Advertisement

Hybrid System Identification

  • René Vidal
  • Yi Ma
  • S. Shankar Sastry
Chapter
Part of the Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics book series (IAM, volume 40)

Abstract

Hybrid systems are mathematical models that are used to describe continuous processes that occasionally exhibit discontinuous behaviors due to sudden changes of dynamics. For instance, the continuous trajectory of a bouncing ball results from alternating between free fall and elastic contact with the ground. However, hybrid systems can also be used to describe a complex process or time series that does not itself exhibit discontinuous behaviors, by approximating the process or series with a simpler class of dynamical models. For example, a nonlinear dynamical system can be approximated by switching among a set of linear systems, each approximating the nonlinear system in a subset of its state space. As another example, a video sequence can be segmented to different scenes by fitting a piecewise linear dynamical model to the entire sequence.

Keywords

Auto-regressive Exogenous (ARX) Markov Jump Linear Systems (JMLS) Component Placement Process Switching Sequence Non-repeated Factor 
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.

References

  1. Alessandri, A., & Coletta, P. (2001). Design of Luenberger observers for a class of hybrid linear systems. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (pp. 7–18). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B., & Johnson, R. (1982). Exponential convergence of adaptive identification and control algorithms. Automatica, 18(1), 1–13.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Babaali, M., & Egerstedt, M. (2004). Observability of switched linear systems. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Balluchi, A., Benvenuti, L., Benedetto, M. D., & Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. (2002). Design of observers for hybrid systems. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (Vol. 2289, pp. 76–89). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bemporad, A., Ferrari, G., & Morari, M. (2000). Observability and controllability of piecewise affine and hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(10), 1864–1876.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bemporad, A., Garulli, A., Paoletti, S., & Vicino, A. (2003). A greedy approach to identification of piecewise affine models. In Hybrid systems: Computation and control. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 97–112). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bemporad, A., Roll, J., & Ljung, L. (2001). Identification of hybrid systems via mixed-integer programming. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision & Control (pp. 786–792).Google Scholar
  8. Billio, M., Monfort, A., & Robert, C. (1999). Bayesian estimation of switching ARMA models. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 229–255.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Blake, A., North, B., & Isard, M. (1999). Learning multi-class dynamics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 11, 389–395. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, P., & Schuppen, J. V. (2004). Observability of piecewise-affine hybrid systems. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Doucet, A., Logothetis, A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2000). Stochastic sampling algorithms for state estimation of jump Markov linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(1), 188–202.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ezzine, J., & Haddad, A. H. (1989). Controllability and observability of hybrid systems. International Journal of Control, 49(6), 2045–2055.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrari-Trecate, G., Mignone, D., & Morari, M. (2002). Moving horizon estimation for hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(10), 1663–1676.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari-Trecate, G., Muselli, M., Liberati, D., & Morari, M. (2003). A clustering technique for the identification of piecewise affine systems. Automatica, 39(2), 205–217.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghahramani, Z., & Hinton, G. E. (1998). Variational learning for switching state-space models. Neural Computation, 12(4), 963–996.Google Scholar
  16. Hwang, I., Balakrishnan, H., & Tomlin, C. (2003). Observability criteria and estimator design for stochastic linear hybrid systems. In Proceedings of European Control Conference.Google Scholar
  17. Juloski, A., Heemels, W., & Ferrari-Trecate, G. (2004). Data-based hybrid modelling of the component placement process in pick-and-place machines. In Control Engineering Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Ma, Y., & Vidal, R. (2005). Identification of deterministic switched ARX systems via identification of algebraic varieties. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (pp. 449–465). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, K. (1998). Switching Kalman filters. Technical Report. U.C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Niessen, H., & A.Juloski (2004). Comparison of three procedures for identification of hybrid systems. In Conference on Control Applications.Google Scholar
  21. Pavlovic, V., Rehg, J. M., Cham, T. J., & Murphy, K. P. (1999). A dynamic Bayesian network approach to figure tracking using learned dynamic models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 94–101).Google Scholar
  22. Santis, E., Benedetto, M. D., & Giordano, P. (2003). On observability and detectability of continuous-time linear switching systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision & Control (pp. 5777–5782).Google Scholar
  23. Sun, A., Ge, S. S., & Lee, T. H. (2002). Controllability and reachability criteria for switched linear systems. Automatica, 38, 775–786.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Szigeti, F. (1992). A differential algebraic condition for controllability and observability of time varying linear systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 3088–3090).Google Scholar
  25. Tugnait, J. K. (1982). Detection and estimation for abruptly changing systems. Automatica, 18(5), 607–615.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Vecchio, D. D., & Murray, R. (2004). Observers for a class of hybrid systems on a lattice. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Vidal, R. (2004). Identification of PWARX hybrid models with unknown and possibly different orders. In American Control Conference (pp. 547–552).Google Scholar
  28. Vidal, R., Chiuso, A., & Soatto, S. (2002a). Observability and identifiability of jump linear systems. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 3614–3619).Google Scholar
  29. Vidal, R., Chiuso, A., Soatto, S., & Sastry, S. (2003a). Observability of linear hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (pp. 526–539). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Vidal, R., Soatto, S., Ma, Y., & Sastry, S. (2003c). An algebraic geometric approach to the identification of a class of linear hybrid systems. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 167–172).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • René Vidal
    • 1
  • Yi Ma
    • 2
  • S. Shankar Sastry
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Imaging Science Department of Biomedical EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.School of Information Science and Technology ShanghaiTech UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations