2. Different representations of the same rheological structure: (a) rooted is
binary tree, (b) series-parallel circuit, and (c) RF.

TABLE I (5)
NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OF THE SETS Tn , Tn3 , Fn , Fn3
where and are polynomials in the time-derivative
operator, and are the variables stress and strain, respec-
tively.
Definition 2: Given the polynomials , ,
, associated with the models of the binary components
of , the polynomials are defined by

if
The enumeration process of the RF’s, or equivalently of (6)
the tree structures, occurs in four steps [3], which can be
synthesized as follows: if
1) generation of the set , where is the set of (7)
all admissible unlabeled trees that underlie -component
structures; at this stage, the attention is only focused on
the tree shape;
2) derivation of the sets and by Let us remark that Definition 2 results from the formal
filtering in accordance with a topological equivalence elimination of the internal variables by exploiting (3) and (4),
relation in , which states that unlabeled trees are respectively.
equal apart from left/right permutations; The application of the recursive algorithm defined by (6) and
3) generation of the set , where (7) and initialized by (1) and (2) to the whole set allows
is obtained by giving values to the trees us to generate the mathematical models of all ideal materials
in ; i.e., ( )-tuples of identifiers are whose structure is made up of at most components. Such
provided to label the tree nodes; ODE models, which describe the behavior of real materials
4) replacement of the set with its subset only qualitatively as long as their coefficients do not take a
, which is obtained by filtering with numeric value, can be represented by formal equations.
respect to commutativity, associativity, and absorption Definition 3: Let us call the formal equation (FE) the ODE
properties. that is obtained by giving symbolic unitary value to all nonzero
In particular, if denotes set cardinality, we have coefficients of the mathematical model.
1 As a matter of fact, the numeric values of the nonzero
and ; and are
not easily written as explicit functions of . If no filter is coefficients, which appear in the constitutive equation of
applied at Step 2), gets rapidly intractable. The algorithm the material under study, may be identified only from the
is constructive and efficient; as a matter of fact, it directly experimental data. On the other hand, at this stage of the model
builds the set by exploiting a topological characterization formulation process we do not mind knowing these values
of its elements [3]. as we focus on building an exhaustive library of candidate
Let us remark that the adopted filters dramatically reduce models within which a first selection of plausible ODE’s for
the number of the generated formulas (Table I). A further the material should be made on the ground of the qualitative
significant reduction on is subsequently obtained by a properties of the material.
filter based on the ODE structure.
C. Model Library Characterization
B. Generation of the Mathematical Models
The characterization of the space of candidate models is
For the sake of simplicity, let and still denote the essential for an efficient selection of the most accurate model.
resulting filtered sets. Given any complex formula , its Under the assumption of linear basic models, we can prove
1 Such numbers are known as Catalan numbers [11]. the following.
360 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998

Theorem 1: The set of all admissible models can be Theorem 3: The formulas , , , and
partitioned into the following four classes : map to FE , FE , FE , and FE , respec-
tively
FE FE
FE
FE FE
FE
FE The dimension of the space of mathematical models can
be derived directly from Theorems 2 and 3.
Corollary: If is the maximum number of basic compo-
FE
nents the RF’s are made of, the model space dimension is
equal to .2
where denotes the th time-derivative operator. The proof The number of equations in each class and is
of Theorem 1, which is given in [3], is derived directly from equal to if is even, and to the integer part of ,
Definition 2. otherwise; whereas, it is equal to the integer part of in
Let us remark that for , the equations FE the classes and . The index , which implicitly
model, respectively, the basic formulas , and the simplest defines the order of the ODE whose formula is made up of
composite ones . The latter two formulas are components, is equal to the integer part of or if
known in literature as Kelvin and Maxwell models, is odd or even, respectively.
respectively. Another important consequence of the previous theorems is
The formulas’ enumeration algorithm guarantees that only the following duality property.
algebraically unequivalent structures have been generated but Theorem 4: Given any arbitrarily complex formula , it
does not guarantee that all of them exhibit distinct mechanical is possible to find a mechanically equivalent formula
behaviors. Therefore, the mapping defined by the ODE obtained by combining in series a suitable number of com-
generation algorithm , where is the set of ponents , , and as well as it is possible to find an
the built mathematical models, is surjective but not injective equivalent formula obtained by combining in parallel a
and the mechanical equivalence of two different formulas can suitable number of components , , and .
be fully assessed by comparison of their respective equations. Proof:
Definition 4: Two formulas are mechanically equiv-
alent if they map to the same FE, i.e., If FE then set
. If FE then set
Next, we give theorems that state the following : 1) a one- If FE then set
to-one correspondence between the four classes of ODE’s
and suitable classes of RF’s, called reference classes, and
2) the mechanical equivalence of any complex formula with If FE then set
a formula in one of the reference classes. To this end, let us
introduce the formulas and , which are, respectively,
Let us call and equivalent dual (respectively, series
the th-order generalized and models
and parallel) representations of and still the set of all
and none but the mechanically distinct RF’s. By Theorem 4,
we can state that is isomorphic to the dual sets

Let us assume , where the empty formula

is the identity element with respect to both the series and
parallel operator. It can be easily proved by induction on the
connection laws that for any integer , the following Therefore, the set of models plays the role of
occurs. a “basis” of components for with respect to the series
Theorem 2: The formulas , , , operator as well as the set , respectively, plays a
and map to FE , FE , FE , and FE , similar role for with respect to the parallel operator.
respectively Let us remark that exceedingly complex models may be of
no practical value because either the physical interpretation
FE or the numerical identification of parameters may fail. For
FE these reasons, a restriction of the complexity of the formulas
FE to elements seems a fair compromise.
FE 2 It can easily be proved by induction.
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 361

Fig. 3. Standard static test: a stress or a strain is suddenly imposed and then
held constant for a time t1 = 0 t1 t0 . Fig. 4. Typical strain response to a step stress excitation (creep test).

