Learning complex systems from data: the Set Membership approach

  • Mario Milanese
  • Carlo Novara
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences book series (LNCIS, volume 289)

Abstract

In the paper the problem of making inferences on unknown nonlinear system (e.g. identification, prediction, smoothing, filtering, control design, decision making, fault detection, etc.) based on finite and noise-corrupted measurements is considered. Inferences are usually obtained by means of models of the system, estimated from measurements within a finitely parametrized model class describing the functional form of involved nonlinearities, whose proper choice is realized by a search, from the simplest to more complex ones (linear, bilinear, polynomial, neural networks, etc.). In this paper an alternative approach, recently developed by the authors is presented. The approach, based on a Set Membership framework, does not need assumptions on the functional form of the regression function describing the system, but requires only some information on its regularity, given by bounds on the derivatives. In this way, the problem of considering approximate functional forms is circumvented. Moreover, noise is assumed to be bounded, in contrast with statistical methods, which rely on assumptions such as stationarity, ergodicity, uncorrelation, type of distribution, etc., whose validity may be difficult to be reliably tested and is lost in presence of approximate modeling. In this paper some of the main results developed by the authors are presented within a unifying framework. In particular, necessary and sufficient conditions for checking the assumptions validity are given and optimal and almost optimal algorithms are presented for the cases that the desired inferences are identification and prediction.

Keywords

Voronoi Diagram Prior Assumption Feasible System Inference Operator Inference Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Haber and H. Unbehauen, “Structure identification of nonlinear dynamic systems-a survey on input/output approaches,” Automatica, vol. 26, pp. 651–677, 1990.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Sjöberg, Q. Zhang, L. Ljung, A. Benveniste, B. Delyon, P. Glorennec, H. Hjalmarsson, and A. Juditsky, “Nonlinear black-box modeling in system identification: a unified overview,” Automatica, vol. 31, pp. 1691–1723, 1995.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. S. Narenda and S. Mukhopadhyay, “Neural networks for system identification,” in Sysid’ 97, vol. 2, pp. 763–770, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Isermann, S. Ernst, and O. Nelles, “Identification with dynamic neural networks-architectures, comparisons, applications-,” in Sysid’ 97, vol. 3, pp. 997–1022, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Novara and M. Milanese, “Set membership identification of nonlinear systems,” in Proc. of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (Sydney, AU), pp. 2831–2836, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Novara and M. Milanese, “Set membership prediction of nonlinear time series,” in Proc. of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (Orlando, FL), pp. 2131–2136, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Milanese and C. Novara, “Set Membership estimation of nonlinear regressions,” in IFAC 2002, (Barcelona, Spain), 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Novara, Set Membership Identification of Nonlinear Systems. Torino, Italy: PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Milanese and R. Tempo, “Optimal algorithms theory for robust estimation and prediction,” IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, vol. 30, pp. 730–738, 1985.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Milanese and A. Vicino, “Optimal algorithms estimation theory for dynamic systems with set membership uncertainty: an overview,” Automatica, vol. 27, pp. 997–1009, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Milanese, J. Norton, H. P. Lahanier, and E. Walter, Bounding Approaches to System Identification. Plenum Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. F. Traub, G. W. Wasilkowski, and H. Wozniakowski, Information-Based Complexity. Academic Press, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Stenman, F. Gustafsson, and Ljung, “Just in time models for dynamical systems,” in Proc. of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (Kobe, Japan), pp. 1115–1120, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Q. Zheng and H. Kimura, “Just in time modeling for function prediction and its applications,” Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 3, No. 1,, pp. 35–44, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Rontedge and Kegan Paul, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Milanese and C. Novara, “Set Membership identification of nonlinear systems,” Politecnico di Torino internal report, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Edelsbrunner, Algorithms in Combinatorial Geometry. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Milanese, C. Novara, and M. Taragna, ““Fast” Set Membership H identification from frequency-domain data,” in European Control Conference ECC 2001, (Porto, Portugal), 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Milanese
    • 1
  • Carlo Novara
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Automatica e InformaticaPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations