## Observability of complex systems via conserved quantities

Bhargav Karamched a,b,c , Jack Schmidt , David Murrugarra d d

August 2, 2024

a Department of Mathematics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510, USA b Institute of Molecular Biophysics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510, USA c Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510, USA d Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027, USA

## Abstract

Many systems in biology, physics, and engineering are modeled by nonlinear dynamical systems where the states are usually unknown and only a subset of the state variables can be physically measured. Can we understand the full system from what we measure? In the mathematics literature, this question is framed as the observability problem. It has to do with recovering information about the state variables from the observed states (the measurements). In this paper, we relate the observability problem to another structural feature of many models relevant in the physical and biological sciences: the conserved quantity. For models based on systems of differential equations, conserved quantities offer desirable properties such as dimension reduction which simplifies model analysis. Here, we use differential embeddings to show that conserved quantities involving a set of special variables provide more flexibility in what can be measured to address the observability problem for systems of interest in biology. Specifically, we provide conditions under which a collection of conserved quantities make the system observable. We apply our methods to provide alternate measurable variables in models where conserved quantities have been used for model analysis historically in biological contexts.

KeywordsObservability, conserved quantity, dynamical systems, differential embedding, graphical approach.

## 1 Introduction

A fundamental question in nonlinear dynamics is whether the entire state of a system can be inferred from measurements of a subset of outputs of the states that comprise the system. In the mathematics literature, this is referred to as the observability problem [1, 2]. Briefly, a dynamical system is called observable if one can obtain complete information about the internal state of the dynamical system from measurements of a subset of the outputs.

This question is of central importance in physical and biological applications. Nonlinear dynamical systems have been used to model chemical reaction networks [3, 4, 5], combustion reaction networks

[6, 7, 8], power grids [9, 10, 11], biophysical networks [12, 13, 14, 15, 16], epidemics [17, 18, 19], and cancer [20, 21, 22]. Observability of such dynamical systems is vital to constructively inform experimentalists and engineers what should be measured to optimize inference of the progress of their work. Most often, all variables involved are unable to be measured. Determining which outputs of a system should be measured to understand the full system is thus useful and essential for scientific and technological progress across disciplines.

For example, in determining the kinetic properties of an enzymatic reaction, one of the biochemical species must be measured to understand reaction rate. It is a challenging endeavor to simultaneously measure all constituents of the enzymatic reaction. Observable dynamical systems can inform biochemists of which species to track to understand the full system. Similarly, in an infection outbreak, observable dynamical systems can inform epidemiologists of what populations to track to optimally understand the dynamics of an epidemic. It is thus vital to develop mathematical theory and methods to ascertain whether a dynamical system is observable, and, if so, to determine which observables render the dynamical system observable.

Several methods exist to determine whether a system is observable. A longstanding method is to look at the Lie derivatives of the observables with respect to the governing nonlinear vector field and construct the Jacobian matrix of the Lie derivatives [2, 23]. Parameter regimes where the Jacobian has full rank are those where the chosen observable renders the full system observable. Another related approach transforms the phase space of the nonlinear system via a differential embedding and considers the rank of the Jacobian matrix as an indicator of observability [24]. Still another very popular method is to construct the associated graph of the nonlinear system and study the strongly connected component decomposition [25]. A central result of this graphical approach is that observing dynamics of the source nodes is necessary and sufficient for observability of the full system. Finally there are methods based on a strongly positive definite condition and sensor selection based on optimization to ascertain observability [26, 27].

In this paper, we expand on the aforementioned results by considering the effect of another property of dynamical systems that manifests in several biological and physical applications: the conserved quantity. A conserved quantity of a dynamical system is a function of the state variables that remains invariant in time. Typical uses of a conserved quantity is dimension reduction of the system under scrutiny. Because it defines a dependency between the state variables of system, the dynamics of the full system are contracted to a submanifold of the phase space, thereby potentially simplifying analysis.

We show that conserved quantities in combination with differential embeddings provides a means to identify alternative observables in a system that render a system observable. We emphasize that existing methods for determining observability do not consider conserved quantities or how they impact the observability of a system. Therefore, the available methods are unable to detect alternative variables that render a system observable. For example, we show in this paper with an example that the graphical approach can miss alternate observables imputed by conserved quantities.

Our approach is of interest to experimentalists and engineers because it provides a means to identify system outputs to measure that could reveal the internal state of the process being studied. Current methods for identifying observables may lead to concluding that the only observable is an output that cannot be measured. Our method provides flexibility in such scenarios.

Mathematically, our contribution is to append to the rich literature on observable and controllable systems. We claim that if system dynamics can be contracted to a submanifold that is inherent to the system, there will be more observables than what previous methods predict. Furthermore, our main result describes conditions for which submanifold to contract dynamics if more than one are inherent to the system.

Figure 1: Schematic of the components and result of our work. (A) A conserved quantity contracts dynamics of a dynamical system to a lower-dimensional subspace. (B) A differential embedding is a transformation of the phase space of the original system. (C) By contracting the differential embedding onto the subspace given by the conserved quantity, scalar observables that are not predicted to render the full system observable do make the system observable.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00143v1-figure-b1b85b54-b5df-4567-86ac-f45b4c9a3061.jpg)

## 2 Background

We consider dynamical systems of the form

$$\frac { d \mathbf x ( t ) } { d t } = f ( \mathbf x ( t ) )$$

with observable variables y = g (ˆ), where x f : R n → R n and g : R m → R m are differentiable functions. We assume that we can only measure a subset of the state variables represented by ˆ x ∈ R m and the initial state x 0 ∈ Ω 0 ⊂ R n is unknown.

