Differential equations in engineering and natural sciences: numerical and data-driven modeling of logistic dynamics

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34185/1562-9945-2-163-2026-19

Keywords:

differential equations, logistic equation, Euler’s method, Runge–Kutta method, parametric identification, mathematical modelling, technical systems, natural sciences, forecasting

Abstract

Recent studies on differential equations increasingly combine classical mathemati-cal modeling with data-driven identification techniques. This trend is especially relevant in engineering and natural sciences, where real systems are often described by nonlinear dynamics, while the available data are limited or affected by noise. In such a context, a modern manuscript should not remain purely descriptive; it must demonstrate a repro-ducible computational result that quantitatively confirms the declared methodological approach.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to summarize the applied role of differ-ential equations in engineering and natural sciences; second, to verify, on a reproducible control problem, the accuracy of two approaches to dynamic modeling: classical numeri-cal integration and data-driven identification of the right-hand side from limited noisy observations.
The study uses the logistic equation dN/dt = rN(1−N/K) with parameters r = 1, K = 100, N(0) = 10 on the interval t ∈ [0; 10]. The exact analytical solution is used as a benchmark. Numerical integration is performed by the explicit Euler method and the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with a time step h = 0.5. In addition, a simplified data-driven model of the right-hand side is considered in the form f(N)=aN+bN². The co-efficients are identified by least squares from synthetic derivative data corrupted by 2% relative noise. The identified model is then reintegrated and compared with the bench-mark trajectory.
The obtained results demonstrate a substantial difference in accuracy between the two numerical schemes. For the same step size, the Euler method yields RMSE = 2.664, while RK4 gives RMSE = 0.0039. The final value N(10) is reproduced much more accu-rately by RK4. At the same time, the identified data-driven model recovers coefficients a = 1.0053 and b = -0.01006, which are close to the theoretical values 1 and -0.01. The re-constructed trajectory has RMSE ≈ 0.15, showing that even a simple parametric repre-sentation can preserve the essential nonlinear behavior and saturation near the carrying capacity.
The scientific contribution of the paper lies in methodological consistency. Instead of declaratively referring to neural differential equations without quantitative evidence, the manuscript provides a transparent comparative numerical experiment and a repro-ducible data-driven identification procedure. This removes the discrepancy between the stated goal, the applied methods, and the conclusions. The proposed framework may serve as a basis for further extensions to multidimensional systems, partial differential equations, and neural differential models with a complete training and validation pipe-line.

References

Tenenbaum, M., & Pollard, H. (1985). Ordinary differential equations. New York: Dover Publications.

Boyce, W. E., DiPrima, R. C., & Meade, D. B. (2017). Elementary differential equations and boundary value problems (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://www.wiley.com/en-cn/Elementary+Differential+Equations+and+Boundary+Value+Problems%2C+11th+Edition-p-9781119381648

Strauss, W. A. (2007). Partial differential equations: An introduction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Partial+Differential+Equations%3A+An+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470054567

Butcher, J. C. (2016). Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley. https://books.google.com.ua/books/about/Numerical_Methods_for_Ordinary_Different.html?id=JlSvDAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Iserles, A. (2008). A first course in the numerical analysis of differential equations (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511995569

Hairer, E., Nørsett, S. P., & Wanner, G. (1993). Solving ordinary differential equations I: Nonstiff problems (2nd rev. ed.). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1

Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L., & Kutz, J. N. (2016). Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 3932-3937. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517384113

Raissi, M. (2018). Deep hidden physics models: Deep learning of nonlinear partial differ-ential equations. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.06637

Bongard, J., & Lipson, H. (2007). Automated reverse engineering of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9943-9948. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609476104

Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J., & Duvenaud, D. (2018). Neural ordinary differential equations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 6571-6583. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.07366

Rackauckas, C., et al. (2020). Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.04385

Padalko, A. M., Padalko, N. Y., Padalko, K. A., & Podoliak, V. M. (2021). Using a sys-tem of differential equations for mathematical modeling of DC electric machines. Computer-Integrated Technologies: Education, Science, Production, 43, 97-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36910/6775-2524-0560-2021-43-16

Published

2026-03-31