MAIN ARTICLE

Understanding model behavior using the Loops

that Matter method
William Schoenberg,a,b* Pål Davidsena and Robert Eberleinb

Abstract
The relationship between structure and behavior is central to system dynamics, but effective
tools required to understand that relationship still elude us. The current state of the art in the
field of loop dominance analysis relies on either practitioner intuition and experience or com-
plex algorithmic manipulation in the form of eigenvalue analysis or pathway participation met-
rics. This article presents a new and distinct numeric method based on a different measure, the
loop score, to determine the contribution of a loop to a model’s behavior at each instant in time.
This allows us to discover the origin of model behavior. The method was inspired by observa-
tions of the patterns in the changes of the values of variables during simulations and has been
tested and refined using empirical evaluation on a variety of models. The method also offers a
promising approach to the visualization and aggregation of simulation results.
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of
System Dynamics Society

Syst. Dyn. Rev. (2020)

Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the supporting information tab for
this article.

The problem

The strong relationship between structure and behavior is fundamental to

system dynamics (Sterman, 2000). A model uses parametric and structural
assumptions to produce behavior. A system dynamics practitioner must gen-
erally engage in the following process: create a structure underlying the
problem under consideration, understand how that structure works to pro-
duce that problem, and figure out how to improve that structure so as to
address the problem. The second step in this process is the focus of this arti-
cle and is the key to successfully performing the third step. By referring back
to the model structure, the practitioner can explain the reasons why the
observed behavior has been generated (Richardson, 1996). Based on that
understanding, the practitioner may propose changes in input values or
model structure (system configuration) that will cause more favorable behav-
ior to be produced.
a
Department of Geography, System Dynamics Group, University of Bergen, Fosswinckelsgt. 6, Postboks 7802,
N-5020, Bergen, Norway
b
isee systems inc., Wheelock Office Park, 31 Old Etna Rd, Suite 7N, 03766, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
* Correspondence to: William Schoenberg, E-mail: william.schoenberg@uib.no, billy.schoenberg@gmail.com
Accepted by Luis Luna-Reyes, Received 14 February 2019; Revised 14 October 2019; 24 March 2020 and
9 June 2020; Accepted 21 June 2020

System Dynamics Review

System Dynamics Review
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1658

1
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 System Dynamics Review

The current state of the art in the field relies on either practitioner intui-
tion and experience (the craft of modeling and model analysis) or complex
algorithmic analysis. The former is taught as part of the methodology of model
building, while the latter comes from 40 years of work on techniques to derive
and explain model behavior based on the analysis of structure (see, for exam-
ple, Davidsen, 1991; Eberlein, 1984; Ford, 1999; Forrester, 1982; Graham, 1977;
Gonçalves, 2009; Güneralp, 2006; Hayward and Boswell, 2014; Hayward and
Roach, 2017; Kampmann, 2012; Mojtahedzadeh, 1996; Mojtahedzadeh
et al., 2004; Moxnes and Davidsen, 2016; Naumov and Oliva, 2018;
Oliva, 2016, 2020; Saleh, 2002; Saleh et al., 2010; Sato, 2016)
Ford clearly stated the needs of the system dynamics field as they apply to
loop dominance analysis:

“To rigorously analyze loop dominance in all but small and simple models and
effectively apply analysis results, system dynamicists need at least two things:
(i) automated analysis tools applicable to models with many loops and (ii) a
clear and unambiguous understanding of loop dominance and how it impacts
system behavior.” (Ford, 1999, pp. 4–5)

In this article, we discuss a new loop dominance analysis method and

demonstrate its performance on the two tests set out by Ford.
We define loop dominance as a concept which relates to the entirety of a
model, as opposed to loop dominance being something that affects a single
stock. For loop dominance to apply to the entire model, we require that all
stocks are connected to each other by the network of feedback loops in the
model. For models where there are stocks that do not share feedback loops,
we consider each subcomponent of interrelated feedback loops individually,
and we refer to each model substructure as having a separate loop domi-
nance profile. Our measurement of loop dominance is specific to the particu-
lar time period selected for analysis. We say that a loop (or set of loops) is
dominant if the loop(s) describe at least 50% of the observed change in
behavior across all stocks in the model over the selected time period.
The purpose of this research is to create a loop dominance analysis
method that is accurate and practical. While this new method may not gen-
erate new insights relative to existing analysis methods, it has two character-
istics that make it more practical. First, it is relatively easy to understand for
people who have built and analyzed system dynamics models, even those
with a limited mathematical background. Second, it lends itself completely
to presenting behavior over time graphs that mix loop dominance measures
and model behavior, making it easy to see the evolution of loop dominance.
These characteristics, combined with the very straightforward computational
techniques we employ, mean that such an analysis can easily be built into
existing system dynamics modeling environments. This will make finding
the loops that matter over time as easy as it is to watch a graph of behavior
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 3

unfold over time. Such ease of use means the methods will routinely remove
one more obstacle in our ability as a field to do good work.
First, we discuss the existing approaches used to automate the process of
discovering loop dominance. Thereafter, we introduce our new method,
starting with links and building up to loops. Then we demonstrate the new
method applied to three models that have already been analyzed using exis-
ting automated loop dominance analysis techniques, so as to demonstrate
how well the new approach works. Finally, we conclude with a discussion
of the benefits and weaknesses of the new method.

Literature review

The current state of the art in the use of mathematical methods for determin-
ing loop dominance revolves around two methods. The first one is based on
eigenvalue elasticity analysis; the second one uses the pathway participation
metric and causal pathways.

Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, specifically eigenvalue elasticity

analysis (EEA)
Forrester (1982) was the first to document that eigenvalue elasticities could
be used to explain the relative contributions of different loops in models of
linear systems. Since then, the formal method of eigenvalue elasticity analy-
sis (EEA) has been further developed and is now used to determine how
model structure produces the dynamic modes of behavior in a model, specif-
ically those modes of behavior characterizing the state variables or stocks
(Kampmann et al., 2006; Oliva, 2016; Saleh, 2002; Saleh et al., 2010).
Using EEA, the combination of behavior modes expressed by a model is
characterized by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of that model. This analy-
sis is built on the observation that the behavior of a linear system can be
expressed as a weighted combination of behavior modes, each characterized
by a decoupled (or pairwise coupled) set of eigenvalues (Saleh et al., 2010).
EEA is applied to examine both link and loop significance with regard to the
dynamic behavior of the model. It does so by identifying the relationship,
expressed in the form of the elasticity, between the parameters that make up
the gains of individual feedback loops in the model and the eigenvalues
(and sometimes eigenvectors) that characterize the dynamic behavior of the
model. The significance of a loop to generating behavior is expressed by the
eigenvalue elasticity of its gain (how strongly a change in the loop gain
impacts the eigenvalue associated with the behavior of interest). Note that
this may not only be used to identify the root cause of a model’s behavior
but also the leverage points for controlling a system (policy entry points)
provided the model is an accurate representation of that system.
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
4 System Dynamics Review

Kampmann (2012) developed the concept of the independent loop set

(ILS) which maps all of the loops in the model onto a singular set of inde-
pendent loops that produces the full behavior of the model so that the analy-
sis can be effectively completed and interpreted. Oliva (2004) extended
Kampmann’s work on the ILS by developing an ILS composed only of geo-
detic loops which he termed the shortest independent loop set (SILS). That
is the de facto standard for determining which loops to analyze in EEA.