Definition 1. The system in Eq. (1) is observable if there is a bijection between the initial states in Ω 0 and the set of trajectories of the observed outputs y ( ) for t t ≥ 0 [26].

In the following, we describe popular approaches for determining observability of a nonlinear system as in Eq. (1). The approach in [24] considers a k -dimensional differential embedding Φ : R n → R km given by Φ( x ) = ( g (ˆ) x , g ˙(ˆ) x , · · · , g ( k ) (ˆ)) (derivatives with respect to time). x The map Φ is locally invertible at x 0 if the Jacobian has full rank. That is, the map Φ is locally invertible at x 0 if

$$\text{rank} \left ( \frac { \partial \Phi } { \partial \mathbf x } \Big | _ { \mathbf x _ { 0 } } \right ) = n.$$

The system in Eq. (1) is locally observable if and only if Eq. (2) holds [24].

Another approach is the graphical approach. The graphical approach [25] associates a directed graph G to the system given by Eq. (1), where the nodes of G are x 1 , · · · , x n and there is an edge from x i to x j if x j appears in the differential equation of x i . We consider the condensation graph of G where we collapse the strongly connected components into a node. The graphical approach in [25] states that a necessary and sufficient condition for observability of the system in Eq. (1) is to observe the source nodes in G and a variable in each strongly connected component of G . However, those conditions are neither sufficient nor necessary as we will show in the following example.

Example 2. SIR models are popular for describing dynamics of an infectious disease and for unveiling key biophysical parameters that govern the transition of a disease from dissipating in a population to persisting in an endemic state [17, 18, 19]. Such models are typically composed of three state variables: S representing the number of susceptible individuals in a population, I representing the number of infected individuals, and R representing the number of recovered or removed individuals. They have been shown to apply to more general settings as well by incorporating spatial and stochastic dynamics in their structure [28, 29, 30, 31]. Furthermore, they have been used to study dissemination of information through a social network in a number of studies [32, 33]. Hence, SIR models form a crux of much of mathematical epidemiology literature.

One of the simplest SIR models describes the dynamics of an epidemic on a short timescale. In such instances, the impact infection imparts on population dynamics vastly outweighs birth and death events, so birth and death terms do not manifest in the SIR dynamics. Because of this, the total number of individuals is invariant in time. Such a model is applicable, for example, in describing the dynamics and spread of the flu virus through a population [34].

Here we investigate such a model. Consider the following SIR model:

$$\begin{matrix} \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ \frac { d S } { d t } & = - \beta S I \\ \frac { d I } { d t } & = \beta S I - \lambda I & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \d� & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \d� & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \delta & \dangle & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & - & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & } & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & + & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & _ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & = & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$$

where S represents the susceptible population, I represents the infected population, and R represents the recovered population. The parameter β quantifies the infectivity of the infectious disease under consideration; thus, the βSI term captures the rate at which susceptible individuals become infected through contact with infected individuals. The parameter λ quantifies the rate of recovery of an infected individual. This system contains a conserved quantity, namely the total population. That is, ∀ t , S + I + R = N for a prescribed N ∈ R . Because of this conserved quantity, Eq. (4) can be reduced to a two-dimensional system that has the same equilibria and stability as the full system. Such a reduction greatly facilitates analysis.

We depict the associated graph of this model in Fig. 2A. According to the graphical approach in [25], it is necessary to measure R to make the system observable and that just measuring I would not make the system observable. However, that conlusion would be wrong as we can get the information for S and

$$\text{$w_y_sigma$} \colon \text{$w_sigma$} \colon \text{$w_sigma$} \colon \text{$w_sigma$} \colon \text{$w_sigma$} \colon \text{$w_sigma$} \\ R \text{ by measuring $I$ and using the conserved quantity $N$. Indeed, $S = \frac{1}{j} \left ( \frac { j } { I } + \lambda \right ) \text{ and } R = N - I - S = \\ \cdot \quad.$$

$$N - I - \frac { 1 } { \beta } \left ( \frac { \dot { I } } { I } + \lambda \right ) \text{ expresses both } R \text{ and } S \text{ as functions of } I, \dot { I } = \frac { d I } { d t }, \text{ and the conserved quantity } N.$$

One could apply the graphical method to

$$\frac { d S } { d t } & = - \beta S I \\ \frac { d I } { d t } & = \beta S I - \lambda I$$

$$\frac { d I } { d t } & = \beta S I - \lambda I \\ \frac { d N } { d t } & = 0$$

to obtain that observing either I and N (or S and N ) suffices to recover all variables, including R = N - -I S , but the measurement of the unchanging quantity N is practically quite different from measuring the varying quantity I .

A

Figure 2: Reaction graphs corresponding to the SIR system. (A) The original model. (B) The transformed model from invoking the transformation I = N -S -R .