D. Derivation of the Qualitative Behaviors

Creep and relaxation are dual aspects of the same phenome-
As the first stage in the model selection process consists
non; the molecular rearrangements occurring inside a material
in identifying the class that exhibits the same qualitative
subjected to external forces depend upon time. When the stress
behavior as the real material, we need an algorithm to derive
is regarded as the cause, the molecular rearrangements appear
the qualitative profile of the responses of the ideal materials
at a macroscopic level as a retardation of strain; the time
to creep and relaxation experiments.
required can be very short if the tested material is elastic,
The simulation algorithm, which is described in this paper,
very long if it is viscous, or finite, of the order of the scale of
is an extension and a generalization of an algorithm previously
the experiment, in the intermediate cases. Similarly, when the
defined only for creep experiments [3]. It operates at the lowest
stress is regarded as the effect, a stress relaxation is produced
level of description, i.e., on the RF, as symbolic integration
macroscopically over a longer or shorter time, depending on
procedures could be heavy or infeasible to be applied, and
the mechanical properties of the material.
QSIM-like algorithms [14] would fail because of both the
The generic strain response to a step stress excitation
need for the introduction of a large number of auxiliary
results from the superposition of the strain properties of the
variables in writing the qualitative version of the ODE’s and
components , namely, an elastic instantaneous
the consequent difficulty in controlling the proliferation of the
deformation, a delayed (still elastic) deformation, and a
predicted behaviors.
viscous irrecoverable deformation
1) Qualitative Properties of Creep and Relaxation Re-
sponses: In order to define both the qualitative creep ( )
and relaxation ( ) response, remember that a creep
experiment consists of applying an external force on the
Therefore, for example, a purely viscous material, which dis-
material and observing the caused deformation, whereas
sipates all deformation energy as heat through viscous forces,
a relaxation test consists of imposing a deformation and
undergoes an irrecoverable deformation and is characterized
measuring the corresponding produced stress. According to
by , . More generally, a viscoelastic
the input signal shape, we further distinguish static from
material might store part of the deformation energy elastically
dynamic experiments.
as potential energy and dissipate the remaining one viscously
Static tests involve the instantaneous imposition of a con-
as heat: the strain response of such a material is characterized
stant stress (or strain) and the observation of the subsequent
by (Fig. 4). Such a material would recover
evolution over time of the strain (or stress). Dynamic tests
a part of the deformation instantaneously, a part more slowly,
involve the application of an oscillatory input signal. Static
but would also undergo a permanent deformation to a certain
experiments highlight the qualitative viscoelastic properties we
extent.
are interested in better than dynamic tests, as in the former
Similarly, the generic stress response to a step strain exci-
case the response of the material can be analyzed even in the
tation results from the superposition of the stress properties of
very initial phase of the experiment, whereas in the latter one,
the components
it provides useful information only after a transitory phase.
For this reason, we consider static tests only. The form of
the applied excitation is suggested by criteria of theoretical
and experimental simplicity. Standard static excitations are
where: means that part of the undergone stress does
mathematically modeled by step functions of the type
not relax at all in the time interval and denotes the
ability of the material to store potential energy;
means that part of the undergone stress relaxes slowly during
where and (loading and unloading instants) are the ; means that part of the undergone stress
significant time-points, is the Heaviside function, and relaxes instantaneously at and the deformation energy
is a constant (Fig. 3). is partially dissipated through viscous forces.
362 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998