Pathway participation metric (PPM) and other causal pathway techniques

The pathway participation metric (PPM) approach does not use eigenvalues
to describe model structure. Rather, it focuses on the links between variables
(Mojtahedzadeh et al., 2004). The starting point of the PPM approach is the
behavior of a single variable, typically a stock. The behavior of that single
variable is partitioned in time, based on periods in which the variable main-
tains its slope and convexity (i.e. the first and second time derivatives do not
change sign) (Mojtahedzadeh et al., 2004). The behavior of the variable in
each of these phases is characterized by seven patterns enumerated by
Mojtahedzadeh et al. (2004). The PPM approach then determines dominance
by tracing along the causal pathways between the stock under study and its
ancestor stocks so as to determine which structure is the most influential
one in terms of explaining the pattern of behavior exhibited by that stock
during the selected phase. Mojtahedzadeh et al. (2004) explains that it does
so by determining the magnitude of the change in the net flow of the stock
under study by making minute changes to that stock. The method then com-
pares these changes in the net flow in order to determine the change of the
largest magnitude in the same direction as the stock under study—thereby
identifying the most important (dominant) pathway governing the behavior
of that stock during that phase.
Relative to the very general EEA approach that yields results that are inter-
pretable across the entire model, PPM is considerably more specific, only
explaining the impact of feedback loops on specific stocks of interest. In
addition, PPM does not identify the dominance of behavior modes and, con-
sequently, only provides information about behavior that can be readily
observed in the trajectory of stock behavior.
The advantage of the PPM approach is that it does not require any manip-
ulation of the model structure and that its implementation does not require
model structure to be continuous. Moreover, according to the research by
Mojtahedzadeh (1996), the application of the PPM method will cause a con-
vergence on a unique piece of structure as the one most influential with
regard to the phase of its behavior under study. Kampmann and Oliva (2009)
state that one of the key benefits to the PPM method is its ability to associate
directly model behavior to structure.
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 5

Kampmann and Oliva (2009) have criticized PPM for its inability to
clearly explain oscillatory behavior and also because PPM may fail to iden-
tify structure when there are two pathways of similar importance. Hayward
and Boswell (2014) have responded to those criticisms by simplifying PPM
into the Loop Impact method. The Loop Impact method can be implemented
in a standard system dynamics models (and software) by adding equations
to the model. No change in the underlying software is required. The key dif-
ference of the Loop Impact method as compared to PPM is that it does not
identify dominant pathways (impacts from one stock to another), but instead
it focuses on the direct impact that one stock has on another to identify loops
which dominate the behavior of the selected stock. Pathways are chained
together according to the structure of the model, and these chains of path-
ways are used to measure the Loop Impact metric which yields insight into
which loop dominate the behavior of the selected stock (Hayward and
Boswell, 2014). In addition, the Loop Impact method identifies instances
where multiple loops are required to explain the behavior of a stock.
Expanding on the work done by Hayward and Boswell (2014), Sato (2016) has
modified the Loop Impact method specifically codifying the impacts of force in
an engineering sense. Hayward and Roach (2017) have also developed a frame-
work around the Loop Impact method couched in the mathematics of Newtonian
physics to explain the model as a series of interacting forces. The stated purpose
of the underlying common research thread between these authors of the Loop
Impact method and its derivatives is to provide a more intuitive and complete
understanding of loop dominance in system dynamics models.

The Loops that Matter method

Introduction to the Loops that Matter method

In this article, we present the LTM (Loops that Matter) method which, under
the categorization scheme of Duggan and Oliva (2013), algorithmically performs
a “formal assessment of dominant structure and behavior” for models of any
size, complexity, or dimensionality. Like PPM, this method is derived, in part,
from observations of the way that experienced modelers perform analysis to
determine the sources of observed behavior. Unlike EEA, and similar to PPM,
this method does all of its calculations directly on the original model equations,
walking the causal pathways between stocks through all intermediate variables
making it easier to understand the measurements of loop contribution to model
behavior and link contribution to feedback loop dominance. The method uses
only values computed during a regular simulation of any model—including
models with discrete characteristics. Because there is no model transformation
taking place, there is also no canonical form that definitively and uniquely
defines the characteristics of model behavior the way that the eigenvalues and
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
6 System Dynamics Review

eigenvectors do in the case of linear models. Instead, we have developed a met-

ric that tracks the concept of link gain such that the chain rule of differentiation
can be used in defining a second metric we have developed to track the concept
of loop gain. This guarantees that the description of dynamic behavior will be
the same, independent of the exact form of structurally equivalent models
(many variables with simple equations or few variable with complex equa-
tions). This property of the LTM method is proven in Appendix B. While our
definition of loop dominance is not demonstrably unique among structurally
equivalent models, it seems unlikely that alternative sets of equations would
change the ranking of loop scores so as to give substantively different results.
LTM is applicable to more than regular continuous SD models. LTM is
applicable to agent-based as well as discrete time models as long as the
structure of these model is represented as a network of equations to be evalu-
ated at known time points. The reason that LTM is so broadly applicable is
because LTM is only computed at each time point that the model is calcu-
lated, using only the existing causal relationships and variable value compu-
tations as inputs. LTM ensures that it does not affect the validity of the
analyzed model by not manipulating equations or using variable values not
computed as part of the regular simulation. An example of a manipulation,
required by a method, that affects the validity of a model under analysis is a
change in a discrete, integer-only variable, say something like product color
from 2 to 2.1. This change would result in a logical error in the model (even
though the model may be calculated without error) because the modeler did
not anticipate a noninteger value for that variable, and therefore, the model
responds in an unanticipated way.
LTM introduces two metrics. The first one, the link score, is used to measure
the contribution and polarity of a link between an independent variable and a
dependent variable. The second one is the loop score that measures the contri-
bution of a feedback loop to the behavior of the model and is indicative of the
feedback polarity. Loop scores and link scores are calculated at each time inter-
val during the simulation run. The analysis of the relative loop scores at a par-
ticular point in time identifies the loops that dominate that model behavior.
The display of the relative loop scores over time contributes to our understand-
ing of why the model behaves the way it does, i.e. points to the feedback loops
that govern current behavior. By definition, loop scores are completely insensi-
tive to the number of variables and links in a loop.
We use the standard definition of a loop: it is a set of interconnections
between variables in a model that form a closed path from a variable back to
itself. By definition, any such loop must include at least one state variable
(so as to avoid a simultaneity). We refer to the interconnections as links.
Loop scores are computed as products of link scores, and the definition of a
link score is tailored to this specific use. The link score computation has
been defined for the sole purpose of determining loop dominance, specifi-
cally to be used in the loop score calculations.
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 7

Introduction to the link score measure

The link score measures the contribution of a value change in an independent vari-
able to a value change in a dependent variable and also the associated polarity. A
link score is calculated for each link in the network of model equations—including
the links from flows to stocks. Because links from flows to stocks constitute an
integration process, whereas links into other variables do not, we have devised
two methods for calculating the link score, where both have the same conceptual
interpretation. The first method we discuss below is for links which do not consti-
tute an integration process, for instance a link from one auxiliary to another. The
second method we discuss handles the links from flows to stocks that are integra-
tions. Both methods produce a link score, and these link scores are directly compa-
rable and are multiplied together to produce loop scores.
The link score is not a general metric that can be used to describe the contribu-
tion or importance of any specific link in isolation. It must be considered in the
context of the loops it is contained in. The most obvious manifestation of the link
score’s lack of generality is that a link originating from a variable that is not chang-
ing its value (including a parameter) has a score that, by definition, is 0. This is so
because when a variable in a loop does not change value, the loop is inactive and,
therefore, currently of no consequence. Even though the link score for all links
originating from variables whose value do not change are 0, such variables are still
significant to the loop dominance analysis because they may, by serving as param-
eters in other equations, influence the way that other variables change. For exam-
ple, a time constant might condition some other link score, which consequently
changes the score of a loop containing that link.

Defining link scores for links without integration

To simplify the presentation, we will define the link score assuming there
are two inputs (x and y) to the dependent variable z characterized by the
equation z = f(x, y). This easily generalizes to the case where there are more
(or fewer) inputs into the equation defining z.
The link score for the link x ! z is computed using the formula in Eqn 1.
Equation 1 shows the discrete form for the link score equation which
matches the implementation of the calculation and is computed each dt.
8 

 



<
Δx z
 sign Δx z ,
>

Δz
Δx
LSðx ! zÞ = (1)
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δx = 0