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00143v1-figure-4d242998-4a20-495e-94f0-6e3690d39f28.jpg)

Definition 3. For m ≤ n , a scalar-valued function H : R m → R is a conserved quantity of Eq. (1) if, for all time and initial conditions,

$$\frac { d H } { d t } = 0.$$

Note that if m = n , then the condition in Eq. 6 can also be stated as

$$\nabla H \cdot \frac { d \mathbf x ( t ) } { d t } = \nabla H \cdot f ( \mathbf x ( t ) ) = 0,$$

where ∇ = ( ∂ ∂x 1 , · · · , ∂ ∂x n ).

We can represent ℓ conserved quantities H , 1 · · · , H ℓ by using a function G : R n → R ℓ where G = ( H , 1 · · · , H ℓ ). Note that the Jacobian matrix of G is the zero matrix,

$$\frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf x } \cdot \frac { d \mathbf x ( t ) } { d t } = \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf x } \cdot f ( \mathbf x ) = 0.$$

## 3 Results

For m ≤ n , a subset of variables s ∈ R m are called sufficient whenever observing these variables makes the system observable. Next, we consider a partition of the variables in Eq. (1), x = ( r s , ) where r ∈ R n -m and s ∈ R m is the set of sufficient variables.

Given a collection of conserved quantities G : R n → R ℓ , we describe its Jacobian using the partition above as follows:

$$\frac { \partial G } { \partial x } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) = \left [ \begin{array} { c c c c } \frac { \partial G _ { 1 } } { \partial \mathbf r _ { 1 } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) & \cdots & \frac { \partial G _ { 1 } } { \partial \mathbf r _ { n - m } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac { \partial G _ { \ell } } { \partial \mathbf r _ { 1 } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) & \cdots & \frac { \partial G _ { \ell } } { \partial \mathbf r _ { n - m } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \end{array} \right ] = \left [ \begin{array} { c c c c } \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf r } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) & \cdots & \frac { \partial G _ { 1 } } { \partial \mathbf s _ { m } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac { \partial G _ { \ell } } { \partial \mathbf r _ { n - m } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) & \cdots & \frac { \partial G _ { \ell } } { \partial \mathbf s _ { m } } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \end{array} \right ] \quad ( 7 )$$

Now we state our main result.

## Theorem 4. Let

$$\begin{cases} \ \dot { \mathbf x } ( t ) & = & f ( \mathbf x ( t ) ) \\ \ \mathbf y & = & g ( \mathbf s ) \end{cases}$$

be an observable system, where g : R m → R m . If G : R n → R ℓ is a collection of conserved quantities involving sufficient nodes s and other variables r where ∂G ∂ s ( r s , ) is invertible and ∂G ∂ r ( r s , ) full rank, then ∃ ˆ : g R n -m → R m such that the system

$$\begin{cases} \ \dot { \mathbf x } ( t ) & = & f ( \mathbf x ( t ) ) \\ \ \mathbf y & = & \hat { g } ( \mathbf r ) \end{cases}$$

is observable.

Proof. Since G consists of conserved quantities, G = constant . Then, by the implicit function theorem, there is a function ψ : R n -m → R m such that s = ψ ( r ). Let ˆ = g g ◦ ψ Since the system in Eq. (8) is observable, the embedding Φ( x ) = ( g ( s ) , g ′ ( s ) , · · · , g ( k ) ( s )) is injective. Let Φ( ˆ z ) = (ˆ( g r ) , g ˆ ( ′ r ) , · · · , g ˆ ( k ) ( r )) as illustrated in the following diagram,

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00143v1-figure-bd3c063a-42f5-4d3b-ad83-ae1f5a7cb876.jpg)

Then,

Then,

$$\frac { \partial ( \hat { \Phi } \circ \Phi ) ( \mathbf x ) } { \partial \mathbf x } = \frac { \partial \hat { \Phi } ( \mathbf x ) } { \partial \mathbf z } \ \frac { \partial \Phi ( \mathbf x ) } { \partial \mathbf x } = - \left [ \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf s } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \right ] ^ { - 1 } \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf r } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \ \frac { \partial \Phi ( \mathbf x ) } { \partial \mathbf x }.$$

Thus, Φ ˆ ◦ Φ is one-to-one which makes the system in Eq. (9) is observable.

## 4 Applications

Here we demonstrate that relatively simple systems of interest in biology containing conserved quantities are observable through the lense of Theorem 4.

## 4.1 Constant Population SIR Model

In the following we first ascertain that Eq. (4) is observable provided the observed state variable is R t ( ). Then we construct the differential embedding map for the system and show that implementing the conserved quantity allows observing other state variables to render the full system observable.

The system given in Eq. (4) is observable. The observed variable will be R t ( ). To determine whether or not Eq. (4) is observable with R t ( ) as the scalar observable, we must look at the Jacobian matrix associated with the Lie derivatives of this system [25]. Writing Eq. (4) compactly as

$$\frac { d \mathbf X } { d t } = f ( \mathbf X )$$

$$\frac { \partial \hat { \Phi } ( \mathbf z ) } { \partial \mathbf z } = \frac { \partial \Phi ( \mathbf x ) } { \partial \mathbf x } \frac { \partial \Psi ( \mathbf r ) } { \partial \mathbf r }, \quad \text{but} \quad \frac { \partial \Psi ( \mathbf r ) } { \partial \mathbf r } = - \left [ \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf s } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ) \right ] ^ { - 1 } \frac { \partial G } { \partial \mathbf r } ( \mathbf r, \mathbf s ).$$

with X ≡ ( S, I, R ) T and f ( X ) = ( -βSI,βSI -λI, λI ) T , the Lie derivative of a scalar observable y t ( ) is given by

$$\mathcal { L } ( y ) = \frac { \partial y } { \partial t } + \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 3 } f _ { i } \frac { \partial y } { \partial \mathbf X _ { i } }$$