2) Algorithm: Both and are defined by three Although in terms of computational efficiency the algorithm
logical parameters ( ) associated with either the strain is comparable to its previous version, it marks a significant
or stress properties, which take on either the value TRUE improvement: 1) it works for both creep and relaxation tests
(T) or FALSE (F). More precisely, the value T is assumed and 2) it is formally justified as it is based on sound arguments,
when the corresponding component is nonzero, and the value such as the connection rules and ODE’s. Its former version,
F, otherwise. For example, the creep response in Fig. 4 is which recursively builds the response of the material starting
qualitatively defined by (T, T, T). from the qualitative behavior of the elements and , was
In order to define and for any complex formula, partly suggested by the connection rules and partly by intuitive
remember that strains are added in series (3) and stresses are physical arguments.
added in parallel (4). Therefore Finally, let us observe that, although the algorithm has been
given, for the sake of simplicity, for input signals represented
if by step functions, it also holds for input signals represented by
then a summation of step functions. This is ensured by the linearity
of the ODE’s or, equivalently, by the Boltzmann principle of
if superposition.
then
III. FORMULATION OF AN ACCURATE
where denotes the logical OR operator. MODEL OF AN ACTUAL MATERIAL
Theorem 4 suggests a natural way of defining both In our context the model formulation process is approached
and of any given formula by considering its equivalent in the following two stages:
representation either in or in , respectively. The 1) The class of ODE models that capture the qualitative
behavior of the elements of the bases of and is derived features of the material is identified within ; let us
directly by their model, i.e., (T, F, F), denote such a class by .
(F, F, T), (F, T, F), (T, F, F), 2) is embedded in the class of ODE’s with the same
(F, F, T), and (F, T, F); whereas structure but whose coefficients are nonzero real num-
and for any complex is defined as follows: bers; the equation that refines the quantitative
properties of the material is identified within , i.e., both
its order and the numeric values of its parametric
coefficients are determined.3
Definition 5: We say that is the most accurate
model of a real material when 1) it retains the physical
qualitative properties of the material, i.e., , and
2) both the order and the numeric values of fulfill an
optimality criterion that simultaneously guarantees numerical
accuracy and parameter significance.
The algorithm strictly depends on the application domain.
However, its lack of generality is well compensated by its A. Selection of the Class of Most Plausible Candidate Models
completeness and soundness. The selection of the class of most plausible models occurs
Soundness: The proof of the soundness of the algorithm is on the ground of the qualitative comparison of the simulated
derived directly from the connection rules. As a matter of fact, behaviors with the observations (Fig. 5). Therefore, qualitative
the given simulation algorithm is the qualitative transcription interpretation of experimental data, i.e., their characterization
of the connection rules that mathematically express, through in terms of relevant qualitative physical features, is an essential
the internal variables, the links between either strain or stress step in view of model selection.
and their own respective components. With reference to the Our problem consists of defining rules for the conversion
RF’s, the strain components are added in presence of a series of the numerical observations into the three properties that
operator, whereas the stress ones in presence of a parallel characterize the qualitative profiles of the material response to
operator. the considered experiment. Quite generally, physical features
Completeness: The proof of completeness is given by The- can be captured through the identification of characteristic
orems 1–4. More precisely, Theorem 1 defines the elements shapes in the experimental data plot. Then, in order to reason
of the set of the admissible ODE models; Theorems 2 and qualitatively about the observed response, graphical data are
3, respectively, state a bijective correspondence between first abstracted to a qualitative representation; a qualitative
and (elements of both sets and ), which are built by curve description is automatically provided in terms of regions
connecting either in series the elements of the set that are homogeneous with respect to such graphical features
or in parallel the elements of the set . Finally, The- as steepness, convexity, and linearity. This process of data
orem 4 associates any given complex formula, by exploiting
its FE, with its equivalent representation both in and in . 3 Variables in bold, like p, denote vectors.
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 363

More precisely, any numeric value of is mapped to

its corresponding if where
is the interval in that defines the qualitative
value of .
After the definition of quantity spaces for the numeric
descriptors, the experimental time range is segmented into
significant time points and time intervals. Let time point denote
the neighborhood of a measurement point and time interval
denote an interval whose width is not negligible with respect
to the experimental range. For example, if is the first creep
instant, then , , is the time point
associated with it. The distinction is made necessary in order
to reason about instantaneous properties.
Fig. 5. First stage in model selection: a class of models is selected from the Among time intervals, to cope with asymptotic reasoning,
model library in agreement with the qualitative interpretation of data. Thick
line arrows track data flow, while thin ones denote interactions within library we will also enclose intervals extending beyond the experi-
items. mental range up to ; such intervals will be denoted by an
-subscript.
TABLE II Then, given , its qualitative value in a time
QUANTITY SPACES OF THE CURVE DESCRIPTORS point or time interval is defined by mapping a suitable
numeric approximation of in onto

For example, if is a time point, we say that takes on

the qualitative value zero in when the slope of the least-
squares line through the experimental points in belongs
to . Quite similarly, we say that takes on the
qualitative value one in if , computed on the experimental
points in , takes on a numeric value very close to one, that
segmentation takes its basic ideas from pattern recognition
is, in , where .
and qualitative physics [15]–[17].
The descriptors allow us to approach the characterization
1) Qualitative Interpretation of Experimental Data: The
of the graphical features of a curve in a general way. The
algorithm described here provides reasoning techniques to
curve qualitative attributes are defined by the aforementioned
emulate the expert-like visual interpretation of experimental
descriptors and stored in a vocabulary (Table III). The ex-
data. We would like to remark that, though here applied to
perimental time range is segmented into time points and time
a specific domain, such an approach is quite general. In the
intervals (Fig. 6) that are homogeneous with respect to specific
following, we limit our attention to creep experimental data,
attributes; the sequence of such attributes over the subsequent
as the analysis of relaxation data is similarly carried out by
time segments qualitatively describe the experimental plot.
a suitable extension of the algorithm, which accounts for
Assessment of the Observed Qualitative Behavior: In the
relaxation graphical features.
case of creep data, two experimental stages can be dis-
Suitable curve descriptors, namely, the strain, its first- and
tinguished: creep, which is related to load imposition and
second-order time derivatives ( ), and the square of the
holding time and recovery, which is related
linear correlation coefficient ( ), are chosen, and a set of
to load removal . As a matter of fact, either
thresholds, whose values are obviously domain dependent,
stage can provide enough information to assess instantaneous
is suitably defined, so that through a mapping to qualitative
elasticity, delayed elasticity, and viscosity. However, since
values, a quantization of the continuous world is provided.
data are always affected by measurement errors, reasoning
More precisely, let denote the set of
about data can take advantage of both creep and recovery
descriptors; for any , let be its appropriate quantity
curve analysis. Therefore, in the definition of the key clauses
space (see Table II), i.e., the set of all the qualitative values
for the assessment of each mechanical feature, we require that
of necessary to reason qualitatively about the graphical
each property is weakly satisfied in both creep and recovery
features, and the set of the intervals determined by
and strongly in at least one of them.
suitable numeric thresholds that allow us to map the numeric
Instantaneous Elasticity: This property consists in the ma-
values of to qualitative values in according to the
terial ability at yielding a prompt deformation to loading and
following diagram:
unloading (see Fig. 6). Strain jumps at and graphically
characterize instantaneous elasticity. Due to the instrument
limitations at coping with instantaneous events, namely, the in-
strumental inertia combined with the measurement errors, this
property is captured by reasoning about the curve steepness
364 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998