In Eqn 1, Δz is the change in (the value of) z from the previous time to the
current time. Δx is the change in x over that interval. Δxz is the change in z
with respect to x over that interval. From a computational perspective, Δxz,
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
8 System Dynamics Review

which we call the partial change in z with respect to x, is the amount z would
have changed, conditionally, if x had changed the amount it did, but y had not
changed (i.e. ceteris paribus). The first major term in Eqn 1 represents the mag-
nitude of the link score; the second one is the link score polarity.
The exceptions for no change in x or z are included for completeness. If x
does not change then the links from x, and any loops involving x, will have
a score of 0. (Similarly, if z does not change, then any links into or out from
z will have a score of 0, and any loops involving those links are inactive). In
such cases, we simply define the value of the link score from x to
z to
be 0.
The first major term in Eqn 1 is the link score magnitude
ΔΔz x z

which
describes the effect (force is a good analogy) that an input (i.e. independent
variable) x has on an output (i.e. dependent variable) z, relative to the total
effect exerted on z. Unlike a partial derivative, which describes how sensi-
tive z is to changes in x, this magnitude describes how much the change in x
has contributed to the total change in z.
The first term is dimensionless and represents the contribution of x to the
change in z. If all of the link scores have the same sign, it expresses the frac-
tion of the change in z that results from the change in x. If the equation for z
is linear (uses only addition and subtraction), then the values will always be
in the range between 0 and 1. When there are both positive and negative link
polarities in a nonlinear equation, the link score magnitude for such a
nonlinear equation may take on a very large value. But this does not jeopar-
dize the overall analysis of loop dominance because it is the relative values
of loop contribution that are analyzed at each point in time, and large magni-
tudes counteract each other in such a comparison.
 x z
The second major term in Eqn 1 is the polarity of the link sign ΔΔx which is
defined as the sign of the partial difference at time t. This formulation is
functionally the same as the one used in Richardson (1995). We use the par-
tial difference notation in order to maintain consistency with the link score magni-
tude whereas Richardson uses the partial derivative notation. Our reformulation of
Richardson’s polarity makes it easier to calculate the link score because the Δxz
value can be used in both the magnitude and polarity computation.
In Appendix A, we show how Eq 1 can be recast using partial differences
and, in the limit, partial derivatives. This is helpful when comparing our
approach with other metrics such as PPM (Mojtahedzadeh, 1996) and Loop
Impact (Hayward and Boswell, 2014).

Defining link scores for links which contain integration processes

The link from flows to stocks represent an integration process, and stocks
can only change over time as a result of the specific values of the associated
flows. So time must pass in order for a flow rate value to materialize in a
change in associated stock value. This is very different from above where a
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 9

dependent auxiliary changes immediately in response to a change in one of

its independent variables. As an example, if a stock only has a single flow,
and that flow value is a constant, that stock will change over the course of
the simulation. Consequently, the link between the flow and the stock is
active, and the link score is nonzero. Since links from flows to stocks are the
only links with this unique property, the computation is different in form,
but constitutes the same concept as the
Ð one used in Eqn 1.
Assume the stock equation s = (i − o) where s is the stock, i is the
inflow, and o is the outflow. We assume a single inflow and outflow for sim-
plicity of presentation—the generalization to multiple inflows and outflows
is straightforward. Equation 2 demonstrates the link score for all links from
flows to stocks.


 



i



Inflow : LSði ! sÞ =

*1 Outflow : LSðo ! sÞ =

o

* −1 (2)
i −o
i −o

If you compare Eqn 2 to Eqn 1, you will notice that they represent the
same concept. The value of the flow (i or o) is exactly the same concept as
the partial change in z with respect to x (Δxz) from Eqn 1, where the flow is
x and the stock is z. From the perspective of the stock—the value of the flow
(when multiplied by dt) is the amount the stock will change if no other flows
were active. The denominator (i − o) is the same concept as Δz: it is the
change in the stock (z) from the previous time to the current time (again
 z
when multiplied by dt). Finally, sign ΔΔx x
is replaced with simply +1 or −1
based on whether the flow is an inflow or an outflow, since the polarity of
flows are fixed. These are the design elements that unite the two methods for
calculating the link score, demonstrating that both measure the same
concept.
As we do in Eqn 1, we assume that the link score is 0 for all links from a
flow to a stock if the net flow of the stock (i − o) is 0. As discussed above,
the assumption of a 0 link score in this case does not change any loop scores
since any link originating from a stock whose value does not change will
have a score of 0. We can safely set to 0 all link scores from a flow to a stock
whose value does not change because link scores are multiplied into loop
scores, and any loop which passes through such a stock is inactive (and will
have score 0).
In this formulation, a value of 0 for an inflow or outflow will result in a
0 link score. If the inflow and outflow are nearly balanced, so that there is
only a small change in the stock, the scores for the links from the flows to
the stock will be large, yet close in value. This happens because the denomi-
nator of Eqn 2 approaches 0 faster than the numerator in such cases.
This formulation for capturing the effect of a flow on a stock is different
from both the PPM and the Loop Impact method and is the characteristic of

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
10 System Dynamics Review

Table 1 Components
necessary to calculate the Variable Time 1 Time 2 Variable change Partial change in z Link score magnitude
link score magnitude for
Δ z
4
the links x ! z and y ! z x 5 7 Δx = 2 Δxz = 4
x
=

Δz
5
based on the equation y 4 5 Δy = 1 Δyz = 1
Δy z
1

Δz
= 5
z = 2x + y
z = 2x + y 14 19 Δz = 5 - -

the LTM method that allows it to define a single number representing the
importance of a whole loop. Both the PPM and the Loop Impact method con-
sider links involving integration in the same manner as they consider alge-
braic links. Specifically, they measure the change in a stock value relative to
the change in value of the associated flow (the second derivative). That
limits the scope of those methods so as only to address the effects of a loop
on a single stock. Equation 2 directly uses the flow value relative to the
change in value of the associated stock (the first derivative).

Link score computation examples

Table 1 demonstrates the process for calculating the link score magnitude for an aux-
iliary (nonstock) variable. It uses the equation z = 2x + y to demonstrate how to cal-
culate a link score magnitude. In this specific case, there are two link score
magnitudes that must be calculated, one for the link x ! z and one for the link
y ! z. To calculate the link score magnitude for the link x ! z, first determine Δz
which is the actual change in z (5). Next determine the partial change in z with
respect to x, represented with the symbol Δxz, by substituting into the equation for z
the previous value of y (4) and the current value of x (7). Then take the computed
value of z using those values (18) and subtract from it the previous value of z (14) to
yield Δxz (4). To complete the calculation of the link score magnitude, divide Δxz
(4) by Δz (5) to get the result that four-fifths of the change in z is caused by the
change in x.
The absolute value and sign are used in the link score definitions because the
change in the dependent variable may be positive or negative for reasons

Table 2 Demonstration of correct polarity when calculating the link score magnitude for the links w ! z, x ! z, and y ! z
based on the equation z =(w + x)/y

Variable Time 1 Time 2 Variable change Partial change in z Link score magnitude Link polarity Link score

Δ z
 w z
Δ z
 
w 7 10 Δw = 3 Δwz = 1
w
=5 sign ΔΔw = +1
w
 sign Δw z = 5

Δ zΔz

 z
Δ Δz
Δ Δw

x 2 4 Δx = 2 Δxz = 0.67
x
= 3:33 sign ΔΔx
x
= +1
x
 sign x z = 3:33
z



Δz  
Δz
Δx 
y 3 5 Δy = 2 Δyz = − 1.2
Δy z
Δy z
Δy z
Δy z

Δz
= 6 sign Δy = −1
Δz
 sign Δy = −6
z = ðw y+ xÞ 3 2.8 Δz = − 0.2 - - - -

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 11

unrelated to the change in the independent variable. For example, in Table 2,

Δz is negative while the partial change in z (Δxz) is positive, therefore the link
score magnitude before taking the absolute value (ΔΔzxz
) is negative, even though
x has a positive influence on z. In Table 2, incorrect polarities would result
if we did not use the absolute value in computing the link score magnitude.
To measure polarity and complete the link score calculation, we must
 z
multiply the link score magnitude by the polarity (sign ΔΔx x
) as defined by
Richardson (1995). In Table 2, we apply this to obtain the correct polarities.
To calculate the polarity of the link x ! z, start by following the same proce-
dure as in Table 1 to calculate the partial change in z (Δxz). That procedure
yields a Δxz of 2/3 (0.67). Next determine the change in x which, in this case,
is 2. Finally take the sign of Δxz (0.67), divided by Δx (2), which is +1. This
is the polarity for the link x ! z.

Defining loop scores

The loop score is defined below in Eqn 3 and where Lx refers to the loop x
being studied. LS(s1 ! t1) refers to the link score for the first link in the loop
from the independent source variable s1 to dependent target variable t1. Loop
scores are calculated by multiplying all link scores in the loop from that first
one, s1 ! t1, to the last, sn ! tn, where n is the number of links in Lx (so that
tn is the same as s1). Note that this expression multiplies both the magnitude
and the sign of the different link scores—with an odd number of negative
links yielding a negative loop and an even number yielding a positive loop.
The multiplication of link scores is consistent with the chain rule of differen-
tiation as demonstrated in Appendix B and accurately represents the nullify-
ing effect of an inactive link in an otherwise active loop. This means that
any loop containing an inactive link is assigned the loop score 0.