In accordance with the usual computations necessary for ascertaining observability, we compute

$$\mathcal { L } ^ { 0 } ( R ) = R \quad \mathcal { L } ^ { 1 } ( R ) = 2 \lambda I \quad \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } ( R ) = 4 \lambda ( \beta S - \lambda ) I$$

and construct the associated Jacobian matrix given by

$$\mathcal { I } = \left ( \begin{array} { c } \nabla \mathcal { L } ^ { 0 } ( R ) \\ \nabla \mathcal { L } ^ { 1 } ( R ) \\ \nabla \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } ( R ) \end{array} \right ).$$

That is, each row of the Jacobian matrix consists of a gradient vector of the Lie derivatives with respect to the state variables of the system. When R t ( ) is observed, the Jacobian matrix is

$$\mathcal { J } = \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 2 \lambda & 0 \\ 4 \lambda \beta I & 4 \lambda ( \beta S - \lambda ) & 0 \end{array} \right ),$$

̸

which has full rank provided λ = 0, β = 0, and I = 0. Having full rank implies the system is observable.

̸

̸

The corresponding differential embedding is bijective. Consider the embedding Φ( S, I, R ) = ( R,R,R ˙ ¨ ) T = ( R,λI,λ βSI ( -λI )) T . This is bijective.

Proof. To prove injectivity, let Φ( S , I 1 1 , R 1 ) = Φ( S , I 2 2 , R 2 ). Then

$$\left ( \begin{array} { c } R _ { 1 } \\ \lambda I _ { 1 } \\ \lambda ( \beta S _ { 1 } I _ { 1 } - \lambda I _ { 1 } ) \end{array} \right ) = \left ( \begin{array} { c } R _ { 2 } \\ \lambda I _ { 2 } \\ \lambda ( \beta S _ { 2 } I _ { 2 } - \lambda I _ { 2 } ) \end{array} \right )$$

This clearly implies R 1 = R 2 and I 1 = I 2 . Finally, we have λ βS I ( 1 1 -λI 1 ) = λ βS I ( 2 2 -λI 2 ). Since I 1 = I 2 , this implies S 1 = S 2 and injectivity is proved. For surjectivity, take Φ( S, I, R ) = ( a, b, c ) T for some ( a, b, c ) T in the codomain of Φ. Then clearly we can take R = a , I = b λ and S = c λβb + λ β as a preimage and surjectivity is proved.

̸

One subtle point is that we must constrain the codomain of Φ to be R 3 \ { ( a, 0 , c ) : a, c ∈ R } for it to be surjective. This is completely consistent with the Jacobian in Eq. (10), which says that I = 0 is necessary for observability. This is also consistent physically, since a situation where I = 0 is not particularly interesting when studying the spread of disease.

With the bijectivity of the differential embedding established, it is sufficient to consider the Jacobian of various embeddings to determine whether or not the observed variable renders the full system observable. From this perspective, we next show that observing I in the absence of the conserved quantity does not render the system observable.

Consider now the differential embedding Ψ( S, I, R ) = ( I, I, I ˙ ¨ ) T = ( I, βSI -λI, ( βS -λ ) 2 I -β SI 2 2 ) T . Clearly, Ψ is not injective because the image of a point ( S, I, R ) is agnostic to the value R takes.

The conserved quantity renders I a sufficient observable. Consider the same differential embedding Ψ = ( I, I, I ˙ ¨ ) T , but now let I = N -S -R , where we solve for I in the conserved population equation

S + I + R = N ∀ t . The corresponding differential equation system becomes

$$\dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \\ \frac { d S } { d t } & = - \beta S ( N - S - R ) \\ \frac { d I } { d t } & = - \dot { S } - \dot { R } \\ \frac { d R } { d t } & = \lambda ( N - S - R ) \\ \intertext { a m b a d i n z i e }$$

The corresponding differential embedding is

$$\Psi = \left ( \begin{array} { c } I \\ ( \beta S - \lambda ) ( N - S - R ) \\ ( \beta S - \lambda ) ^ { 2 } ( N - S - R ) - \beta ^ { 2 } S ( N - S - R ) ^ { 2 } \end{array} \right )$$

Then, the resulting Jacobian is

$$\left ( \frac { \partial \Psi } { \partial \mathbf X } \right ) = \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \beta ( N - 2 S - R ) & 0 & \lambda - \beta S \\ F ( S, R ) & 0 & - ( \beta S - \lambda ) ^ { 2 } + 2 \beta ^ { 2 } S ( N - S - R ) \end{array} \right )$$

̸

where F S,R ( ) = ( βS -λ )(2 β N ( -S -R ) -βS + λ ) + β 2 ( N -S -R )(3 S + R -N ). Again, provided β = 0 and λ = 0, ( ∂ Ψ ∂ X ) has full rank and renders the system observable with the observed variable being I ( ). t

̸

Relating the two embeddings. Since the system in Eq. (4) is observable, the embedding Φ( S, I, R ) = ( R,R,R ˙ ¨ ) T is bijective. Let Φ( ˆ R,R,R ˙ ¨ ) = Ψ = ( I, I, I ˙ ¨ ) T where I = ψ S, R ( ) = N -R -S . Then, Φ is a ˆ bijection such that the following diagram commutes.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00143v1-figure-0fbbab3d-a6d9-4f9e-883c-33634efa7ba6.jpg)

## 4.1.1 Relating to the Graphical Approach

In summary, the preceding discussion says that Eq. (4) is observable if the observed state is R t ( ). This is consistent with what is obtained in the corresponding directed graph.

