Multidisciplinary Research in Control pp 195-206 | Cite as
Learning complex systems from data: the Set Membership approach
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 ErrorPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 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.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.K. S. Narenda and S. Mukhopadhyay, “Neural networks for system identification,” in Sysid’ 97, vol. 2, pp. 763–770, 1997.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.M. Milanese and C. Novara, “Set Membership estimation of nonlinear regressions,” in IFAC 2002, (Barcelona, Spain), 2002.Google Scholar
- 8.C. Novara, Set Membership Identification of Nonlinear Systems. Torino, Italy: PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2002.Google Scholar
- 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.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.M. Milanese, J. Norton, H. P. Lahanier, and E. Walter, Bounding Approaches to System Identification. Plenum Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- 12.J. F. Traub, G. W. Wasilkowski, and H. Wozniakowski, Information-Based Complexity. Academic Press, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
- 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.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.K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Rontedge and Kegan Paul, 1969.Google Scholar
- 16.M. Milanese and C. Novara, “Set Membership identification of nonlinear systems,” Politecnico di Torino internal report, 2002.Google Scholar
- 17.H. Edelsbrunner, Algorithms in Combinatorial Geometry. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987.MATHGoogle Scholar
- 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