Loop ScoreðLx Þ = ðLSðs1 ! t 1 Þ  LSðs2 ! t 2 Þ…  LSðsn ! t n ÞÞ (3)

The loop score, like the link score, is a dimensionless quantity. Just as the
link score can be thought of as the force that one variable applies to another,
the loop score can be thought of as the force one feedback loop applies to
the behavior of all the stocks (and hence all the variables) it connects.
The definition of loop score is distinct from the Loop Impact of Hayward
and Boswell (2014) because in the Loop Impact method the products of
impacts equals the loop gain, whereas the loop score will always compute to
1 in an isolated loop as discussed in Appendix B. When comparing all loops,
the loop score measures the relative importance of each feedback loop to the
behavior of a model, rather than to the behavior of a single stock as is done
in PPM and the Loop Impact method.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
12 System Dynamics Review

In order to establish a common baseline for comparing the contribution of

feedback loops, we need to identify which feedback loops to include in the
comparison. For every example presented in this article, we analyze all feed-
back loops organized by cycle partition (Oliva, 2004). For models with a
single-cycle partition (where every stock in the model has a path to and from
every other stock in the model), we compare the loop score across all loops
in the model. For models where this is not true, and there are many cycle
partitions, we only compare the loop scores across all loops which effect the
same subset of all the stocks in the model. The LTM method does not require
that loops be independent for the analysis to be valid and therefore does not
restrict analysis to the minimal independent loop set identified by
Oliva (2004) or any other identified set of loops. We leave for future work to
determine how to best reduce the feedback loop complexity of larger models
as discussed by Kampmann (2012) and note that the work of Güneralp (2006)
and Huang et al. (2012) show that restricting loops under consideration can
filter out important loops. In what follows, we consider all identified con-
nected loops, independent or not in the topological sense.
Once the set of feedback loops being analyzed has been determined, we
define the relative loop score of each loop by dividing the loop score by the
sum of the loop scores of all loops in the cycle partition. Equation 4 shows
this computation for the loop X normalized over all loops n analyzed in the
chosen cycle partition. The sign of a relative loop score still represents the
polarity of the feedback loop in question. The relative loop score is a normal-
ized measure taking on a value between −1 and 1. It reports the polarity and
fractional contribution of a feedback loop to the change in value of all stocks
at a point in time. By comparing relative loop scores, we determine which
loops contribute the most to the behavior of all stocks in the cycle partition
under study.
0 1
B Loop ScoreðLX Þ C
Loop ScoreLX = B
@Pn
C
A (4)
jLoop ScoreðLY Þj
Y =0

Loop scores, like link scores, can become very large and difficult to inter-
pret without this normalization. This is especially true as an equilibrium is
approached because the denominator of Eqn 2 (the net flow of a stock)
approaches zero faster than any individual flow. The same is true of Eqn 1
where the change in the target variable, z, may approach zero regardless of
the large partial change in the target with respect to the source. We demon-
strate the asymptotic behavior of the loop score in the analysis of the Bass
diffusion model. In that case, even though the score of the loops effectively
approaches infinity, the transition from positive to negative loop dominance

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 13

is smooth and clearly visible when using relative loop scores because they
are normalized. An example of loop score values that cannot be meaning-
fully compared is shown below in the case of the inventory workforce
model, where a feedback loop for smoothing demand is not comparable with
the others since it is not coupled with an inventory-workforce adjustment
process.

Computational considerations
Using the LTM method, we make our computations as time progresses in the
model. The first computation can be made only after the model has been ini-
tialized and moved forward in time. In the results we present, we use the
model’s dt or time step to determine how often to compute link and loop
scores. This is most straightforward using the Euler integration method. In
principle, the computation could proceed also at a longer or shorter sam-
pling interval, allowing it to work with other integration methods such as
Runge–Kutta.
The computational efficiency of this method has not been examined in
depth and, in particular, it has not been analyzed in the case of large models
with hundreds of stocks and millions of feedback loops. For models of
smaller size and complexity (between 2 and 20 stocks and less than 50 feed-
back loops), we have found through experience that the largest computa-
tional burden is not caused by what is required to calculate the link and
loop scores, but rather by the calculations required to identify the full set of
feedback loops.
An implication of the calculation method we present is that the equations
in the model will be computed not just once as it is typically done to simu-
late a model, but repeated once for each independent variable in the equa-
tion. This can multiply the number of computations by two or more
(depending on equation complexity), which is similar to the computational
requirements for linearization. In short, however, the computation times are
modest and quite similar to simply simulating the model. For reference, the
analysis of all of the models in the article, including Forrester’s 10 stock
market growth model takes less than 1 second, including the time to parse
the XMILE representation of the model, find all the loops, partition the
cycles, and calculate all loop dominance metrics presented.
The computation of the link and loop score metrics, nonetheless, does
require that equations be computed multiple times per dt, and this cannot be
done in standard software. For this article, we have modified an open source
and publicly available simulation engine sd.js (Powers, 2019) to simulate the
model and perform the link and loop score calculations. The pseudo code
for this computation is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows how we walk through all the variables in the model calcu-
lating the link scores for all links coming in to each variable. First, for each
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
14 System Dynamics Review

Fig 1 Pseudo code for

calculating all link scores
in a model after
calculating a dt of the
model [Color figure can
be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

variable (target), we check whether it is a stock or not. If the target is a stock,

then we directly apply Eqn 2 to determine the link score from each flow
(source) into the target. If target is not a stock, we apply Eqn 1. When apply-
ing Eqn 1 for each source/target combination, the first thing we do is deter-
mine what the value for target would have been if only source changed
(tRespectSource). To calculate tRespectSource, we call another subroutine
which is capable of recalculating target using the current value of source
and the previous value of all other variables. Using tRespectSource, we
determine the partial change in target with respect to source (del-
taTRespectS). The change in source and target are straightforward calcula-
tions using the current and previous values of target and source. Finally, we

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 15

Fig 2 The stock and flow

structure of the Bass
diffusion model analyzed.
The model itself is
provided in the
supplementary materials
[Color figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

calculate the sign, making sure we do not produce a divide by zero, and then
the link score, using the already calculated values.

Application of the LTM method to the Bass diffusion model

We have used a variant of the Bass diffusion model (Bass, 1969), pictured in
Figure 2 below, to demonstrate the ability of the LTM method to reproduce
the standard explanation for the behavior of that model. Richardson (1995),
using his dominant polarity method, says the following about how a logistic
model (e.g. the Bass diffusion model) works:
In the logistic equation, a shift in loop dominance occurs when the level
reaches half its maximum value, the point of inflection in the logistic curve.
(Richardson, 1995, p. 71)

This understanding has been confirmed by Kampmann and Oliva (2017)

who apply traditional, manual, loop dominance analysis to reach this same
conclusion.
This version of the Bass diffusion model runs from Time 0 to Time 15 with
the inflection point reached between time 9.5625 and 9.625. The value of Mar-
ket Size is 1,000,000 people with one initial adopter. The value of the contact
rate is 100 people per person per year, and the value of the adoption fraction
is 0.015 (dimensionless). The equations for this model follow the standard for-
mulation. This model contains two loops, one balancing and one reinforcing.

• Balancing (B1)
• probability of contact with potentials
• potentials contacts with adopters
• adoption from word of mouth
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
16 System Dynamics Review

Table 3 Loop scores and

relative loop scores in the Link T1 T9.5 T9.5625 T9.625 T15
Bass diffusion model
calculated to four Probability of contact with potentials ! 0.000 9.958 9358 10.91 1.000
significant digits potentials contacts with adopters
Potentials contacts with adopters ! 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adoption from word of mouth
Adoption from word of mouth ! adopting 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Adopting ! potential adopters −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000
Potential adopters ! probability of contact 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
with potentials

B1 loop score 0.000 −9.958 −9358 −10.91 −1.000

B1 relative loop score 0.000 −0.465 −0.488 −0.512 −1.000
Adopter contacts ! potentials contacts 1.000 11.46 9806 10.41 0.000
with adopters
Adopters ! adopter contacts 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Adopting ! adopters 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Potentials contacts with adopters ! 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adoption from word of mouth
Adoption from word of mouth ! adopting 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

R1 Loop Score 1.000 11.46 9806 10.41 0.000

R1 Relative Loop Score 1.000 0.535 0.512 0.488 0.000

• adopting
• potential adopters
• Reinforcing (R1)
• adopter contacts
• potentials contacts with adopters
• adoptions from word of mouth
• adopting
• adopters

The results of the LTM analysis which appear in Table 3 and Figure 3 dem-
onstrate that LTM reproduces the same standard explanation for behavior as
Richardson (1995), Kampmann and Oliva (2017) report. In Table 3, the calcula-
tion of the loop score and relative loop score of B1 and R1 at specific points in
time is demonstrated. Table 3 shows that the two loops shift in dominance
between time 9.5625 and 9.625 which is when the inflection occurs. In addi-
tion, Table 3 confirms that the proper polarity is assigned to each loop and link.
Figure 3 supports the standard explanation of the model’s behavior by showing
that the relative loop score magnitude for both loops passes through 0.5, the
threshold for dominance, at the inflection point.
Table 3 identifies which links contribute most critically to the feedback
loop score changes. The majority of links have a link score of 1.000 because
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 17

Fig 3 Bass diffusion loop

scores plotted over time
against Adopters [Color
figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

the target variables for those links only have a single variable which points
to them. This is true of both the auxiliaries and the stocks. The only link
score which exhibits a change in contribution over time in the loop B1 is
the link “Probability of contact with potentials ! potentials contacts with
adopters.” This is because that link is the only link which has a changing
score. It is the key link in the loop B1 and is responsible for the changes in
B1ʼs loop score and is therefore critical to the overall shift in loop domi-
nance. The link (“adopter contacts! potentials contacts with adopters”) is
its counterpart in the loop R1, and it is just as critical to the overall shift in
loop dominance from R1 to B1. Figure 2 shows that these two links are
located at the junction between the reinforcing and balancing feedback
loops. Independently, by just examining the structure, we can confirm that
these links are most important with regard to the model behavior because
these links points to the variable where the feedback loops interact with
each other after tracing through the loops starting with the stocks.
If we were to simulate this model with a dt approaching 0, then the loop
score magnitude for both loops, R1 and B1, would approach infinity at the
inflection point. This happens because the Δz values from the link scores
(Eqn 1) for the two links into potentials contacts with adopters” approach
0, so that both loops have a score approaching infinity. In single stock sys-
tems, instants in time when loop scores approach infinity represent shifts in
the feedback loop dominance of the model, which in the case of the bass dif-
fusion model is when both loops are pushing very hard to change behavior,
and are, therefore, canceling each other out. This is markedly different from
what we find using PPM or the Loop Impact method where the infinities
occur at maximum and minimum stock values (when curvature is no longer
changing). In the PPM-based approaches, the zeroes represent the inflection
points.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
18 System Dynamics Review

Fig 4 The base

10 logarithm of the
absolute value of Bass
diffusion loop score
values [Color figure can
be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The loop score values in Figure 4 for the Bass diffusion model demon-
strates why loop scores are compared in a relative fashion. When potentials
contacts with adopters” passes through its maximum, Figure 4, which is on
a log scale, shows that the absolute value of both loop scores approaches
infinity. The drastic change in scale makes Figure 4 ineffective with regard
to quickly and accurately determining the dominant loops in the system, but
it does demonstrate the magnitude of the effort the loops are expending to
change the stocks at each point in time. When the loop scores for a positive
and negative loop in a model are both high, both loops are strongly contrib-
uting to behavior, working in opposite directions and canceling each other
out resulting in a small change in the stocks. The nonnormalized loop score
metric, because of the dramatic magnitude changes, does not add much to
our intuitive understanding of which loops are dominant. After being com-
pared to the other loops, a simple and straightforward analysis can be con-
ducted of the loop dominance profile of a model.
The LTM analysis of the Bass diffusion model has replicated the standard
explanation for behavior in the model as performed by Richardson (1995)
and Kampmann and Oliva (2017). In addition, the LTM analysis has identi-
fied the specific links in the loops that first and foremost explain the shifts in
feedback loop dominance and has identified the overall effort the loops in
the model are expending to change behavior.

Application of the LTM method to the yeast alcohol model

The yeast alcohol model is analyzed to demonstrate the efficacy of the LTM
method. This analysis reinforces the notion that the LTM method is able to
yield the same insights into behavior as previous analyses of this model
using Ford’s behavioral approach, PPM, Loop Impact, and EEA
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 19

(Güneralp, 2005; Hayward and Boswell, 2014; Mojtahedzadeh, 2008; Phaff

et al., 2006; Saleh, 2002).
Figure 5 shows the structure of the model as analyzed using a dt of 0.5.
The model structure B = C*(1.1–0.1*A)/b1, D = C*EXP(A-11)/d1, dAdt = p *
C is initialized with A = 0, B = 1, b1 = 16, d1 = 30, and p = 0.01. The model
contains four loops, all in a single-cycle partition. Loop R, represents the
birth1 (and, late in the simulation, the deaths) of the cells C, characterized by
b1 and Alcohol (A). Loop B1 represents the natural death of the cells. The
main link in Loop B2 represents the slowing of the birth of cells due to the
presence of alcohol. The main link in Loop B3 represents the increasing
death of cells due to the presence of alcohol. This model produces the over-
shoot and collapse behavior seen in Figure 5 which matches exactly the
behavior generated by Phaff et al. (2006) and Mojtahedzadeh (2008) and is
very similar to the results that Hayward and Boswell (2014) generated using
their slightly altered structure of the model.2
Table 4 identifies the dominant loops for each phase of the model’s behav-
ior. Comparing these results with Ford’s (1999) behavioral approach as
applied by Phaff et al. (2006), the LTM method identifies exactly the same
four phases and agrees with the behavioral analysis in principal. The LTM
method’s only disagreement is that Phase 3 is dominated by B3 alone, not
B2 and B3. This same difference is raised by the PPM approach of
Mojtahedzadeh (2008) and the Loop Impact approach of Hayward and Bos-
well (2014) where PPM and the Loop Impact method identify that Phase 3 is
dominated by B3 rather than B2 and B3 together as Phaff et al.ʼs implemen-
tation of Ford’s behavioral approach analysis would suggest. This shows that
the LTM analysis of this model matches Ford’s behavioral approach with the
noted discrepancy and matches exactly the PPM analysis done by
Mojtahedzadeh. When we compare Table 4 to Hayward and Boswell’s (2014)
PPM based Loop Impact method, we agree in principal with their results,
but the slight change in the structure of their model2 prevents full
agreement.
Our results in Figure 6 and Table 4 match the EEA analysis of this model
performed by Phaff et al. (2006). That analysis shows that the behavior of
Phase 1 is dominated by R with B2 restraining (increasingly) the growth of
C. In Phase 2, EEA shows that B2 is now dominant, but R is still a significant

1
Notice that there is a flaw in the standard formulation of B in this model causing B to take negative values
and the polarity of R to change so that it acts as an additional “death loop” under conditions of high levels of
alcohol A. This flaw has not been corrected in order to maintain the consistency of the model across analyses
in the literature.

2
Hayward and Boswell (2014) use the same parameterization of the yeast alcohol model as us and the others,
but they appear to have used a Stella version of this model where uniflows were used for B and D. This subtle
change to structure corrects the formulation flaw in the births loop (referenced in footnote 1) and causes their
model results and loop dominance analysis to differ slightly from the other analyses and our own.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
20 System Dynamics Review

Fig 5 The stock and flow

structure of the yeast
alcohol model analyzed.
The model itself is
provided in the
supplementary materials
[Color figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Table 4 Plot showing the

relative loop scores Time range Phase 1: 0–51.5 Phase 2: 52–66 Phase 3: 66.5–75 Phase 4: 75.5–100
against the variable C
(yeast cells) which reveals Dominant loop R B2 B3a B1
the dominant loops in a
yeast alcohol model At time 74, no single feedback loop is dominant because this is the point where R is at its
strongest as a balancing feedback loop (because of the model formulation error in footnote 1).
After time 70, when the birth rate is negative R and is acting in a similar fashion as B1. At Time
74, summing the contribution of R & B1 yields a relative loop score which is stronger than B3,
but still not over 50%, B3 is the single strongest feedback loop at that exact moment, and we
therefore consider it alone to be dominant across Phase 3.

factor in explaining the growth in C which matches what LTM concludes.

