Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Deep Subspace Encoders for Nonlinear System Identification

Published 26 Oct 2022 in eess.SY, cs.LG, and cs.SY | (2210.14816v2)

Abstract: Using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) for nonlinear system identification has proven to be a promising approach, but despite of all recent research efforts, many practical and theoretical problems still remain open. Specifically, noise handling and models, issues of consistency and reliable estimation under minimisation of the prediction error are the most severe problems. The latter comes with numerous practical challenges such as explosion of the computational cost in terms of the number of data samples and the occurrence of instabilities during optimization. In this paper, we aim to overcome these issues by proposing a method which uses a truncated prediction loss and a subspace encoder for state estimation. The truncated prediction loss is computed by selecting multiple truncated subsections from the time series and computing the average prediction loss. To obtain a computationally efficient estimation method that minimizes the truncated prediction loss, a subspace encoder represented by an artificial neural network is introduced. This encoder aims to approximate the state reconstructability map of the estimated model to provide an initial state for each truncated subsection given past inputs and outputs. By theoretical analysis, we show that, under mild conditions, the proposed method is locally consistent, increases optimization stability, and achieves increased data efficiency by allowing for overlap between the subsections. Lastly, we provide practical insights and user guidelines employing a numerical example and state-of-the-art benchmark results.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. J. Schoukens and L. Ljung, “Nonlinear system identification: A user-oriented road map,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 28–99, 2019.
  2. L. H. Lee and K. Poolla, “Identification of linear parameter-varying systems using nonlinear programming,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 121, pp. 71–78, 03 1999.
  3. Springer, 2010.
  4. P. Sliwiński, A. Marconato, P. Wachel, and G. Birpoutsoukis, “Non-linear system modelling based on constrained Volterra series estimates,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 2623–2629, 2017.
  5. G. Birpoutsoukis, A. Marconato, J. Lataire, and J. Schoukens, “Regularized nonparametric volterra kernel estimation,” Automatica, vol. 82, pp. 324–327, 2017.
  6. Wiley, 2013.
  7. M. Schoukens and K. Tiels, “Identification of block-oriented nonlinear systems starting from linear approximations: A survey,” Automatica, vol. 85, pp. 272–292, 2017.
  8. D. Gedon, N. Wahlström, T. B. Schön, and L. Ljung, “Deep state space models for nonlinear system identification,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 481–486, 2021.
  9. J. Paduart, L. Lauwers, J. Swevers, K. Smolders, J. Schoukens, and R. Pintelon, “Identification of nonlinear systems using polynomial nonlinear state space models,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 647–656, 2010.
  10. T. B. Schön, A. Wills, and B. Ninness, “System identification of nonlinear state-space models,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 39–49, 2011.
  11. M. Schoukens, “Improved initialization of state-space artificial neural networks,” in In the Proc. of the European Control Conference, pp. 1913–1918, 2021.
  12. D. Masti and A. Bemporad, “Learning nonlinear state–space models using autoencoders,” Automatica, vol. 129, p. 109666, 2021.
  13. G. I. Beintema, R. Tóth, and M. Schoukens, “Nonlinear state-space identification using deep encoder networks,” in In the Proc. of Machine learning Research (3rd Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference), vol. 144, pp. 241–250, 2021.
  14. G. I. Beintema, R. Tóth, and M. Schoukens, “Non-linear state-space model identification from video data using deep encoders,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 697–701, 2021.
  15. M. Forgione, M. Mejari, and D. Piga, “Learning neural state-space models: do we need a state estimator?,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.12928, 2022.
  16. J. Decuyper, M. Runacres, J. Schoukens, and K. Tiels, “Tuning nonlinear state-space models using unconstrained multiple shooting,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 334–340, 2020.
  17. J. Decuyper, P. Dreesen, J. Schoukens, M. C. Runacres, and K. Tiels, “Decoupling multivariate polynomials for nonlinear state-space models,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 745–750, 2019.
  18. J. A. K. Suykens, B. L. R. D. Moor, and J. Vandewalle, “Nonlinear system identification using neural state space models, applicable to robust control design,” International Journal of Control, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 129–152, 1995.
  19. A. H. Ribeiro, K. Tiels, J. Umenberger, T. B. Schön, and L. A. Aguirre, “On the smoothness of nonlinear system identification,” Automatica, vol. 121, p. 109158, 2020.