TABLE III As regards the creep stage, the significant time interval can
QUALITATIVE CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAPHICAL PROPERTIES be identified as follows:
FEATURED IN A TIME POINT OR INTERVAL  BY MEANS
OF QUALITATIVE VALUES OF CURVE DESCRIPTORS

Similarly, a time interval is defined to characterize a

weakly linear region. On recovery, in order to reason about
asymptotic attributes, a time interval
is implicitly introduced. The qualitative value of the
asymptotic strain is derived by an approximation
of obtained by extrapolating the late recovery
points under a simple exponential decay model.
By combining creep and recovery reasoning, viscosity is
finally assessed as follows:
if curve is
linear-and-growing at
AND
asymptotically-positive-horizontal at
OR weakly-linear-and-growing at
AND
asymptotically-largely-positive-
horizontal
at
then
viscosity property holds True
else
viscosity property holds False
endif.

Delayed Elasticity: In order to reason about delayed elas-

ticity, the curve concavity over the time interval [
for creep, and similarly defined for recovery
as in Fig. 6] must be ascertained. As data are usually affected
by measurement errors, the expert interpretation is performed
through a subjective visual smoothing that can be emulated in
a number of ways, a simple and quite natural one consists of
Fig. 6. Data segmentation in view of qualitative curve description.
reasoning by intervals rather than pointwise. At first, the proper
time interval is divided into subintervals , each of them
on time points , as follows:
containing a sufficient number of experimental points, and
if curve is then is defined as the most frequent of the pointwise
vertical at AND steep at computed signs of . Therefore, the creep curve concavity is
OR steep at AND vertical at assessed by the clause
then
instantaneous-elasticity property holds if
True then
else delayed-elasticity property holds False
instantaneous-elasticity property holds else
False perform interval partitioning
endif if curve is
loosely-concave at any
(of course, in accordance with Table III, vertical at AND
AND vertical at implies instantaneous- concave for at least one
elasticity property holds True since vertical then
implies steep.) delayed-elasticity property holds True
Viscosity: Viscosity is characterized by an irrecoverable else
deformation due to energy dissipation. In an experimental delayed-elasticity property holds
data plot, such a property is highlighted by an eventual linear False
growth at late loading or, equivalently, by a finite positive endif
residual strain as goes to infinity. endif.
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 365

The above clause is actually made more robust by including

reasoning about the convexity of the recovery curve.

B. Selection of the Accurate Model

The search for has to be performed within the
class of equations whose structure is constrained by the
class of ideal models whose qualitative behavior
perfectly matches the profile properties of the experimental
data. The problem lies in the identification of both the optimal
order of the equation and the numeric values of the vector
of its parametric coefficients, whose number obviously
depends on [ ]. It is clear that if , and consequently
, is increased, the goodness of fitting improves, though
not indefinitely, because of both the numerical errors and the
noise on experimental data. However, the significance of the
numeric values of the model parameters may not improve as Fig. 7. System identification task: the quantitative model is obtained through
well. As a matter of fact, a higher order model may better an optimization loop.
fit the data, while its coefficients lose significance, and their
physical interpretation may consequently fail. Moreover, the
several optimality criteria have been proposed. Among those,
information about the number of retardation times [10], [11],
which is a feature of the material strictly related to the order we consider the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [12],
of the equation, can be lost if we restrict the problem to which can be formulated as follows.
Akaike Information Criterion: The order of the most
the goodness of fitting. Remember that the retardation times
accurate model minimizes the function
are parameters associated with the material state changes that
subsequently occur. For example, in polymeric materials they AIC maximized likelihood
can be associated with the break of either the hydrogen or
Van der Waals bonds, which does not occur at simultaneous It can be proved that if, as it is plausible in our case, the
times. From the modeling point-of-view, the retardation times experimental errors are independent and normally distributed,
are time constants that tune the exponential behavior of the the maximum likelihood method corresponds to the least-
ODE model solution. In some cases, the expert can estimate squares method. Therefore, apart from constant additive terms,
the number of state changes the material will undergo during AIC may be rewritten as follows:
the rheological tests and then the number of retardation times.
When the user has such knowledge, the selection problem AIC
is restricted to a parameter identification one. By exploiting where is the number of experimental points and
arguments based on the Laplace transform, it can be proved is the sum of squares of residuals performed by the
that there is a correlation between the number of retardation best-fitting model . More precisely, is the optimal
times and the order of the equation that describes the behavior result, for the current model of order , of the parameter
of the material. Therefore, the order , and consequently the identification process that provides a numerical solution to the
number of parameters is directly fixed. More precisely, if is following minimization problem:
the number of retardation times, the order of the most plausible
ODE model is equal to if is equal to either or Find such that
and to equal in the other two cases. Then, the (8)
most accurate model of the material can be determined by
computing, through techniques of fitting of experimental data, where
the values of the unknown parametric coefficients.
The problem is more complex if no information is provided
about the ODE order. In such a case, the system identification
task [18] is performed through an optimization loop (Fig. 7).
For each , the tentative model goes through a are the experimental points ( )
parameter estimation process and the values of its coef- and, if is the vector of the time derivatives of and
ficients are computed in accordance with the best fitting of suitable initial conditions, is the
data. Then, the order , which identifies the most accurate numerical solution of the initial value problem
model is determined through an optimality criterion. For the (9)
hierarchical structure of our search model set, the problem of
determining a model whose order is optimal with respect to The nonlinear least-squares optimization problem (8) has been
the goodness of fitting and the number of parameters finds a solved by using the Levenberg–Marquardt [20] method. As
strict analogy with the theory of time series [19], in which a solver for (9), we have adopted a numeric differentiation
366 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998