This can be seen in Figure 6 because B2 has a relative loop score less then
−0.5, and R is the only other active loop until time ~60, where B3 is acti-
vated in preparation for phase 3. In Phase 3, EEA points to B1 and B3
together as responsible for the behavior of C. The LTM analysis matches the
EEA analysis, with the caveat that the LTM analysis finds that B33 is solely
dominant throughout that time period. EEA then reports that during Phase
4, B1 is dominant over B3 which again matches the LTM analysis. That can
be seen in Figure 6 as the loop score of B1 starts growing quickly at the end
of Phase 3, reaching nearly −1 shortly after the start of Phase 4.
Looking only at the progression of relative loop scores for each of the
loops as shown in Figure 6, the LTM analysis reveals some additional inter-
esting insights. The first of these is evident from Time 74 to 76 when R
becomes a significant (but not dominant) balancing feedback loop (due to
the model flaw). This is due to excess levels of Alcohol (A), causing the
births process to run backwards, making R into an additional loop that
drains C like B1 does. At this point, the relative loop scores of B2 and B3

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 21

Fig 6 Yeast Alcohol loop

scores plotted against C
[Color figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

have maximums in magnitude. This happens because those loops trade their
dominance off over the course of the simulation, one rising while the other
is falling. R actually has a similar local maximum in magnitude at time
74 when it reaches its peak in contribution as a balancing feedback loop.
The number of stocks in a feedback loop has no direct relationship to the
number, or presence, of maximums in magnitude observed in relative loop
scores.
The LTM analysis of the yeast alcohol model demonstrates a shared
understanding of the model with both EEA and PPM. Moreover, the under-
standing coming from Ford’s behavior analysis technique is also shared,
demonstrating that the LTM method yields the same level of insight into this
model as these other techniques.

Application of the LTM method to the inventory workforce model:

understanding oscillations
To demonstrate that the LTM method performs appropriately on a full range
of SD models, we have analyzed a two-state oscillatory model—a version of
the inventory workforce model originally proposed by Mass and
Senge (1975). Analyzing an oscillatory system differentiates the PPM-based
approaches from the LTM method and EEA-based approaches. The version
of this model analyzed is the one prepared by Gonçalves (2009) for his EEA
model analysis. The model is shown in Figure 7. We use the analysis of this

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
22 System Dynamics Review

model also to demonstrate the impact of parameters on loop dominance

patterns.
We compare and contrast the results of the LTM analysis with the ones
produced by the EEA analysis of Gonçalves (2009) and by two PPM-based
analyses of the original Mass and Senge model by Mojtahedzadeh (2008) and
Hayward and Roach (2017). The only difference between Gonçalves’s ver-
sion of the model (the one we analyzed) and Mass and Senge’s (1975) model
is the addition of the feedback loop B3 in Figure 7 which does not signifi-
cantly affect the cause of the oscillation, merely the exact shape of the oscil-
latory mode of behavior.
Our implementation of the Gonçalves (2009) model runs from Time 0 to
Time 60. The model has only three balancing feedback loops that appear in
two different cycle partitions. This split happens because inventory and
workforce interact, but the expected demand is driven only by demand
itself. The graphical function inside of the “demand” variable acts like a step
function, triggering a single increase in demand between times 1 and 2 which
sets off a dampened oscillation in both workers and inventory. The loops of
this model are shown in the list below, organized by cycle partition, con-
taining loops that have loop scores comparable to each other, as exhibited in
Figure 8.

• Cycle partition 1
• Major balancing (B1)
• Inventory
• inventory gap
• desired change in inventory
• desired production
• desired workers
• workers gap
• hiring or firing
• Workers
• producing
• Minor balancing (B2)
• Workers
• workers gap
• hiring or firing
• Cycle partition 2
• Expected demand loop (B3)
• Expected demand
• changing expected
Before the explanation of the results, note in Figure 8 the time period
before the shock in demand. During that period, the model is in equilibrium,
unchanging. Therefore, the LTM method cannot inform the analysis of the
model because all link scores are 0.
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 23

Fig 7 The stock and flow

structure of the inventory
workforce model
analyzed. The model
itself is provided in the
supplementary materials
[Color figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The two loops in this model that contain the stocks with the oscillatory
behavior are B1 and B2 of Set 1. As shown in Figure 8, in all three parame-
terizations of the model, the dominant loop describing the large majority of
the change in the behavior of the worker and inventory stocks, and therefore
the oscillations in the model, is dominated by the major balancing loop B1.
Figure 8 shows that there is a contribution by B2, which is dependent on the
value of the parameter time to hire or fire (affecting the shape of the damp-
ened oscillation), even though B1 is responsible for the oscillation. The lon-
ger B2 is active, the more pronounced the oscillations are. This tells us that
by increasing the time to hire or fire, we increase the contribution of B2 (rel-
ative to B1). While it is true that time to hire or fire is strongly tied to the
contribution of B2, it also directly impacts the contribution of B1
(i.e. independent of its impact on B2). Figure 8 shows the total relative
effects of the change in this parameter on the relative contributions of B1
and B2. The net total effect of time to hire or fire on B1 and B2 causes the
oscillations to become more pronounced (less damped) and to last longer.
The LTM method’s conclusions about the impacts of time to hire or fire
on the oscillation matches both the conclusions derived by EEA and
PPM— but differs from the PPM-based analyses conducted by both
Mojtahedzadeh (2008) and Hayward and Roach (2017) in its explanation
of dominant loops. Gonçalves’s (2009) EEA analysis of this model shows
that the oscillatory mode of behavior arises primarily from the loop gains
associated with the impacts from the major loop B1 and the damping
effect is a function of the minor loop B2. The PPM-based methods show

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
24 System Dynamics Review

Fig 8 Results of LTM analysis of the Inventory Workforce model showing the effect of time to hire or fire on loop dominance
and workers. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

that the behavior of the model is dominated by both B1 and B2 in a cycli-

cal process. Mojtahedzadeh (2008) states that the loop dominance pattern
reported by the PPM method is not suitable for analyzing the causes of oscilla-
tion in this model and that, instead, the explanation of the oscillation must be
based on pathway frequency and stability factors which are PPM values taken
at different points in a single cycle of the oscillation. Using the values of the
PPM at those specific timepoints, he concludes that the source of the oscillation
is B1 and that B2 is responsible for the dampening effect. This conclusion
matches the results from both the EEA and the LTM analyses. The problem
with PPM’s shifting loop dominance pattern in oscillatory models is explained
by Kampmann and Oliva (2008). They point out that methods based solely on
the PPM for determining loop dominance are problematic in oscillatory in sys-
tems like the inventory workforce model (sinusoidal oscillators) because the
sign of the PPM changes even though the relative contribution of the loops in
the model remains constant.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 25

The LTM analysis of the inventory workforce model has demonstrated the
efficacy of the method in the analysis of oscillatory systems. The analysis of
the inventory workforce model shows that the LTM method produces loop
dominance patterns explaining oscillations which are the same as the EEA
analyses. PPM-based analyses require more complex metrics to identify a
single feedback loop as being responsible for the oscillatory mode of behav-
ior. The LTM analysis produces conclusions about the causes of oscillation
and the impacts of parameters on those oscillation that match the conclu-
sions from both EEA- and PPM-based analyses.

Discussion and conclusions

As demonstrated, the LTM method provides an easy computational way to

identify and understand which feedback loops in a model dominate the
model behavior or, in other words, contribute the most to the behavior of all
the stocks in the model at any specific point in time. Dominance is typically
model wide (with the noted exception of feedback loops that are not
coupled), based on the effect on all variables, and is typically driven by the
stocks that are changing most quickly in proportion to each other. As we
have seen throughout the examples presented, the relative loop score mea-
sure of dominance coincides well with our structure-based understanding of
relatively simple systems. The LTM method offer several important benefits.
The most important benefit of the LTM method is that it is generally appli-
cable to all models without modification. Although, both EEA and PPM,
may, in principle, be applied to all models, the LTM method has the advan-
tage of being directly applicable to discrete and discontinuous models. This
is because LTM analyses are conducted over time in lock step with the
behavior produced by the model, do not depend on model modifications,
and use only values resulting from computations that are conducted as part
of the normal simulation process.
The second considerable benefit of the LTM method is that the format of
the results of the analysis are simple, easily interpretable graphs of behavior
over time. The LTM method makes use of the existing skill sets of all mod-
elers and most model consumers and is thus easily accessible to all. The
LTM method’s metrics are calculated and reported over time. Therefore, it
takes no additional skill or training to read and interpret the graphs of the
relative loop and link scores. Considerable work has been done on both PPM
and EEA to define relatively easy to understand and interpret metrics. But
we believe that the simplicity and accessibility of the link and loop scores
provide an easier path to this type of analysis for most people.
The third noteworthy benefit to the LTM method is its relative computa-
tional and conceptual simplicity which is a major advantage over both EEA
and PPM. As currently developed, the method does not use complex
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
26 System Dynamics Review

