Advertisement

Reasoning about Input-Output Modeling of Dynamical Systems

  • Matthew Easley
  • Elizabeth Bradley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1642)

Abstract

The goal of input-output modeling is to apply a test input to a system, analyze the results, and learn something useful from the causee ffect pair. Any automated modeling tool that takes this approach must be able to reason effectively about sensors and actuators and their interactions with the target system. Distilling qualitative information from sensor data is fairly easy, but a variety of difficult control-theoretic issues — controllability, reachability, and utility — arise during the planning and execution of experiments. This paper describes some representations and reasoning tactics, collectively termed qualitative bifurcation analysis, that make it possible to automate this task.

Keywords

Cell Dynamic Test Input Drive Frequency Qualitative Reasoning Qualitative Simulation 
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]
    H. Abarbanel. Analysis of Observed Chaotic Data. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    E. Bradley. Autonomous exploration and control of chaotic systems. Cybernetics and Systems, 26:299–319, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. Bradley and M. Easley. Reasoning about sensor data for automated system identification. Intelligent Data Analysis, 2(2), 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Bradley, A. O’Gallagher, and J. Rogers. Global solutions for nonlinear systems using qualitative reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 23:211–228, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Bradley and R. Stolle. Automatic construction of accurate models of physical systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 17:1–28, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. S. Branicky, V. S. Borkar, and S. K. Mitter. A unified framework for hybrid control. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, pages 4228–4234, December 1994. Lake Buena Vista, FL.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. C. Capelo, L. Ironi, and S. Tentoni. Automated mathematical modeling from experimental data: An application to material science. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part C, 28(3):356–370, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. de Kleer and J. S. Brown. A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence, 24:7–83, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Easley and E. Bradley. Generalized physical networks for automated model building. In Proceedings of IJCAI-99, 1999. To appear.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Famili, W.-M. Shen, R. Weber, and E. Simoudis. Data preprocessing and intelligent data analysis. Intelligent Data Analysis, 1(1), 1997.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. D. Forbus. Interpreting observations of physical systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17(3):350–359, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    K. D. Forbus. Qualitative reasoning. In J. A. Tucker,editor, CRC Computer Science and Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Haber and H. Unbehauen. Structural identification of nonlinear dynamic systems — A survey on input/output approaches. Automatica, 26(4):651–677, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. S. Hsu. Cell-to-Cell Mapping. Springer, New York, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.-N. Juang. Applied System Identification. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. J. Kuipers. Qualitative simulation. Artificial Intelligence, 29(3):289–338, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    B. C. Kuo. Automatic Control Systems. Prentice Hall, seventh edition, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Stolle. Integrated Multimodal Reasoning for Modeling of Physical Systems. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. Stolle and E. Bradley. A customized logic paradigm for reasoning about models. In Proceedings of the QR-96, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Stolle and E. Bradley. Multimodal reasoning for automatic model construction. In Proceedings of AAAI-98, pages 181–188, July 1998. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    K. Yip. KAM: A System for Intelligently Guiding Numerical Experimentation by Computer. Artificial Intelligence Series. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    F. Zhao. Computational dynamics: Modeling and visualizing trajectory flows in phase space. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 8:285–300, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Easley
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations