arxiv: 2604.11421 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: unknown

Data-driven augmentation of first-principles models under constraint-free well-posedness and stability guarantees

Bendeg\'uz Gy\"or\"ok , Roel Drenth , Chris Verhoek , Tam\'as P\'eni , Maarten Schoukens , Roland T\'oth

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords model augmentationlinear fractional representationswell-posednessstability guaranteescontraction mappingdata-driven identificationfirst-principles modelsgroup-lasso regularization

0 comments

The pith

Constraint-free parametrizations of linear fractional representations guarantee well-posedness and stability when augmenting first-principles models with learned components.

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

The paper establishes that model augmentation structures can be parametrized directly so that algebraic loops never appear and the overall system stays stable by construction. It achieves this through two separate constraint-free mappings inside the linear fractional representation framework, plus an identification routine that tolerates non-smooth penalties for automatic structure selection. A reader would care because the resulting models combine the accuracy gains of data-driven terms with the interpretability and reliability of physics-based equations, without manual tuning to avoid instability or inconsistency during simulation. The claims are illustrated on both synthetic examples and standard benchmark identification problems.

Core claim

By adopting a direct parametrization of the linear fractional representation, any augmentation structure can be made well-posed without additional constraints on the parameters; a second parametrization further enforces stability of the closed augmentation via the contraction property, while an efficient pipeline handles group-lasso regularization to select both the required augmentation configuration and its order.

What carries the argument

Direct parametrization of the linear fractional representation (LFR) that simultaneously enforces well-posedness and contraction-based stability.

If this is right

Augmented models remain well-posed for any choice of learned parameters.
Stability holds by construction through the contraction condition without post-hoc verification.
Group-lasso regularization automatically discovers both the minimal augmentation order and which signals require correction.
The same pipeline applies directly to both simulation and closed-loop identification tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The approach could reduce manual engineering effort when embedding learned corrections inside existing physics simulators.
It opens the possibility of certifying stability for augmented models used in real-time feedback before deployment.
Benchmark comparisons could be extended to include online adaptation scenarios where parameters continue to update during operation.

Load-bearing premise

Any augmentation structure of interest can be expressed exactly as an LFR without adding new restrictions, and contraction is enough to guarantee stability in simulation or closed-loop use.