In the directed graph of the original SIR system, the only source node is R (see Figure 2A). The graphical approach for determining observability states that observing the source nodes of the directed graph of a system is necessary and sufficient to render the system observable. Consistent with the analysis in the previous section, observing R rendered Eq. (4) observable. Furthermore, in the original system, observing I will not render the system observable as I is not a source node. However, it can be made into a source node by invoking the conserved quantity and transforming the system by setting I = N -S -R (see Figure 2B). In the transformed system, I is the only source node, thereby making the system observable by observing I . We note that if we make the transformation S = N -R -I , then S will become the source node and it will be sufficient to observe S to render the system observable.

A main takeaway is that the existence of the conserved quantity allows for more flexibility in tracking an epidemic from the perspective of the SIR model. Sans the conserved quantity, one can strictly observe only R , the number of recovered individuals, to understand the full system. Simply observing only S

or only I will not do the job. However, the existence of the conserved quantity says that observing any one of the state variables is sufficient to completely understand the system. Thus, trackers of epidemics have flexibility in measuring the epidemic by observing any one of the subpopulations-whichever one is easiest.

## 4.2 Michaelis-Menten Kinetics

The simplest enzyme kinetics are Michaelis-Menten kinetics, applied to enzyme-catalyzed reactions of one substrate and one product [35]. An enzyme E binds with its substrate S to form a complex ES which then dissociates into E and P, the product of the enzymatic reaction. The reaction network is as follows:

$$E + S \xrightarrow { k _ { 1 } } E S \xrightarrow { k _ { 2 } } E + P$$

where k , k 1 -1 , k 2 are rate constants quantitating the corresponding reactions. Using the law of mass action, we can derive a model characterizing reaction (13). Let e ≡ [ E , s ] ≡ [ S , c ] ≡ [ ES , ] and p ≡ [ P ]. Then we have [36]

$$\tilde { c } \text{macon} \left ( \chi \right ) \colon \colon = \left ( \chi _ { 1 } \right ), \chi = \left ( \chi _ { 2 } \right ), \chi \right ), \chi \right ) \colon = \left ( \chi \right ), \chi \right ), \chi \right ) \colon \\ \tilde { c } \tilde { d } t & = ( k _ { - 1 } + k _ { 2 } ) c - k _ { 1 } e s \\ \tilde { d } s \tilde { d } t & = k _ { - 1 } c - k _ { 1 } e s \\ \tilde { d } c \tilde { d } t & = k _ { 1 } e s - ( k _ { - 1 } + k _ { 2 } ) c \\ \tilde { d } p \tilde { d } t & = k _ { 2 } c \\ \text{ntities in this system:}$$

There are two conserved quantities in this system:

$$e + c & = E _ { 0 } \\ s + c & + p = S _ { 0 }$$

where E 0 ∈ R represents the initial amount of enzyme in the system and S 0 ∈ R is the initial amount of substrate. The two conserved quantities allow for dimensional reduction of system (14) to a planar system

$$\frac { d s } { d t } & = k _ { - 1 } c - k _ { 1 } ( E _ { 0 } - c ) s \\ \frac { d c } { d t } & = k _ { 1 } ( E _ { 0 } - c ) s - ( k _ { - 1 } + k _ { 2 } ) c \\ \intertext { a common to that to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to an common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common from a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a Common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to A common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common To a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to aCommon to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to a common to " + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + b + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + A + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + } + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + c + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + x + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + { a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a } + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a } { a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + } { a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a } { b } { a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b } { b$$

By rescaling s, c, and t and assuming that the concentration of substrate vastly outweighs the concentration of enzyme, we can derive the nondimensionalized system

$$\frac { d \sigma } { d \tau } & = - \sigma + ( 1 - \eta + \sigma ) \rho \\ \varepsilon \frac { d \rho } { d \tau } & = \sigma - ( 1 + \sigma ) \rho$$

where σ ≡ k s/ k 1 ( -1 + k 2 ), ρ ≡ c/E 0 , τ ≡ k E t 1 0 . We define the dimensionless parameters ε ≡ E k / k 0 1 ( -1 + k 2 ) and η ≡ k / k 2 ( -1 + k 2 ) with 0 &lt; ε ≪ 1. We can thereafter invoke the stationary state approximation [37] and project onto the slow manifold [38] by assuming ρ = σ (1 + σ ) -1 . Substituting this expression into the differential equation for p then yields the classical Michaelis-Menten equation:

$$\frac { d p } { d t } = \frac { V _ { \max } s } { K + s }$$

where V max ≡ k E 2 0 is the fastest rate possible at which product P can be synthesized and K ≡ ( k -1 + k 2 ) /k 1 is the dissociation constant.

The derivation and generalization of Eq. (18) to more complicated enzyme-substrate mechanisms are a central focus in the theoretical biochemical literature [35, 39]. While such derivations are important for the description of biochemical processes, they do not inform experimentalists of the ramifications of the theoretical models to the experiments themselves.

