Representations of equation-based models are not created equal

Alexander Pollok, A. Klöckner, D. Zimmer
{"title":"Representations of equation-based models are not created equal","authors":"Alexander Pollok, A. Klöckner, D. Zimmer","doi":"10.1145/3158191.3158200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For equation-based modelling languages, modelling experts have many degrees of freedom when building a model from scratch. One of the most basic choices the expert faces is the mode of representation. The same system can be represented for instance as a block-diagram, by writing down the physical equations, by writing an algorithm, or by graphically connecting ready-made subcomponents. To give some guidance in this aspect, an experiment was conducted to measure the effects of different representations on various tasks. Participants had to identify models and predict their transient response. Both the time to execute the task and the correctness of the answer were measured. Participants also had to rate their confidence regarding the models. Results showed that tasks were executed much faster for graphical representations than for block-digrams. Equation-based and algorithm-based models can be grouped in the middle. The same results hold for rated confidence. Interestingly, the amount of errors was similar for all representations. Apparently, modelling experts largely compensate for difficulty by taking their time.","PeriodicalId":261856,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Equation-Based Object-Oriented Modeling Languages and Tools","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Equation-Based Object-Oriented Modeling Languages and Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3158191.3158200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

For equation-based modelling languages, modelling experts have many degrees of freedom when building a model from scratch. One of the most basic choices the expert faces is the mode of representation. The same system can be represented for instance as a block-diagram, by writing down the physical equations, by writing an algorithm, or by graphically connecting ready-made subcomponents. To give some guidance in this aspect, an experiment was conducted to measure the effects of different representations on various tasks. Participants had to identify models and predict their transient response. Both the time to execute the task and the correctness of the answer were measured. Participants also had to rate their confidence regarding the models. Results showed that tasks were executed much faster for graphical representations than for block-digrams. Equation-based and algorithm-based models can be grouped in the middle. The same results hold for rated confidence. Interestingly, the amount of errors was similar for all representations. Apparently, modelling experts largely compensate for difficulty by taking their time.
基于方程的模型的表示并不是平等的
对于基于方程的建模语言,建模专家在从头开始构建模型时有很多自由度。专家面临的最基本的选择之一是表征模式。同样的系统可以用框图来表示,例如,通过写下物理方程,通过编写算法,或者通过图形连接现成的子组件。为了在这方面提供一些指导,我们进行了一个实验来衡量不同表征对不同任务的影响。参与者必须识别模型并预测他们的短暂反应。执行任务的时间和答案的正确性都被测量了。参与者还必须评估他们对这些模型的信心。结果表明,图形化的任务执行速度比方块图快得多。基于方程的模型和基于算法的模型可以放在中间。评级置信度也有同样的结果。有趣的是,所有表示的错误数量是相似的。显然,建模专家在很大程度上通过花时间来弥补困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信