Back to search
2411.09655

Sensitivity of ODE Solutions and Quantities of Interest with Respect to Component Functions in the Dynamics

Jonathan R. Cangelosi, Matthias Heinkenschloss

correctmedium confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The PDF proves exactly the same result using the same operator setup and Banach-space Implicit Function Theorem. It defines ψ(x,g) = (F2(x,g) − x′, x(t0) − x0) on X = (W^{1,∞}(I))^{n_x}, G = G2, Z = (L∞(I))^{n_x} × R^{n_x}, establishes that F2 is C^1 with derivative [fx + fg gx]·δx + fg·δg(·,x(·)) (Theorem 2.8), derives D_xψ and D_gψ (Corollary 2.9), shows D_xψ is bijective via the linear IVP δx′ = Aδx − r, δx(t0)=r0 (Lemma 2.10), then applies the IFT to obtain a C^1 map g ↦ x(g) and the sensitivity equation δx′ = Aδx + Bδg(·,x(·)), δx(t0)=0 (Theorem 2.12) . The candidate solution reproduces these steps and formulas, including the same derivative, isomorphism argument for D_xψ, and the resulting sensitivity ODE. Minor presentational differences (e.g., a contraction-mapping proof for the linear IVP and emphasizing local mapping properties of F2 near the base point) do not affect correctness.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

The central sensitivity theorem is correct and well-argued. The operator-theoretic pathway—differentiability of the Nemytskii operator, identification of partial derivatives, invertibility of the linearized constraint, and the IFT—follows standard practice and is executed rigorously. Minor enhancements to clarify when global vs. local mapping properties are used and to emphasize measurability/existence assumptions would improve readability for a broad applied audience.