mathematical constructs that are not already in use by the majority of practi-
tioners. From a mathematical perspective, the concept of the partial change
in z (Δxz) is the most challenging part of the method because of its unfamil-
iar terminology, and not necessarily because of any inherent complexity in
the idea itself. The advantage of such a simple method is that it can be
understood by all practitioners so that when it comes time to apply the
method, practitioners will know what it is saying (i.e. how to interpret the
results) due to the transparency of the method.
The fourth and final benefit of the LTM method is that it is relatively easily
implemented in existing simulation engines without requiring modifications
to existing structures within those engines. This represents a considerable
advantage over EEA and PPM and is on par with Loop Impact method. We
base this conclusion upon our own experiences implementing simulation
engines in the past— including the engines behind Stella and Vensim and
the level of effort it has taken to modify Powers’ sd.js engine. This means its
uptake should be relatively painless by software vendors in the field.
A weakness in the LTM method is that it may not be used to determine loop
dominance without a change in the model state. As a model approaches equi-
librium, we can see the loop scores balance one another even as they become
unbounded, but when a model is in equilibrium, all loop scores are defined to
be 0. Therefore, models in equilibrium cannot be analyzed using the LTM
method. An example of this is a simple “bathtub” population model where
the birth fraction equals the death fraction. The limitations of the link score
causes the loop score for both loops to be 0 because there is no change across
time. This is a disadvantage relative to EEA which, if the model is close to lin-
ear, will provide accurate information under equilibrium conditions. An
unsatisfactory solution to this problem from a purely methodological perspec-
tive is to start introducing minute changes in these situations in order to mea-
sure those changes´ effects on loop dominance. But doing so would have
major ramifications on the utility of the method for discrete and discontinuous
models where information is likely encoded as specific, logically meaningful
integer values. An alternative approach would be for the model author to off-
set the model state from its equilibrium using a STEP function or some other
modeling construct so as to expose dynamic behavior.
An additional weakness of the LTM method, which some may consider to
be a strength, is that it focuses exclusively on endogenously generated
behavior. Such a focus is a hallmark of system dynamics, but is problematic
for models where behavior is driven through external forcing functions that
dominate the effects of feedback in the model. The inventory workforce
model contains some elements of this because of the external demand signal
which necessitates the separation of the feedback loops into two sets. But in
the inventory workforce case, the external signal was only required to start
the oscillation. Loop dominance, in highly forced models (to a much greater
extent than in the case of the inventory workforce model), may have little to
© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 27

do with behavior endogenously generated by the feedback loops. Models of

this sort are currently much better analyzed using the Loop Impact method
of Hayward and Boswell (2014). Although, the link score metric could be
used to measure these exogenous contributions, and with future work, the
LTM method could properly analyze models of this kind.

Future work

There are a variety of interesting extensions to the LTM method that com-
bine it with other analysis techniques. The most obvious one is to combine
it with Monte Carlo analysis so that the realized behavior sets encompass
more of the potential behavior sets. Another is during extreme condition
testing one could use the LTM method to show that the model is producing
the right results for the right reasons. The LTM method could also be com-
bined with optimization, for example, using optimizers to maximize or mini-
mize loop scores. This would allow practitioners to maximize the activity of
favorable loops while minimizing the activity of unfavorable loops in order
to automatically generate better, more robust, policy recommendations.
Another area of study would include loop scores in the outputs of Monte-
Carlo sensitivity analyses which would allow us to measure the robustness
of loop dominance to policy or parameter changes. Monte Carlo analysis
could also be used to measure the sensitivity of loop score to changes in
parameter values.
A second critical area of future work is to use the LTM method to develop-
ment new and exciting visualization tools, including animated stock-and-
flow diagrams, where the links and flows change color and size due to
changes in polarity or link score, in response to the call for such graphics by
Sterman in Business Dynamics (2000). Going even further, the LTM method
allows for the possibility of automated CLD generation and animation.
Because the LTM method is able to tell, on a link-by-link basis, which are
the key (dynamic) links in the model, it is possible, using the method, to
automatically generate a CLD collapsing all of the “unimportant” static links
with scores of 0, +1.0, or −1.0 into links that are conveying a change. This
will allow for an automated generation of structurally correct, minimal CLDs
that accurately portray the structural components that predominantly pro-
duce the dynamics of the model and are laid out by the computer according
to best practices.
Finally, it is necessary to test and analyze larger and more varied models
if we are to increase our confidence in the general utility of the LTM method.
We are hopeful that the techniques laid out in this article will offer a signifi-
cant utility and enhance the analysis and understanding of a wide set of SD
models by SD users.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
28 System Dynamics Review

Biographies

William (Billy) Schoenberg is a lead software engineer at isee Systems inc

and a PhD student at the University of Bergen. He holds a master’s degree in
system dynamics from the University of Bergen. He is a key member of the
team that designs and develops Stella Architect and the isee Exchange. He0 s
always been fascinated by the relationship between structure and behavior
and is especially interested in communicating the nature of that
relationship.

Pål Davidsen is a professor in system dynamics at the University of Bergen,

Norway. He founded the System Dynamics Masters Program in Bergen and
is a co-founder of the European Masters Programme in system dynamics.
Davidsen has published work in natural resources management, in model
based analysis of complex, dynamic systems, in education technology, and
in the design of simulation based interactive learning environments.

Robert (Bob) Eberlein is co-president of isee systems, inc. where he oversees

technology development. He holds a PhD from MIT and has worked in the
field of system dynamics for over 30 years.

References

Bass FM. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management
Science 15(5): 215–227.
Davidsen P. 1991. The Structure-Behavior Graph. The System Dynamics Group, MIT:
Cambridge, MA.
Duggan J. and Oliva R. 2013. Methods for identifying structural dominance. System
Dynamics Review 29(Virtual Special Issue). Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1727/homepage/VirtualIssuesPage.html. [Accessed
12th February 2020].
Eberlein RL. 1984. Simplifying dynamic models by retaining selected behavior
modes. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Ford D. 1999. A behavioral approach to feedback loop dominance analysis. System
Dynamics Review 15(1): 3–36.
Forrester N. 1982. A dynamic synthesis of basic macroeconomic theory: implications
for stabilization policy analysis. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, MA.
Gonçalves P. 2009. Behavior modes, pathways and overall trajectories: eigenvector
and eigenvalue analysis of dynamic systems. System Dynamics Review 25(1):
35–62.
Graham AK. 1977. Principles of the relationship between structure and behavior of
dynamic systems. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, MA.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 29

Güneralp B. 2005. Progress in eigenvalue elasticity analysis as a coherent loop domi-

nance analysis tool. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International System Dynamics
Conference, Boston, MA. System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.
Güneralp B. 2006. Towards coherent loop dominance analysis: progress in eigenvalue
elasticity analysis. System Dynamics Review 22(3): 263–289.
Hayward J, Boswell GP. 2014. Model behaviour and the concept of loop impact: a
practical method. System Dynamics Review 30(1): 29–57.
Hayward J, Roach PA. 2017. Newton’s laws as an interpretive framework in system
dynamics. System Dynamics Review 33(3–4): 183–218.
Huang J, Howley E, Duggan J. 2012. Observations on the shortest independent loop
set algorithm. System Dynamics Review 28(3): 276–280.
Kampmann C, Oliva R. 2017. Analytical methods for structural dominance analysis
in system dynamics. Meyers, R. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Sci-
ence. New York: Springer.
Kampmann CE. 2012. Feedback loop gains and system behaviour (1996). System
Dynamics Review 28(4): 370–395.
Kampmann CE, Oliva R. 2006. Loop eigenvalue elasticity analysis: three case studies.
System Dynamics Review. 22(2): 141–162.
Kampmann CE, Oliva R. 2008. Structural dominance analysis and theory build-
ing in system dynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25(4):
505–519.
Kampmann CE, Oliva R. 2009. Analytical methods for structural dominance
analysisin system dynamics. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science,
Meyers RA (ed). Springer: New York, NY; 8948–8967.
Mass, NJ, and Senge, PM. (1975). Understanding oscillations in simple systems. In
System Dynamics Group Working Paper D-2045-2, MIT.
Mojtahedzadeh M. 2008. Do parallel lines meet? How can pathway participation met-
rics and eigenvalue analysis produce similar results? System Dynamics Review 24
(4): 451–478.
Mojtahedzadeh M, Andersen D, Richardson GP. 2004. Using digest to implement the
pathway participation method for detecting influential system structure. System
Dynamics Review 20(1): 1–20.
Mojtahedzadeh MT. 1996. Structural Analysis of the URBAN1 Model. University at
Albany, SUNY: New York.
Moxnes E, Davidsen PI. 2016. Intuitive understanding of steady-state and transient
behaviors. System Dynamics Review 32(2): 128–153.
Naumov S, and Oliva R. 2018. Structural dominance analysis toolset. Available at:
http://iops.tamu.edu/faculty/roliva/research/sd/sda/ [Accessed 5th February
2020].
Oliva R. 2004. Model structure analysis through graph theory: partition heuristics
and feedback structure decomposition. System Dynamics Review 20(4): 313–336.
Oliva R. 2016. Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models. System
Dynamics Review 32(1): 26–51.
Oliva R. 2020. On structural dominance analysis. System Dynamics Review 36
(1): 1–21.
Phaff HWG., Slinger JH, Güneralp B., and van Daalen CE., 2006. Investigating model
behavioural analysis: A critical examination of two methods. In Proceedings of the

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
30 System Dynamics Review

24th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Nijmegen, the

Netherlands: System Dynamics Society.
Powers, R. (2019). SD.js In-Browser System Dynamics Model Simulation and Display.
GitHub Repository. Available at: https://github.com/bpowers/sd.js. [Accessed 25th
September 2019].
Richardson GP. 1995. Loop polarity, loop dominance, and the concept of dominant
polarity. System Dynamics Review 11(1): 67–88.
Richardson GP. 1996. Problems for the future of system dynamics. System Dynamics
Review 12(2): 141–157.
Saleh M, Oliva R, Kampmann CE, Davidsen PI. 2010. A comprehensive analytical
approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models. European Journal of
Operational Research 203(3): 673–683.
Saleh MM. 2002. The characterization of model behavior and its causal foundation.
PhD Thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Sato, JB. (2016). State space analysis of dominant structures in dynamic social sys-
tems. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, St. Louis, MO.
Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Com-
plex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Boston.

APPENDIX A: LINK SCORES AND PARTIAL DERIVATIVES

We have presented the computational equations for loop scores and link
scores using separate magnitude and sign components. While this is the
most intuitive presentation, it is also possible to recast the equations using
partial differences which allows easier comparison with other model analy-
sis methods.
It is straightforward to manipulate Eqn 1 to have the form shown in Eqn 5.
Equation 5 demonstrates the link score computed using a partial difference
and magnitude adjustment.
8 


>
< Δx z

Δx


 ,
LSðx ! zÞ = Δx
Δz
ð5Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δx = 0

Here the first term is just the partial difference, which has the direction of
change and the sensitivity of z to x. The second term adjusts this by the real-
ized changes so that the link score reflects the amount of contribution as
opposed to the sensitivity. Dividing both the top and bottom of the second
term by Δt gives Eqn 6.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 31

8





< Δx z 
Δx=Δt
,
>
Δx
Δz=Δt

LSðx ! zÞ = ð6Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δx = 0

If the model being analyzed (including f(x, y)) is continuously differentia-

ble, then as Δt approaches 0, so too will Δx and we can write Eqn 6 as Eqn 7
which is a simplified continuous representation of the link score metric:
8 


>
< ∂z

x_


 ,
LSðx ! zÞ = ∂x
z_
ð7Þ
>
:
0, z_ = 0 or x_ = 0

Equation 7 demonstrates the relationship of the link score to the partial

derivative which are key to Pathway Participation Metrics and the Loop
Impact, which also form the basis for the linearized representation of model
equations used to compute eigenvalues. The addition of the second term
converts the potential contribution to the realized contribution. This is why
the Loops that Matter method gives results that are largely in line with other
approaches when normalized, but at the same time are not identical in abso-
lute value.

APPENDIX B: IMPORTANT ANALYTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LINK

SCORES

There are two notable characteristics of link scores that it is useful to eluci-
date. The first is invariance under formulation, something that is relied upon
when computing loop scores. The second is the observation that isolated
loops will always have a loop score of 1 or − 1.
Consider invariance under formulation changes. Put simply, it should not
matter whether we connect two variables with one complicated equation or
three variables with two simpler equations. To demonstrate this, without
loss of generality, suppose that there are two formulations for the variable z.
The first is directly as f(w, x, y), the second indirectly as g(u, y) where u = h
(w, x). In this case, we first compute the link score from x to u as shown in
Eqn 8, then the link score from u to z as shown in Eqn 9.
8 

 



<
Δx u
 sign Δx u ,
>

Δu
Δx
LSðx ! uÞ = ð8Þ
>
:
0, Δu = 0 or Δx = 0

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
32 System Dynamics Review

8 

 



<
Δu z
 sign Δu z ,
>

Δz
Δu
LSðu ! zÞ = ð9Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δu = 0

The composite link score (a link score multiplied along a causal pathway)
is computed as the product of the two link scores as
shown

in Eqns 8 and 9,

Δx

which can be rewritten as Eqn 10 by multiplying by Δx which is just 1.
8 



   





<
Δx u

Δu z
 sign Δx u  sign Δu z ,
>

Δu

Δz
Δx Δu
LSðx ! zÞ = ð10Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δu = 0 or Δx = 0
8 





   
>

Δx u



Δu z



Δx

 sign Δx u  sign Δu z ,
<

Δx

Δu

Δz
Δx Δu
LSðx ! zÞ = ð11Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δu = 0 or Δx = 0

Applying the chain rule for partial differences is shown in Eqn 11. Cancel-
ing the Δx terms we get the expression in Eqn 12.
8 



   





<
Δx z

Δx
 sign Δx u  sign Δu z ,
>

Δx

Δz
Δx Δu
LSðx ! zÞ = ð12Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δu = 0 or Δx = 0

After reduction, the composite link score is shown as Eqn 13.

8 

   



<
Δx z
 sign Δx u  sign Δu z ,
>

Δz
Δx Δu
LSðx ! zÞ = ð13Þ
>
:
0, Δz = 0 or Δu = 0 or Δx = 0

The sign term in Eqns 12 and 13 should be clear, since it just tracks the direc-
tional change, and thus we have the same result we would get with all the com-
putation in a single equation.
This chaining is the same as that observed in Richardson (1995) and
Kampmann (2012) and allows us to look at models as they are constructed,
and not in any condensed form.
It is worth noting that this equivalence fails if Δu = 0,even when both
Δx and Δz are nonzero. That is, if the intermediate variable is not chang-
ing, the link score becomes 0 even when the input and ultimate output
are changing. It is easy to construct models that have this characteristic

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr
 William Schoenberg et al.: The Loops that Matter method 33

(in fact the Bass Diffusion model can be written with total population
computed by adding the two stocks), and the 0 value is helpful at show-
ing that the potential feedback is not real.
The second observation on loop scores is that for a single positive or nega-
tive loop the score will be +/−1, though the gain around the loop could be
significantly different. This is easy to see in a model of (net) population
growth, since the link score from the stock to the flow will be 1 as only the
stock is changing the flow, and with only a single net flow, the link score
from the flow to the stock will also be one. Similar logic applies to an expo-
nential drain, though in this case the link score from the flow to the stock is
−1 so the loop score becomes −1.
This value of 1 is true regardless of the population growth rate, or resi-
dence time, in the above example. This is an important distinction
between the loop score and gain around a loop. It is also interesting to
think about what happens to the single loop score as additional loops are
added. For example, adding deaths to a population model with only
births would give link scores from the flows into the stock based on their
relative value. In this case, both of the loop scores will have magnitude
greater than 1, and the closer the flows are the bigger the scores. This is,
as discussed, why the relative loop scores are reported as the basis for
analysis and emphasizes how distinct the loop score is from a representa-
tion of gain. Put another way, loop scores do not predict the speed of
change but only show which part of structure is dominant at any point
in time.

Supporting information

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of

this article at the publisher’s website.

Appendix S1. Supporting Information.

© 2020 The Authors System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society
DOI: 10.1002/sdr