The conserved quantities in the Michaelis-Menten system confine the 4D dynamics to a two-dimensional submanifold, thereby allotting the desirable property of analytic tractabillity in the system. But what does the conserved quantity imply for experimentalists? Broadly, the existence of a conserved quantity consisting of variables that correspond to sources in the directed graph representation 1 increases the number of variables that render the full system observable.

The reaction diagram for system (14) is shown in Figure 3A. The product P is the only source, implying that to understand the full system (i.e., to render the system observable), one must observe P. In an experimental setting, the kinetics of a given enzyme are measured and calculated from the observed dynamics of P. In a real setting, if P is easily measurable, then the situation at hand is no problem. However, in many situations, the product P is not directly measurable [35]. One must find an alternative to derive the kinetics of the corresponding enzymatic reaction. We demonstrate here that the presence of conserved quantities involving source terms allow for more freedom in observing the system. We now systematically examine how the conserved quantities given in Eqs. (15) alter the reaction diagram.

## 4.2.1 Enzyme Conservation

Let us suppose that we only impose enzyme conservation in the system. How does this alter the reaction diagram? In this case, we set e = E 0 -c , and the Michaelis-Menten system becomes

$$\text{e set } e = \mathcal { L } _ { 0 } - c, \text{and the Machine-Menten system becomes} \\ \frac { d e } { d t } & = - \frac { d c } { d t } \\ \frac { d s } { d t } & = k _ { - 1 } c - k _ { 1 } ( E _ { 0 } - c ) s \\ \frac { d c } { d t } & = k _ { 1 } ( E _ { 0 } - c ) s - ( k _ { - 1 } + k _ { 2 } ) c \\ \frac { d p } { d t } & = k _ { 2 } c. \\ \text{for obtaining the corresponding reaction diagram, we obtain the diagram shown}$$

Following our formalism for obtaining the corresponding reaction diagram, we obtain the diagram shown in Figure 3B. It now has two sources: E and P. This means that to render the system observable, one must observe the dynamics of both E and P. Although the conserved quantity greatly simplifies mathematical analysis, the existence of this conserved quantity thus complicates the experimental setting. The issue arises because the imparted conserved quantity does not consist of the source from the full system, P.

We note that the reaction diagram would have a similar issue even if we took c = E 0 -e in the conserved quantity.

## 4.2.2 Substrate Conservation

Now let us examine what happens when we impart substrate conservation. In this case, we set c = S 0 -s -p , rendering system (14) as

1 In the enzyme kinetics section of this paper, we will describe observability strictly through the graphical approach.

Figure 3: Reaction graphs corresponding to the Michaelis-Menten system. (A) The full model. (B) The model with enzyme conservation imposed. (C) The model with enzyme conservation and substrate conservation imposed. (D) The model with substrate conservation imposed.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00143v1-figure-2800feb8-f240-4a09-b5d5-84d1593846ef.jpg)

$$\frac { d e } { d t } & = ( k _ { - 1 } + k _ { 2 } ) ( S _ { 0 } - s - p ) - k _ { 1 } e s \\ \frac { d s } { d t } & = k _ { - 1 } ( S _ { 0 } - s - p ) - k _ { 1 } e s \\ \frac { d c } { d c } & = - \frac { d s } { d t } - \frac { d p } { d t } \\ \frac { d p } { d t } & = k _ { 2 } ( S _ { 0 } - s - p ) \\ \text{ction diagram is given in Figure 3D. There is again only one source:  C. All other} \,. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

The corresponding reaction diagram is given in Figure 3D. There is again only one source: C. All other nodes have incoming edges including self loops. The implication here is that now we need only observe C to understand the system. Furthermore, if we had set s = S 0 -c -p instead, the only source in the resulting reaction diagram would be S, meaning we need to only observe S to render the system observable. The experimental implication is that one can observe the dynamics of any of S, C, or P to completely understand the system. Hence, if any of S, C, or P are measurable in a laboratory setting, the system can be understood. Thus, the conserved quantity consisting of the source node vastly expanded the number of state variables the we can measure to render the system completely observable.

## 4.2.3 Enzyme and Substrate Conservation

What happens if we impose conservation of both enzyme and substrate? Does this simplify the system further? In this case, we set c = S 0 -s -p and e = E 0 -c = E 0 -S 0 + s + . The system becomes p

$$\text{case, we set } c = \mathfrak { S } _ { 0 } - s - p \text{ and } e = \mathcal { L } _ { 0 } - c = \mathcal { L } _ { 0 } - \mathfrak { S } _ { 0 } + s + p. \text{ } I \text{ the system becomes} \\ \frac { d e } { d t } & = \frac { d s } { d t } + \frac { d p } { d t } \\ \frac { d s } { d t } & = k _ { - 1 } ( S _ { 0 } - s - p ) - k _ { 1 } ( E _ { 0 } - S _ { 0 } + s + p ) s \\ \frac { d c } { d t } & = - \frac { d s } { d t } - \frac { d p } { d t } \\ \frac { d p } { d t } & = k _ { 2 } ( S _ { 0 } - s - p ) \\ \text{g reaction diagram is shown in Figure 3C. Again, the diagram depicts two source nodes}$$

The corresponding reaction diagram is shown in Figure 3C. Again, the diagram depicts two source nodes (E and C), implying one must observe both C and E to understand the system. This is, of course, incorrect.