  20. M. Forgione and D. Piga, “Continuous-time system identification with neural networks: Model structures and fitting criteria,” European Journal of Control, vol. 59, pp. 69–81, 2021.
  21. M. Jansson, “Subspace identification and ARX modeling,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 36, no. 16, pp. 1585–1590, 2003.
  22. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
  23. A. Isidori, Nonlinear control systems: an introduction. Springer, 1985.
  24. Springer, 2005.
  25. Springer, 1995.
  26. M. Darouach and M. Zasadzinski, “Unbiased minimum variance estimation for systems with unknown exogenous inputs,” Automatica, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 717–719, 1997.
  27. X. Glorot and Y. Bengio, “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” in In the Proc. of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp. 249–256, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010.
  28. H. G. Bock, “Numerical treatment of inverse problems in chemical reaction kinetics,” in In the Proc. of Modelling of Chemical Reaction Systems, pp. 102–125, Springer, 1981.
  29. J. Decuyper, M. C. Runacres, J. Schoukens, and K. Tiels, “Tuning nonlinear state-space models using unconstrained multiple shooting,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 334–340, 2020.
  30. C. Tallec and Y. Ollivier, “Unbiasing truncated backpropagation through time,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08209, 2017.
  31. Birkhäuser, 2012.
  32. L. Ljung, “Convergence analysis of parametric identification methods,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 770–783, 1978.
  33. J. C. Willems, “Open stochastic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 406–421, 2013.
  34. M. B. Priestley, “Non-linear and non-stationary time series analysis,” London: Academic Press, pp. 59–63, 1988.
  35. S. Boyd and L. Chua, “Fading memory and the problem of approximating nonlinear operators with Volterra series,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1150–1161, 1985.
  36. T. Ohtsuka, “Model structure simplification of nonlinear systems via immersion,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 607–618, 2005.
  37. H.-G. Lee and S. Marcus, “Immersion and immersion by nonsingular feedback of a discrete-time nonlinear system into a linear system,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 479–483, 1988.
  38. M. O. Williams, M. S. Hemati, S. T. Dawson, I. G. Kevrekidis, and C. W. Rowley, “Extending data-driven Koopman analysis to actuated systems,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 704–709, 2016.
  39. J. Schoukens and L. Ljung, “Wiener–Hammerstein benchmark,” in LiTH-ISY-R, Linköping University Electronic Press, 2009.
  40. M. Schoukens, R. Pintelon, and Y. Rolain, “Identification of Wiener–Hammerstein systems by a nonparametric separation of the best linear approximation,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 628–634, 2014.
  41. J. Sjöberg, L. Lauwers, and J. Schoukens, “Identification of Wiener–Hammerstein models: Two algorithms based on the best split of a linear model applied to the SYSID’09 benchmark problem,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1119–1125, 2012.
  42. M. Schoukens and R. Tóth, “On the initialization of nonlinear LFR model identification with the best linear approximation,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 310–315, 2020.
  43. J. Paduart, L. Lauwers, R. Pintelon, and J. Schoukens, “Identification of a Wiener–Hammerstein system using the polynomial nonlinear state space approach,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1133–1139, 2012.
  44. A. Wills and B. Ninness, “Estimation of generalised Hammerstein–Wiener systems,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1104–1109, 2009.
  45. T. Falck, K. Pelckmans, J. A. Suykens, and B. De Moor, “Identification of Wiener–Hammerstein systems using LS-SVMs,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 820–825, 2009.
  46. A. Naitali and F. Giri, “Wiener–Hammerstein system identification – an evolutionary approach,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 45–61, 2016.
  47. D. Khandelwal, Automating data-driven modelling of dynamical systems: an evolutionary computation approach. Springer Theses, Springer, 2022.
  48. A. Marconato and J. Schoukens, “Identification of Wiener–Hammerstein benchmark data by means of support vector machines,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 816–819, 2009.
  49. L. Lauwers, R. Pintelon, and J. Schoukens, “Modelling of Wiener–Hammerstein systems via the best linear approximation,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1098–1103, 2009.
Citations (23)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a subspace encoder that leverages truncated prediction loss to efficiently approximate nonlinear state-space models.
  • It employs overlapping time series subsections with ANN-based estimation to improve data efficiency and mitigate noise effects.
  • Benchmark tests, including the Wiener-Hammerstein model, demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and robustness.