What would settle it

An explicit counter-example in which the proposed parametrization produces an algebraic loop or an unstable closed-loop trajectory on one of the paper's benchmark problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11421 by Bendeg\'uz Gy\"or\"ok, Chris Verhoek, Maarten Schoukens, Roel Drenth, Roland T\'oth, Tam\'as P\'eni.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: LFR-based model augmentation structure. the approach. All available model augmentation structures can be represented by assigning specific values to the LFR matrices, as shown in [26]. The LFR-based model augmentation structure is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustrating the elements of the well-posed and con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Training times of the dynamic LFR-based model aug [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: WP and contracting LFR-based structures simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: BFR on the test data with different ρxa (left), ρwa (center), ρza (right) values for group-lasso regularization. The resulting variable dimensions (i.e., nxa , nwa , and nza ) are also shown next to each plot entry. [22] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016. [23] H. Gouk, E. Frank, B. Pfahringer, and M. J. Cree. Regularisation of neural networks by enforcing Lipschitz … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The integration of first-principles models with learning-based components, i.e., model augmentation, has gained increasing attention, as it offers higher model accuracy and faster convergence properties compared to black-box approaches, while generating physically interpretable models. Recently, a unified formulation has been proposed that generalizes existing model augmentation structures, utilizing linear fractional representations (LFRs). However, several potential benefits of the approach remain underexplored. In this work, we address three key limitations. First, the added flexibility of LFRs also introduces possible algebraic loops, i.e., a problem of well-posedness. To address this challenge, we propose a constraint-free direct parametrization of the model structure with a well-posedness guarantee. Second, we introduce a constraint-free parametrization that ensures stability of the overall model augmentation structure via contraction. Third, we adopt an efficient identification pipeline capable of handling non-smooth cost functions, such as group-lasso regularization, which facilitates automatic model order selection and discovery of the required augmentation configuration. These contributions are demonstrated on various simulation and benchmark identification examples.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adds constraint-free parametrizations to LFR-based model augmentation that bake in well-posedness and contraction stability, plus a group-lasso pipeline for automatic structure selection.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors remove the need to enforce algebraic-loop and stability constraints by hand when augmenting first-principles models inside an LFR structure. They give direct parametrizations that guarantee well-posedness and contraction (hence stability) by construction, then pair that with a non-smooth identification routine using group-lasso to let the fit pick both the order and which augmentation terms are active. Demonstrations on simulation and benchmark examples show the pipeline works at least in controlled settings. This builds directly on the earlier unified LFR augmentation framework, so the novelty sits in the parametrization tricks and the automatic-selection step rather than a wholly new modeling class. The practical upside is clear: less manual constraint tuning and easier discovery of sparse augmentation structures, which matters for engineers who want interpretable hybrid models without black-box overhead. The soft spots are the usual ones for an abstract-heavy submission. The guarantees depend on the specific forms of those new parametrizations and on contraction being sufficient for the intended simulation or closed-loop use; without the explicit constructions and proofs it is hard to judge whether the parametrizations stay general or quietly restrict the representable models. Contraction is only a sufficient condition, so some stable augmentations might still be excluded. The LFR assumption itself is carried over from prior work, and the examples stay in simulation, so real-data robustness and closed-loop behavior are not yet shown. This is aimed at the systems-and-control crowd already using LFRs or hybrid modeling, especially those frustrated by constraint handling in identification. A reader working on data-driven physics-based models would pick up usable ideas from the pipeline and the automatic selection. It is worth sending to a serious referee: the claims are targeted, the framework is established, and the full paper should contain the derivations needed to check the guarantees.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a data-driven augmentation framework for first-principles models based on linear fractional representations (LFRs). It introduces a constraint-free direct parametrization of the model structure that guarantees well-posedness, a second constraint-free parametrization that ensures stability of the augmented structure via contraction, and an identification pipeline using non-smooth optimization (e.g., group-lasso) to enable automatic model-order selection and augmentation configuration discovery. The contributions are illustrated on simulation and benchmark identification examples.

Significance. If the parametrizations deliver the stated guarantees without restricting the representable class of augmentations or introducing hidden conservatism, the work would meaningfully advance hybrid modeling in systems and control by allowing stable, interpretable integration of learned components with physics-based models. The contraction-based stability condition and non-smooth identification approach are practical and build on established techniques, potentially reducing the need for manual constraint tuning in applications.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (well-posedness parametrization): the claim of a constraint-free direct parametrization with guaranteed well-posedness requires an explicit construction showing that every admissible LFR interconnection is recovered for some choice of the free parameters; without this, it is unclear whether the form introduces implicit restrictions relative to standard LFRs.
[§4] §4 (contraction parametrization): the stability guarantee is obtained via a sufficient contraction condition; the manuscript should verify whether this condition is also necessary for the closed-loop or simulation use cases or whether stable augmentations exist outside the parametrized set.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the method is demonstrated on 'various simulation and benchmark identification examples' but does not name the specific benchmarks or provide references; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
[Notation and §3-5] Notation for the LFR blocks (e.g., the direct feedthrough terms and the uncertainty channels) should be checked for consistency between the parametrization sections and the identification pipeline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation of minor revision. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (well-posedness parametrization): the claim of a constraint-free direct parametrization with guaranteed well-posedness requires an explicit construction showing that every admissible LFR interconnection is recovered for some choice of the free parameters; without this, it is unclear whether the form introduces implicit restrictions relative to standard LFRs.

Authors: The parametrization is derived by reparametrizing the standard LFR interconnection matrix such that the well-posedness condition holds identically for any choice of the free parameters. We agree that an explicit argument establishing that every well-posed LFR can be recovered would remove any ambiguity about implicit restrictions. We will revise §3 to include a short construction demonstrating surjectivity onto the admissible set. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (contraction parametrization): the stability guarantee is obtained via a sufficient contraction condition; the manuscript should verify whether this condition is also necessary for the closed-loop or simulation use cases or whether stable augmentations exist outside the parametrized set.

Authors: The contraction condition is indeed sufficient rather than necessary. The manuscript employs it to obtain a constraint-free parametrization that is directly usable in the non-smooth identification pipeline. Verifying necessity in full generality for arbitrary closed-loop or simulation scenarios is not feasible within the present scope and is not claimed. We will add a clarifying remark in §4 stating that the condition is sufficient, that stable augmentations may exist outside the parametrized class, and that the sufficient condition is chosen for its practical utility in data-driven settings. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; independent parametrizations introduced

full rationale

The paper proposes novel constraint-free direct parametrizations for LFR-based model augmentation that guarantee well-posedness and contraction-based stability. These are presented as new contributions that address limitations in prior LFR frameworks without reducing to fitted inputs or self-referential definitions. The LFR representation is inherited from external prior literature rather than asserted via self-citation load-bearing or ansatz smuggling. No derivation step equates a claimed prediction or result to its own inputs by construction, and the identification pipeline for non-smooth costs is a standard optimization approach. The central claims remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the LFR framework from prior literature as the base structure; new parametrizations are introduced to enforce properties without explicit constraints. No invented entities; relies on standard contraction mapping for stability.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Linear fractional representations can represent the desired class of model augmentations without loss of generality.
Invoked in the unified formulation section of the abstract as the starting point for the new parametrizations.
domain assumption Contraction mapping implies stability of the overall augmented model.
Stated as the mechanism for the stability guarantee; standard in dynamical systems but requires verification in the specific LFR context.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5521 in / 1301 out tokens · 42947 ms · 2026-05-10T15:35:46.104255+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Aghmasheh, V

R. Aghmasheh, V. Rashtchi, and E. Rahimpour. Gray Box Modeling of Power Transformer Windings for Transient Studies.IEEE Trans. Power Del., 32(5):2350–2359, 2017

2017
[2]

Agnihotri, M

A. Agnihotri, M. O’Kelly, R. Mangharam, and H. Abbas. Teaching Autonomous Systems at 1/10th-scale: Design of the F1/10 Racecar, Simulators and Curriculum. InProc. ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ., pages 657–663, 2020

2020
[3]

G. I. Beintema, M. Schoukens, and R. Tóth. Continuous- time identification of dynamic state-space models by deep subspace encoding. InProc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., pages 1–15, 2022

2022
[4]

G. I. Beintema, M. Schoukens, and R. Tóth. Deep subspace encoders for nonlinear system identification.Automatica, 156:111210, 2023

2023
[5]

Bemporad

A. Bemporad. An L-BFGS-B Approach for Linear and Nonlinear System Identification Underℓ1 and Group-Lasso Regularization.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 70(7):4857– 4864, 2025

2025
[6]

and Tóth, R

A. Bemporad and R. Tóth. Efficient identification of linear, parameter-varying, and nonlinear systems with noise models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11982, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Blondel, Q

M. Blondel, Q. Berthet, M. Cuturi, R. Frostig, S. Hoyer, F. Llinares-Lopez, F. Pedregosa, and J.-P. Vert. Efficient and Modular Implicit Differentiation. InProc. Conf. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pages 5230–5242, 2022

2022
[8]

Bohlin.Practical Grey-box Process Identification

T. Bohlin.Practical Grey-box Process Identification. Advances in Industrial Control. Springer London, 1 edition, 2006

2006
[9]

Bolderman, H

M. Bolderman, H. Butler, S. Koekebakker, E. Van Horssen, R. Kamidi, T. Spaan-Burke, N. Strijbosch, and M. Lazar. Physics-guided neural networks for feedforward control with input-to-state-stability guarantees.Control Eng. Pract., 145:105851, 2024

2024
[10]

Bradbury, R

J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

2018
[11]

ALimitedMemory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization.SIAM J

R.H.Byrd,P.Lu,J.Nocedal,andC.Zhu. ALimitedMemory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16(5):1190–1208, 1995

1995
[12]

E. J. Candès, M. B. Wakin, and S. P. Boyd. Enhancing Sparsity by Reweightedℓ 1 Minimization.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 14(5):877–905, 2008

2008
[13]

Champneys, G

M. Champneys, G. I. Beintema, R. Tóth, M. Schoukens, and T. J. Rogers. Baseline Results for Selected Nonlinear System Identification Benchmarks. InProc. IFAC Symp. Syst. Identif., pages 474–479, 2024

2024
[14]

A. Daw, A. Karpatne, W. D. Watkins, J. S. Read, and V. Kumar. Physics-Guided Neural Networks (PGNN): An Application in Lake Temperature Modeling. InKnowledge Guided Machine Learning. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2022

2022
[15]

De Carli, D

S. De Carli, D. Previtali, L. Pitturelli, M. Mazzoleni, A. Ferramosca, and F. Previdi. Infinity-norm-based Input-to- State-Stable Long Short-Term Memory networks: a thermal systems perspective. InProc. Eur. Control Conf., pages 911– 916, 2025

2025
[16]

M. B. Dehkordi, M. Forgione, G. Cimini, L. Frascati, and D. Piga. On the normalization of gray-box state-space neural networks.Automatica, 183:112659, 2026

2026
[17]

Donati, M

C. Donati, M. Mammarella, F. Dabbene, C. Novara, and C. M. Lagoa. Combining off-white and sparse black models in multi-step physics-based systems identification.Automatica, 179:112409, 2025

2025
[18]

Drenth, J

R. Drenth, J. H. Hoekstra, M. Schoukens, and R. Tóth. Efficient Learning of Affine and Rational Dependency LPV Models With Linear Fractional Representation.arXiv preprint, 2026

2026
[19]

El Ghaoui and G

L. El Ghaoui and G. Scorletti. Control of rational systems using linear-fractional representations and linear matrix inequalities.Automatica, 32(9):1273–1284, 1996

1996
[20]

Forgione and D

M. Forgione and D. Piga.dynoNet: A neural network architecture for learning dynamical systems.Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., 35(4):612–626, 2021

2021
[21]

Forgione, F

M. Forgione, F. Pura, and D. Piga. From System Models to Class Models: An In-Context Learning Paradigm.IEEE Control Syst. Lett., 7:3513–3518, 2023. 15 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 ρxa 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 BFR [%] 2 2 0 0 0 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 ρwa 90 95 100 BFR [%] 3 3 3 1 0 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 ρza 90 95 100 BFR [%] 3 3 1 0 0 Fig. 6. BFR on the test d...

2023
[22]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville.Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

2016
[23]

H. Gouk, E. Frank, B. Pfahringer, and M. J. Cree. Regularisation of neural networks by enforcing Lipschitz continuity.Mach. Learn., 110(2):393–416, 2021

2021
[24]

B. M. Györök, J. H. Hoekstra, J. Kon, T. Péni, M. Schoukens, and R. Tóth. Orthogonal projection-based regularization for efficient model augmentation. InProc. Annu. Learn. Dyn. Control Conf., pages 166–178, 2025

2025
[25]

Götte and J

R.-S. Götte and J. Timmermann. Composed Physics- and Data-driven System Identification for Non-autonomous Systems in Control Engineering. InProc. Int. Conf. Artif. Intell., Robot. Control, pages 67–76, 2022

2022
[26]

J. H. Hoekstra, B. M. Györök, R. Tóth, and M. Schoukens. Learning-based augmentation of first-principle models: A linear fractional representation-based approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17297, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

J. H. Hoekstra, C. Verhoek, R. Tóth, and M. Schoukens. Learning-based model augmentation with LFRs.Eur. J. Control, page 101304, 2025

2025
[28]

Karpatne, G

A. Karpatne, G. Atluri, J. H. Faghmous, M. Steinbach, A. Banerjee, A. Ganguly, S. Shekhar, N. Samatova, and V. Kumar. Theory-Guided Data Science: A New Paradigm for Scientific Discovery from Data.IEEETrans.Knowl.Data Eng., 29(10):2318–2331, 2017

2017
[29]

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. InProc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., pages 1–15, 2015

2015
[30]