The above analysis brings to light an important point: one must not conclude that theoretical conserved quantities imply positive experimental ramifications. Indeed, if one only analyzed the model with both substrate and enzyme conservation, they would conclude that one must observe two state variables to understand the enzymatic system. Conserved quantities that do not include source node state variables do not inform the observability of the system. The conserved quantity s + c + p = S 0 , on the other hand, yields a correct interpretation of observability. Namely, any one of the terms involved in the conserved quantity can be observed to understand the system.

## 5 Conclusions

We summarize the main contributions of this manuscript as follows. Most generally, we have proved a theorem conveying that observable dynamical systems with conserved quantities that involve source nodes in the corresponding directed graph representation of the system can be recast so that many more system outputs than originally thought could be observed to render the system observable. We used differential embeddings to prove this. In effect, we generalized the observability criteria provided by the graphical approach and the rank-based approach of differential embeddings.

Our approach has important implications for physical and biological sciences. Namely, we argue that systems with conserved quantities exhibit more flexibility in what must be observed for the full system to be understood. We demonstrate this with two concrete biological examples with conserved quantities: the constant population SIR model and the classical Michaelis-Menten system for enzymatic reactions. For the former model, the original system necessitates observation of R t ( ) to render the system observable. However, the conserved quantity allows any one of S, I, or R to be observed for the system to be observable. Similarly, the classical Michalis-Menten system requires observation of the product, P t ( ), to render the system observable. The appropriate conserved quantity allows for product, substrate, or enzyme-substrate complex to be observed for the full system to be understood. Such flexibility can be the difference between success and failure in experimental settings.

For dynamical systems exhibiting multiple conserved quantities, our method identifies the 'correct' submanifold of phase space to which dynamics should be contracted to obtain alternative observables that render the full system observable. Only conserved quantities that incorporate source nodes of the associated directed graph of the dynamical system can yield other outputs of the system that render the dynamical system observable.

Mathematically, we contribute to the rich mosaic of literature available on controllable and observable systems. Our method will be of interest because it expands upon and improves the popular methods given by the graphical approach and the rank-based differential embeddings approach.

## References

- [1] D. Aeyels, 'Generic observability of differentiable systems,' SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 595-603, 1981.
- [2] E. D. Sontag, Mathematical control theory: deterministic finite dimensional systems , vol. 6. Springer Science &amp; Business Media, 2013.
- [3] G. Shinar and M. Feinberg, 'Structural sources of robustness in biochemical reaction networks,' Science , vol. 327, no. 5971, pp. 1389-1391, 2010.
- [4] J. Gunawardena, 'Chemical reaction network theory for in-silico biologists,' Notes available for download at http://vcp. med. harvard. edu/papers/crnt. pdf , vol. 5, 2003.
- [5] M. Feinberg, Foundations of chemical reaction network theory . Springer, 2019.
- [6] S. R. Turns, An Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Applications . McGraw-Hill Companies New York, NY, USA, 3rd ed., 2011.
- [7] S. J. Klippenstein, 'From theoretical reaction dynamics to chemical modeling of combustion,' Proceedings of the Combustion Institute , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 77-111, 2017.
- [8] T. I. Anderson and A. R. Kovscek, 'Analysis and comparison of in-situ combustion chemical reaction models,' Fuel , vol. 311, p. 122599, 2022.
- [9] D. Witthaut, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, S. Kettemann, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, and M. Timme, 'Collective nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in decentralized power grids,' Reviews of modern physics , vol. 94, no. 1, p. 015005, 2022.
- [10] J. M. L´pez-Lezama, J. Cortina-G´mez, and N. Mu˜oz-Galeano, 'Assessment of the electric grid ino o n terdiction problem using a nonlinear modeling approach,' Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 144, pp. 243-254, 2017.