Deep Subspace Encoders for Nonlinear System Identification

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the research paper titled "Deep Subspace Encoders for Nonlinear System Identification" (2210.14816). The paper introduces a novel approach to nonlinear system identification using a deep subspace encoder network (SUBNET), leveraging artificial neural networks (ANNs) for modeling challenging nonlinear dynamics commonly found in engineering systems.

Introduction

Nonlinear system identification remains a challenging domain due to the vast range of nonlinear behaviors exhibited by various systems, such as mechatronic and chemical systems. Classical approaches, such as linear state-space models, often fail to capture the complexity inherent in nonlinear dynamics. The paper addresses this gap by utilizing ANNs to develop a subspace encoder capable of efficiently estimating nonlinear system states and dynamics.

The central contribution is the formulation of a subspace encoder that approximates the state reconstructability map using ANNs. This approach facilitates efficient estimation under truncated prediction losses, enhancing data efficiency and optimization stability compared to traditional methods.

Subspace Encoder Method

Truncated Prediction Loss

The paper introduces a truncated prediction loss computed over selected subsections of the time series, reducing computational cost and improving optimization stability. The loss function minimizes the average prediction error over truncated subsections, allowing for parallel computation and overcoming the computational challenges associated with long time series. Figure 1

Figure 1: Overall SUBNET structure: the subspace encoder ψη\psi_\eta estimates the initial state at time index tt based on past inputs and outputs, then the state is propagated through fθf_\theta and hθh_\theta multiple times until the truncation length TT. The parts marked in blue constitute the innovation noise process.

Subspace Encoder

The subspace encoder, represented by ψη\psi_\eta, estimates the initial state based on past inputs and outputs. It approximates the reconstructability map within the nonlinear state-space (NL-SS) model framework, offering improved computational scalability and data efficiency. This encoder is simultaneously estimated along with the state-transition and output functions, ensuring a smooth approximation of the underlying state dynamics.

Parameter Estimation and Guidelines

The paper outlines a detailed parameter estimation procedure, leveraging the Adam optimizer within a batch framework. It highlights essential user guidelines for hyperparameter selection, emphasizing the importance of truncation length, encoder window length, neural network architecture, and efficient optimization strategies.

Theoretical Analysis

The proposed method is theoretically analyzed to assess its consistency, smoothness, and data efficiency.

Consistency

The paper demonstrates that the SUBNET estimator is consistent, meaning that as the number of data points increases, the estimated model converges to an equivalent representation of the system that generated the data. This is crucial for ensuring statistical validity and unbiased model estimation.

Increased Cost Smoothness

The use of truncated prediction loss enhances the smoothness of the cost function, making the optimization process more stable and less prone to local minima. The Lipschitz constant of the cost function scales favorably with the truncation length, improving gradient stability. Figure 2

Figure 2: Influence of the truncation length TT of the loss function on the test error during training.

Data Efficiency

The method is more data-efficient due to overlapping subsections. Overlapping increases the data coverage per estimation step, reducing variance and improving the reliability of the estimation process.

Simulation Study

The paper includes a thorough simulation study showcasing the effectiveness of the subspace encoder method. It compares the proposed method against classical ANN-based state-space identification techniques, demonstrating superior performance in terms of computational efficiency and accuracy. Figure 3

Figure 3: Evolution of the NRMS simulation error of the estimated models by the considered approaches w.r.t. the test data. The keywords encoder init'' andparameter init'' indicate if either encoder-based prediction or parametric estimation is used to estimate the initial states, overlap'' andno-overlap'' indicate if the subsections can overlap, while ``OE'' stands for simulation based cost over the entire data sequence with no subsections.

Benchmark Results

The method achieves state-of-the-art results on the Wiener-Hammerstein benchmark, demonstrating its applicability and robustness in widely recognized nonlinear system identification challenges.

Conclusion

The paper introduces a powerful and efficient approach to nonlinear system identification using deep subspace encoders. It addresses practical challenges in noise handling and computational scalability, offering theoretical insights and empirical validation on complex benchmarks. The method represents a significant advancement in leveraging neural networks for modeling nonlinear systems, promising applications in engineering and beyond.

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.