Fig. 8. Qualitative interpretation of the creep experimental response of a rubber-like material and plausible model selection.

scheme proposed by Klopfenstein–Reiher [21], which effec- This example also demonstrates an important attribute of the
tively works as both nonstiff and stiff ODE solver. As a matter presented approach; by limiting the candidate search space to
of fact, the ODE’s that are solved during the process may be models that are qualitatively consistent with the observations,
stiff due to the extent of elasticity featured by the modeled the modeling system is able to ensure that physical accuracy
materials. is retained throughout the quantitative refinement process.
The main problems with (9) deal with the choice of the
initial conditions; must be given to completely define the A. Model Library
problem, but the available information may be too poor to
The model library was generated by constraining the maxi-
suitably fix them. Moreover, regarding (8), a “good” guess
mum complexity of the RF’s to elements. This is by
of the solution must be provided to ensure convergence to the
far sufficient to ensure that the plausible model class, searched
real solution rather than to a local minimum. Both estimates
over during the system identification process, is numerous
for and are automatically provided by an implemented
enough to allow for structural identification.
strategy that exploits a priori knowledge and experimental
Therefore, the model space is partitioned into the following
data, as discussed below:
four classes , each one characterized by the
1) experimental curve is suitably fitted by a function creep ideal qualitative behaviors as indicated
whose shape is suggested by the abstracted qualitative
profile of the data and by the linearity assumption; (T, T, F),
2) initial condition is defined by ; FE
(T, F, F),
3) initial estimate is obtained by collocating the cur-
(F, T, T),
rent ODE on the experimental grid; i.e., is the FE
least-squares solution of the linear system obtained by (F, F, T),
substituting for in the ODE. FE (F, T, F)
(T, T, T),
FE
IV. EXAMPLE (T, F, T),
In this section, we illustrate, through a concrete example,
how the modeling tool works. Creep experimental data, re- B. Plausible Model Selection
lated to a rubber-like material, were kindly provided by the The experimental curve and the computer outcome of its
Scientific Division of WPABISCH S.p.A., Italy. The creep qualitative interpretation are shown in Fig. 8.
experiment was carried out at 50 C, over a time range of 141 Creep and recovery graphical data are analyzed, and a qual-
s, with a constant stress value of 200 Pa. itative description is produced in terms of a list of qualitative
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 367

 0
Fig. 9. Measured ( ) versus predicted ( ) strain, according to the most accurate model identified by the system.

curve attributes throughout the segmented time domain TABLE IV

AIC VALUES CORRESPONDING TO THE TENTATIVE MODELS IDENTIFIED IN [ i Ei
creep: growing, (concave,
linear&growing,
recovery: decreasing, (convex,
largely-positive,
Reasoning about creep and recovery allows us to assess the
physical properties featured by the tested material. In this case,
the system correctly identifies delayed elasticity and viscosity
and assesses the observed qualitative behavior (F, T,
T). Consequently, the plausible model class

In order to show how numerical accuracy by itself does

not guarantee that the qualitative physical features of the
material are correctly represented by the resulting quantitative
characterized by the ideal qualitative behavior (F, T,
model, we have also performed a blind search over the
T), is selected within the model space as the subset of models
whole model space , in spite of the higher computational
that are consistent with the observations.
effort. Table IV shows the AIC values corresponding to all the
tentative quantitative models identified in .
C. Quantitative Model Identification In this case, the minimum value of AIC is taken at ,
The system identification optimization loop is performed on but within , which is characterized by (T, T, F).
the parametrized set of models This means that the given material would be eventually asso-
ciated with a fourth-order ODE model, which is numerically
accurate, i.e., optimal with respect to goodness of fitting and
order, but is not qualitatively consistent with the observations,
as it does not correctly capture the qualitative strain properties
0 (F, T, T) featured by the material.
As a matter of fact, the application of the AIC criterion to the
which embodies to find the optimal numerical values of whole search space may fail, as the criterion alone guarantees
and , which identify the quantitative model of the material. numerical but not physical accuracy.
For each , optimal values of the coefficients are The implemented selection procedure emulates the expert
determined and AIC is evaluated for the tentative quantitative skills at limiting the candidate search space, as suggested
model . The minimum value of AIC ( 1304.2) is by her expertise in interpreting the observations; only those
taken at . Therefore, the most accurate model the system equations whose intrinsic structure would account for the
eventually associates with the given material is a fifth-order observed features are considered by the expert.
ODE; for this model, the calculated values of are 9.248
Pa s, 1.068e 03 Pa s , 1.466e 04 Pa s , 2.768e V. DISCUSSION
04 Pa s , and 4.966e 03 Pa s . The paper gives some contribution to both automated model
Fig. 9 shows the strain response during the loading phase, formulation and qualitative reasoning. As far as the former
predicted by this model, versus the experimental data. issue is concerned, the paper highlights the importance of
368 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998
qualitative reasoning for both an efficient and physically
correct approach, though the goal is the formulation of an
accurate quantitative model. An automated search, performed
“blindly” over the whole library at a purely numeric level,
may yield a model that best fits the observations but does not
capture all of the qualitative features of the physical system
at study, such as, for example, discontinuities of the behavior.
The search model set is properly chosen within the model
space for the domain when it satisfies a qualitative accuracy
criterion; i.e., any of its elements qualitatively represents
the physical properties captured by the observations. Besides
the evident advantage that derives from this first selection,
the computational costs are significantly reduced because
of the reduced dimension of the search space. Moreover,
the restriction of the search space to all and none but the
qualitatively meaningful models allows us to better delimit
the a priori knowledge that could be conveniently exploited
in the next steps of the automated modeling process. More
precisely, such knowledge may suggest a proper choice of
either the initial conditions needed for solving the initial value
problem or a good initial guess for the model parameters.
The qualitative reasoning methods discussed here deal with
both simulation and data interpretation. The simulation al-
gorithm is strictly domain dependent but generates all and
none but the actual physical behaviors. The data interpretation
algorithm provides reasoning techniques to emulate the expert-
like visual interpretation of experimental data. In spite of
its simplicity, the algorithm also provides useful information
about the adequacy of the models in the library to describe
the behavior of the material under study; a possible convex
shape of the data during the creep phase denotes that the
linear theory of elasticity and viscosity we adopted to build
the model library is inadequate to study such a material.
Although it has been designed for interpreting data in a specific
domain, it becomes a domain-independent technique, as it
is capable of transforming a stream of observed data into a
qualitative description that characterizes its shape, that is, it
highlights the qualitative properties of the numerical data, such
as monotonicity, convexity, and linearity regions.
VI. RELATED WORK
Several pieces of work have addressed the model formula-
tion problem. Most of them focus on one or more aspects of
reasoning with multiple models, and aim at providing either
the GoM [1] or the CM [2] approach, which can be rightly
considered seminal works for automated modeling, with an
efficient model selection strategy. Our method lies halfway
between the GoM and CM approaches; it is closer to GoM, in
regard to the model selection goal, whereas it is similar to CM,
in regard to the model construction from primitive models.
Its direct comparison with both of them should highlight the
differences.
In the GoM framework, the library of possible models is
represented by a directed graph, where each node represents
a complete model of the system at study and each edge
connecting two nodes identifies the assumption (i.e., the ap-
proximation) that distinguishes the two models. The model
formulation task is reduced to a search problem through the
graph and aims at finding the model whose predicted behavior
is “close” to the observed one. The procedure starts from
the simplest model, and a new one is searched when the
model predictions entailed by the initial choice do not match
the desired accuracy versus the observations. The selection
of a new model is driven by domain-dependent “parameter-
change” rules, which specify the qualitative effects of each
assumption on the model’s predictions, and necessarily re-
quires that all possible consistent combinations of modeling
assumptions are explicitly stored. In the GoM framework,
both the models and the parameter-change rules associated
with assumption transitions must be provided by hand by the
model builder. This heavy modeling work together with the
storage requirement, which is exponential in the number of
assumptions, may render problematic the actual applicability
of such a conceptually interesting approach. On the other hand,
providing the GoM approach with the ability to automate the
modeling step appears unfeasible. The main reason, due to its
generality, deals with the reformulation of a new model when
moving from one node to another; though the two models share
most variables, they may be represented by quite different
equations and then require, for their reformulation, knowledge
about the physics of the system at study as well as complex
problem solving techniques. A domain-independent technique
focused on the single aspect of automatically shifting model
accuracy has been proposed in [8]. The core of such a
technique, which provides implemented algorithms for select-
ing, evaluating, and switching modeling assumptions, deals
with the automated generation of the qualitative behavioral
differences produced by two models, information that is given
in [1] by the hand-crafted parameter-change rules. Notice
that, in these papers, the term accuracy does not refer to the
resolution of model accuracy, i.e., the numeric precision of
the model predictions versus the observations, but rather to
the adequacy of the model to represent the real system.
As in the GoM framework, our approach relies on a pre-
defined library of complete models and aims at searching the
library for the model that best fits the observations. But, unlike
GoM, all models are automatically generated from primitive
models of the considered domain and the quantitative model
we look for is required to be accurate, in regard to both
physical adequacy and numerical resolution.
In our work the lack of generality turns out to be very well
compensated by the availability of specific domain knowledge.
The exploitation of such knowledge has made it possible
to characterize the model library as well as to manage and
organize the generated models so that, although the model
enumeration process in itself has exponential complexity, the
space required for their storage is linear in the number of
primitive components. As a consequence, the search process
has linear complexity. The model selection and the system
identification tasks take advantage, respectively, of the parti-
tion of the model library into classes of models featured by
the same qualitative behavior and of the hierarchical structure
of the plausible model class.
In the CM approach, the domain knowledge is decomposed
by using explicit assumptions into pieces of knowledge, called
CAPELO et al.: AUTOMATED FORMULATION OF ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MODEL 369