| [11]   | D. Osipov and K. Sun, 'Adaptive nonlinear model reduction for fast power system simulation,' IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6746-6754, 2018.                                                                                                                                              |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [12]   | B. R. Karamched and C. E. Miles, 'Stochastic switching of delayed feedback suppresses oscillations in genetic regulatory systems,' Journal of the Royal Society Interface , vol. 20, no. 203, p. 20230059, 2023.                                                                                                    |
| [13]   | M. Fazli and R. Bertram, 'Network properties of electrically coupled bursting pituitary cells,' Fron- tiers in Endocrinology , vol. 13, p. 936160, 2022.                                                                                                                                                            |
| [14]   | J. P. Hogan and B. E. Peercy, 'Flipping the switch on the hub cell: Islet desynchronization through cell silencing,' PloS one , vol. 16, no. 4, p. e0248974, 2021.                                                                                                                                                  |
| [15]   | J. K. Kim and D. B. Forger, 'A mechanism for robust circadian timekeeping via stoichiometric balance,' Molecular systems biology , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 630, 2012.                                                                                                                                                     |
| [16]   | D. Del Vecchio and R. M. Murray, Biomolecular feedback systems . Princeton University Press Prince- ton, NJ, 2015.                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [17]   | H. H. Weiss, 'The sir model and the foundations of public health,' Materials matematics , pp. 0001- 17, 2013.                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| [18]   | Y. A. Kuznetsov and C. Piccardi, 'Bifurcation analysis of periodic seir and sir epidemic models,' Journal of mathematical biology , vol. 32, pp. 109-121, 1994.                                                                                                                                                     |
| [19]   | C. N. Ngonghala, E. A. Iboi, and A. B. Gumel, 'Could masks curtail the post-lockdown resurgence of covid-19 in the us?,' Mathematical biosciences , vol. 329, p. 108452, 2020.                                                                                                                                      |
| [20]   | H. Hoffmann, C. Thiede, I. Glauche, M. Bornhaeuser, and I. Roeder, 'Differential response to cyto- toxic therapy explains treatment dynamics of acute myeloid leukaemia patients: insights from a math- ematical modelling approach,' Journal of the Royal Society Interface , vol. 17, no. 170, p. 20200091, 2020. |
| [21]   | D. Plaugher and D. Murrugarra, 'Cancer mutationscape: revealing the link between modular restruc- turing and intervention efficacy among mutations,' NPJ Systems Biology and Applications , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 74, 2024.                                                                                            |
| [22]   | D. Wodarz and N. L. Komarova, 'Mutant fixation in the presence of a natural enemy,' Nature Communications , vol. 14, no. 1, p. 6642, 2023.                                                                                                                                                                          |
| [23]   | K. Yano, The theory of Lie derivatives and its applications . Courier Dover Publications, 2020.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [24]   | C. Letellier, L. A. Aguirre, and J. Maquet, 'Relation between observability and differential embed- dings for nonlinear dynamics,' Physical Review E-Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics vol. 71, no. 6, p. 066213, 2005.                                                                               |
| [25]   | Y.-Y. Liu, J.-J. Slotine, and A.-L. Barab´si, a 'Observability of complex systems,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 2460-2465, 2013.                                                                                                                                         |
| [26]   | S. R. Kou, D. L. Elliott, and T. J. Tarn, 'Observability of nonlinear systems,' Information and Control , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 89-99, 1973.                                                                                                                                                                          |
| [27]   | A. Haber, F. Molnar, and A. E. Motter, 'State observation and sensor selection for nonlinear net- works,' IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 694-708, 2017.                                                                                                                       |

| [28]   | C. Ji and D. Jiang, 'Threshold behaviour of a stochastic sir model,' Applied Mathematical Modelling , vol. 38, no. 21-22, pp. 5067-5079, 2014.                                                                                                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [29]   | E. Tornatore, S. M. Buccellato, and P. Vetro, 'Stability of a stochastic sir system,' Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , vol. 354, pp. 111-126, 2005.                                                                                                    |
| [30]   | F. A. Milner and R. Zhao, 'Sir model with directed spatial diffusion,' Mathematical Population Studies , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 160-181, 2008.                                                                                                                                   |
| [31]   | J. Marques, A. D. CEZARO, and M. Lazo, 'A sir model with spatially distributed multiple popu- lations interactions for disease dissemination,' Trends in Computational and Applied Mathematics , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 143-154, 2022.                                           |
| [32]   | X. Zhou, Y. Hu, Y. Wu, and X. Xiong, 'Influence analysis of information erupted on social networks based on sir model,' International Journal of Modern Physics C , vol. 26, no. 02, p. 1550018, 2015.                                                                        |
| [33]   | B. Morsky, F. Magpantay, T. Day, and E. Ak¸ay, c 'The impact of threshold decision mechanisms of collective behavior on disease spread,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 120, no. 19, p. e2221479120, 2023.                                            |
| [34]   | H. W. Hethcote, 'The mathematics of infectious diseases,' SIAM review , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 599-653, 2000.                                                                                                                                                                    |
| [35]   | P. F. Cook and W. W. Cleland, Enzyme kinetics and mechanism . Garland Science, 2007.                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| [36]   | J. Keener and J. Sneyd, Mathematical physiology: I: Cellular physiology . Springer, 2009.                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [37]   | J. D. Meiss, Differential dynamical systems . SIAM, 2007.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [38]   | J. Rinzel, 'A formal classification of bursting mechanisms in excitable systems,' in Mathematical Topics in Population Biology, Morphogenesis and Neurosciences: Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Kyoto, November 10-15, 1985 , pp. 267-281, Springer, 1987. |
| [39]   | P. A. Sims, 'An' aufbau' approach to understanding how the king-altman method of deriving rate equations for enzyme-catalyzed reactions works,' Journal of chemical education , vol. 86, no. 3, p. 385,                                                                       |
Bhargav Karamched Jack Schmidt David Murrugarra
Observability of complex systems via conserved quantities
Many systems in biology, physics, and engineering are modeled by nonlinear
dynamical systems where the states are usually unknown and only a subset of the
state variables can be physically measured. Can we understand the full system
from what we measure? In the mathematics literature, this question is framed as
the observability problem. It has to do with recovering information about the
state variables from the observed states (the measurements). In this paper, we
relate the observability problem to another structural feature of many models
relevant in the physical and biological sciences: the conserved quantity. For
models based on systems of differential equations, conserved quantities offer
desirable properties such as dimension reduction which simplifies model
analysis. Here, we use differential embeddings to show that conserved
quantities involving a set of special variables provide more flexibility in
what can be measured to address the observability problem for systems of
interest in biology. Specifically, we provide conditions under which a
collection of conserved quantities make the system observable. We apply our
methods to provide alternate measurable variables in models where conserved
quantities have been used for model analysis historically in biological
contexts.