P. J. W. Koelewijn.Analysis and Control of Nonlinear Systems with Stability and Performance Guarantees: A LinearParameter-VaryingApproach. PhdThesis,Eindhoven University of Technology, 2023

2023
[31]

Lacy and D

S. Lacy and D. Bernstein. Subspace identification with guaranteed stability using constrained optimization.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 48(7):1259–1263, 2003

2003
[32]

LeCun, L

Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. B. Orr, and K. R. Müller. Efficient BackProp. InNeural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, pages 9–50. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998

1998
[33]

L. Ljung. Perspectives on system identification.Annual Reviews in Control, 34(1):1–12, 2010

2010
[34]

Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks

T.Miyato,T.Kataoka,M.Koyama,andY.Yoshida. Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks. InProc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., pages 1–26, 2018

2018
[35]

D. C. Psichogios and L. H. Ungar. A hybrid neural network- first principles approach to process modeling.AIChE J., 38(10):1499–1511, 1992

1992
[36]

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.J.Comput.Phys., 378:686–707, 2019

2019
[37]

Revay, R

M. Revay, R. Wang, and I. R. Manchester. Recurrent Equilibrium Networks: Flexible Dynamic Models With Guaranteed Stability and Robustness.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 69(5):2855–2870, 2024

2024
[38]

A. H. Ribeiro, K. Tiels, J. Umenberger, T. B. Schön, and L. A. Aguirre. On the smoothness of nonlinear system identification.Automatica, 121:109158, 2020

2020
[39]

T. J. Rogers, G. R. Holmes, E. J. Cross, and K. Worden. On a Grey Box Modelling Framework for Nonlinear System Identification. InSpecial Topics in Structural Dynamics, Volume 6, pages 167–178. Springer International Publishing, 2017

2017
[40]

Nonlinearsystemidentification:A user-oriented road map.IEEE Control Syst

J.SchoukensandL.Ljung. Nonlinearsystemidentification:A user-oriented road map.IEEE Control Syst. Mag., 39(6):28– 99, 2019

2019
[41]

Schoukens and J

M. Schoukens and J. Noël. Three benchmarks addressing open challenges in nonlinear system identification. InProc. IFAC World Congr., pages 446–451, 2017

2017
[42]

Schoukens and R

M. Schoukens and R. Tóth. On the Initialization of Nonlinear LFR Model Identification with the Best Linear Approximation. InProc. IFAC World Congr., pages 310– 315, 2020

2020
[43]

G. W. Stewart.Matrix Algorithms. Other Titles in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1998

1998
[44]

B. Sun, C. Yang, Y. Wang, W. Gui, I. Craig, and L. Olivier. A comprehensive hybrid first principles/machine learning modeling framework for complex industrial processes.J. Process Control, 86:30–43, 2020

2020
[45]

Szécsi, B

M. Szécsi, B. Györök, A. Weinhardt-Kovács, G. I. Beintema, M. Schoukens, T. Péni, and R. Tóth. Deep learning of vehicle dynamics. InProc. IFAC Symp. Syst. Identif., pages 283– 288, 2024

2024
[46]

Takeishi and A

N. Takeishi and A. Kalousis. Deep Grey-Box Modeling With Adaptive Data-Driven Models Toward Trustworthy Estimation of Theory-Driven Models. InProc. Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Stat., pages 4089–4100, 2023

2023
[47]

Terzi, F

E. Terzi, F. Bonassi, M. Farina, and R. Scattolini. Learning model predictive control with long short-term memory networks.Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 31(18):8877– 8896, 2021

2021
[48]

Verhoek, R

C. Verhoek, R. Wang, and R. Tóth. Learning Stable and Robust Linear Parameter-Varying State-Space Models. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, pages 1348–1353, 2023

2023
[49]

Virmaux and K

A. Virmaux and K. Scaman. Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: analysis and efficient estimation. InProc. Conf. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pages 3839–3848, 2018

2018
[50]

Wang and I

R. Wang and I. R. Manchester. Direct Parameterization of Lipschitz-BoundedDeepNetworks. InProc.Int.Conf.Mach. Learn., pages 36093–36110, 2023. 16

2023