model fragments, each of them describing a conceptually once and for all, rather than building the constitutive equation
distinct physical object or phenomenon. The organization of from scratch whenever a new material is analyzed, makes the
a domain theory into model fragments allows their reusability use of our modeling tool time effective within an industrial
for a large space of different scenarios. A model fragment application context. As a matter of fact, to provide a tool that
consists of conditions and consequences, which, respectively, automatically generates an accurate model from data is the
specify the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs and added value given by our work to the analysis of a material
the functional relations between the attributes of the objects for its industrial assessment.
involved in the phenomenon. The formulation problem in this
framework is addressed as follows: given a description of an VII. CONCLUSION
artifact or, more generally, of the structure of a physical system
and a specific query about some aspects of its behavior, gen- This paper discusses a variety of qualitative, quantitative,
and model-based reasoning techniques to automate the whole
erate a model to answer the query by selecting and composing
process of accurate mathematical modeling from empirical
appropriate model fragments. Therefore, such a model is not
data. Such techniques, ad hoc developed for an application
explicitly predefined in a library, but it is formulated from
domain that actually presents difficulties in building models by
scratch in response to a user’s query. Two different issues must
hand, concern model library generation, qualitative analysis of
be considered in the compositional process: the constructed
empirical data, simulation to generate qualitative profiles of the
model has to be both adequate and as simple as possible. To
solutions of model equations, and identification of the model
outline, the compositional algorithm consists of four steps.
that most accurately explains the observed behavior.
The first step identifies, through a syntactic analysis of the
The integration of different formalisms and methods has
query, the set of objects and terms of interest. Then, the object
allowed us to emulate the expert’s way of reasoning about
expansion step identifies, by using the part-of hierarchy, all
materials from a rheological perspective with the goal of
additional components of the system that should be included
associating a real material with its constitutive law. A natural
in the initial set of objects to capture all relevant interactions.
use of such an equation deals with the simulation of the
In the third step, all internally consistent and complete sets
behavior of the material under complex loads, but more
of candidate model fragments are generated. Finally, one
importantly, it can be exploited for a precise analysis of
set is chosen according to simplicity criteria. Notice that
the material during its assessment phase; the parameters in
such a procedure is time exponential. Moreover, CM does
the equation could be interpreted as a measure of material
not guarantee the inclusion of all and none but the model
properties other than the rheological ones correlated with
fragments causally related to the query and the sufficiency of
them. However, the latter use of the model requires the
the model. Several pieces of work have contributed to improve
definition of a rationale that allows us to correlate the model
the efficiency of CM, as far as both the additional knowledge
parameter vector and physical properties of materials. Besides
[22] and the selection of relevant model fragments [23], [24]
a new challenge to the study of materials in their design
are concerned.
and assessment phase, our work also provides a small but
Similarly to CM, our approach builds a model by compos-
significant contribution to the application domain itself; the
ing primitive models of the domain. Such primitive models
generation, and the consequent analysis, of models of high-
describe the behavior of the single components of a device
structural complexity has allowed us to discover that the whole
that, as a whole, behaves analogously to the material. In
set of candidate linear models is mathematically represented
this sense, the device provides a structural description of the
by four classes of ODE’s, each of them describes a class
material whose real internal structure is unknown. Modeling by
of viscoelastic materials of different structural complexity
“analogous device” is a common practice in classical modeling
but characterized by the same qualitative behavior. Such a
frameworks whenever the internal structure of the system
result is not explicitly reported in the literature even if it
is unknown. For example, a well-known technique in the
is likely inferable from it. As far as its practical use is
biomedical domain is compartmental modeling [5], in which
concerned, the current version of our system is applicable to a
a system is described as a finite set of interacting components
wide set of actual materials, for example, polymers, whose
that are generally idealized stores of substances.
behavior is dominated by viscoelastic phenomena, and its
Remember that our task is to build a quantitative accurate
performance has been demonstrated by a number of tests on
model of an actual material given only a set of its observations
data collected through creep experiments on materials such as
in response to standard experiments. Then, building a model
inks, rubbers, and drugs. Nevertheless, the extension of the
means to also identify its structure. If we did not care about
model library to both nonlinear models, which can be built
numerical resolution, as in CM, a generation from scratch
starting from nonlinear laws, e.g.,
would provide, exponentially in time, for the structurally
and for the elastic and viscous basic
simplest model physically coherent with the observations. On
components, respectively, and to models that also take plas-
the other hand, we cannot give up numerical resolution, as it
ticity into account will make the system a more general tool.
ensures that the structural complexity of the material, which
gives information about some of its physical properties, is
captured. The generation from scratch to also meet numerical ACKNOWLEDGMENT
accuracy is feasible, in principle, but not advisable, in practice, The authors would especially like to thank C. Caramella of
due to its prohibitive cost. The generation of the model library the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry of the University
370 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 1998
of Pavia and B. Pirotti of the WPABISCH S.p.A—Scientific
Division, who provided the experimental data. They are also
grateful to P. C. Franzone for helpful discussions and useful
comments.
REFERENCES
[1] S. R. Addanki, R. Cremonini, and J. S. Penberthy, “Graphs of models,”
Artif. Intell., vol. 51, pp. 145–177, 1991.
[2] B. Falkenhaier and K. D. Forbus, “Compositional modeling: Finding the
right model for the job,” Artif. Intell., vol. 51, pp. 95–143, 1991.
[3] A. C. Capelo, L. Ironi, and S. Tentoni, “A model-based system for the
classification and analysis of materials,” Intell. Syst. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3,
pp. 145–158, 1993.
[4] J. Crawford, A. Farquhar, and B. J. Kuipers, “QPC: A compiler
from physical models into qualitative differential equations,” in Re-
cent Advances in Qualitative Physics, P. Struss and B. Faltings, Eds.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 17–32.
[5] L. Ironi and M. Stefanelli, “A framework for building and simulating
qualitative models of compartmental systems,” Computat. Methods
Programs Biomed., vol. 42, pp. 233–254, 1994.
[6] Y. Iwasaki, “Reasoning with multiple abstraction models,” in Recent
Advances in Qualitative Physics, B. Faltings and P. Struss, Eds. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 67–82.
[7] C. M. Low and Y. Iwasaki, “Device modeling environment: An interac-
tive environment for modeling device behavior,” Intell. Syst. Eng., vol.
1, no. 2, pp. 115–145, 1992.
[8] D. S. Weld, “Reasoning about model accuracy,” Artif. Intell., vol. 56,
pp. 255–300, 1992.
[9] R. G. C. Arridge, Mechanics of Polymers. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon,
1975.
[10] J. D. Ferry, Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers. New York: Wiley,
1970.
[11] R. Whorlow, Rheological Techniques. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Hor-
wood, 1980.
[12] H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identification,” IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-19, pp. 716–723, June 1974.
[13] M. Reiner, “Rheology,” in Encyclopedia of Physics, S. Flügge, Ed.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1958, vol. 6, pp. 434–550.
[14] B. J. Kuipers, “Qualitative simulation,” Artif. Intell., vol. 29, pp.
280–338, 1986.
[15] K. D. Forbus, “Interpreting observations of physical systems,” IEEE
Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. SMC-17, pp. 350–359, Mar. 1987.
[16] D. DeCoste, “Dynamic across-time measurement interpretation,” Artif.
Intell., vol. 51, pp. 273–342, 1991.
[17] S. A. McIlraith, “Qualitative data modeling: Application of a mechanism
for interpreting graphical data,” Computat. Intell., vol. 5, pp. 111–120,
1989.
[18] L. Ljung, System Identification. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1987.
[19] B. Choi, ARMA Model Identification. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1992.
[20] J. J. Moré, “The Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and
theory,” in Numerical Analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol.
630, G. A. Watson, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1977, pp.
105–116.
[21] R. W. Klopfenstein, “Numerical differentiation formulas for stiff sys-
tems of ordinary differential equations,” RCA Rev., vol. 32, pp. 447–462,
1971.
[22] P. P. Nayak, “Causal approximations,” Artif. Intell., vol. 70, pp.
277–334, 1994.
[23] Y. Iwasaki and A. Y. Levy, “Automated model selection for simulation,”
in Proc. AAAI-94. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
[24] J. Rickel and B. Porter, “Automated modeling for answering prediction
questions: Selecting the time scale and system boundary,” in Proc.
AAAI-94. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Antonio C. Capelo received the degree in electrical
engineering from the Technical University of Lis-
bon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1972.
He is Professor of Mathematical Analysis at the
Faculty of Statistics, University of Padua, Padua,
Italy. He has had a research collaboration contract
with the Institute of Numerical Analysis, National
Council of Researches (IAN-CNR), Pavia, Italy,
since 1994. His major fields of interest are math-
ematical and statistical modeling in engineering,
biomedical sciences, and environment. He is the
author of books and papers on pure and applied mathematics.
Liliana Ironi received the degree (Laurea) in math-
ematics from the University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy,
in 1972.
She is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the
Institute of Numerical Analysis, National Council of
Researches (IAN-CNR), Pavia, and coordinates the
research project on “Methods and Algorithms for
Qualitative Simulation” at IAN. Her research work
includes mathematical modeling, both quantitative
and qualitative, for different domains, such as engi-
neering, biology, and medicine. She has published
extensively on topics within applied mathematics and artificial intelligence.
Dr. Ironi has served on the program committees of several international
conferences.
Stefania Tentoni received the degree in mathemat-
ics from the University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, in
1980.
She is currently a Research Scientist at the In-
stitute of Numerical Analysis, National Council of
Researches (IAN-CNR), Pavia. Her main research
interests are in the field of mathematical modeling,
with a focus on the integration of qualitative and
quantitative techniques.