2000 character limit reached
Invariance Proximity: Closed-Form Error Bounds for Finite-Dimensional Koopman-Based Models (2311.13033v4)
Published 21 Nov 2023 in math.OC, cs.SY, eess.SY, and math.DS
Abstract: A popular way to approximate the Koopman operator's action on a finite-dimensional subspace of functions is via orthogonal projections. The quality of the projected model directly depends on the selected subspace, specifically on how close it is to being invariant under the Koopman operator. The notion of invariance proximity provides a tight upper bound on the worst-case relative prediction error of the finite-dimensional model. However, its direct calculation is computationally challenging. This paper leverages the geometric structure behind the definition of invariance proximity to provide a closed-form expression in terms of Jordan principal angles on general inner product spaces. Unveiling this connection allows us to exploit specific isomorphisms to circumvent the computational challenges associated with spaces of functions and enables the use of existing efficient numerical routines to compute invariance proximity.
- B. O. Koopman, “Hamiltonian systems and transformation in Hilbert space,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 315–318, 1931.
- I. Mezić, “Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 41, no. 1-3, pp. 309–325, 2005.
- A. Mauroy and I. Mezić, “Global stability analysis using the eigenfunctions of the Koopman operator,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 3356–3369, 2016.
- J. J. Bramburger and G. Fantuzzi, “Auxiliary functions as Koopman observables: Data-driven analysis of dynamical systems via polynomial optimization,” Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 8, 2024.
- S. A. Deka, A. M. Valle, and C. J. Tomlin, “Koopman-based neural Lyapunov functions for general attractors,” in IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2022, pp. 5123–5128.
- M. Korda and I. Mezić, “Linear predictors for nonlinear dynamical systems: Koopman operator meets model predictive control,” Automatica, vol. 93, pp. 149–160, 2018.
- S. Peitz and S. Klus, “Koopman operator-based model reduction for switched-system control of PDEs,” Automatica, vol. 106, pp. 184–191, 2019.
- V. Zinage and E. Bakolas, “Neural Koopman Lyapunov control,” Neurocomputing, vol. 527, pp. 174–183, 2023.
- M. Haseli and J. Cortés, “Modeling nonlinear control systems via Koopman control family: universal forms and subspace invariance proximity,” Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15368, 2023.
- D. Uchida and K. Duraisamy, “Extracting Koopman operators for prediction and control of non-linear dynamics using two-stage learning and oblique projections,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13051, 2023.
- R. Strässer, J. Berberich, and F. Allgöwer, “Robust data-driven control for nonlinear systems using the Koopman operator,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03519, 2023.
- D. Bruder, X. Fu, R. B. Gillespie, C. D. Remy, and R. Vasudevan, “Data-driven control of soft robots using Koopman operator theory,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 948–961, 2020.
- G. Mamakoukas, I. Abraham, and T. D. Murphey, “Learning stable models for prediction and control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023.
- M. O. Williams, I. G. Kevrekidis, and C. W. Rowley, “A data-driven approximation of the Koopman operator: Extending dynamic mode decomposition,” Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1307–1346, 2015.
- M. Korda and I. Mezić, “On convergence of extended dynamic mode decomposition to the Koopman operator,” Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 687–710, 2018.
- N. Takeishi, Y. Kawahara, and T. Yairi, “Learning Koopman invariant subspaces for dynamic mode decomposition,” in Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, pp. 1130–1140.
- B. Lusch, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2018.
- M. Sznaier, “A data driven, convex optimization approach to learning Koopman operators,” in Conference on Learning for Dynamics and Control. PMLR, 2021, pp. 436–446.
- M. Korda and I. Mezic, “Optimal construction of Koopman eigenfunctions for prediction and control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 5114–5129, 2020.
- E. Kaiser, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Data-driven discovery of Koopman eigenfunctions for control,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 035023, 2021.
- V. Kostic, K. Lounici, P. Novelli, and M. Pontil, “Koopman operator learning: Sharp spectral rates and spurious eigenvalues,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02004, 2023.
- M. J. Colbrook, L. J. Ayton, and M. Szőke, “Residual dynamic mode decomposition: robust and verified Koopmanism,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 955, p. A21, 2023.
- M. J. Colbrook and A. Townsend, “Rigorous data-driven computation of spectral properties of Koopman operators for dynamical systems,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 221–283, 2024.
- M. Haseli and J. Cortés, “Learning Koopman eigenfunctions and invariant subspaces from data: Symmetric Subspace Decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3442–3457, 2022.
- ——, “Parallel learning of Koopman eigenfunctions and invariant subspaces for accurate long-term prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1833–1845, 2021.
- ——, “Generalizing dynamic mode decomposition: balancing accuracy and expressiveness in Koopman approximations,” Automatica, vol. 153, p. 111001, 2023.
- F. Nüske, S. Peitz, F. Philipp, M. Schaller, and K. Worthmann, “Finite-data error bounds for Koopman-based prediction and control,” Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 14, 2023.
- M. Haseli and J. Cortés, “Temporal forward-backward consistency, not residual error, measures the prediction accuracy of Extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 649–654, 2023.
- M. Budišić, R. Mohr, and I. Mezić, “Applied Koopmanism,” Chaos, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 047510, 2012.
- S. Klus, P. Koltai, and C. Schütte, “On the numerical approximation of the Perron-Frobenius and Koopman operator,” Journal of Computational Dynamics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 51–79, 2016.
- C. Jordan, “Essai sur la géométrie à n𝑛nitalic_n dimensions,” Bulletin de la Société mathématique de France, vol. 3, pp. 103–174, 1875.
- H. Hotelling, “Relations between two sets of variates,” in Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution, S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson, Eds. New York, NY: Springer, 1992, pp. 162–190.
- A. Galántai and C. J. Hegedűs, “Jordan’s principal angles in complex vector spaces,” Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 589–598, 2006.
- S. J. Leon, Å. Björck, and W. Gander, “Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization: 100 years and more,” Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 492–532, 2013.
- M. I. Kadets, “Note on the gap between subspaces,” Functional Analysis and Its Applications, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 156–157, 1975.
- A. Karimi and T. T. Georgiou, “The challenge of small data: Dynamic mode decomposition, redux,” in IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Austin, Texas, USA, 2021, pp. 2276–2281.
- A. V. Knyazev and M. E. Argentati, “Principal angles between subspaces in an A-based scalar product: algorithms and perturbation estimates,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2008–2040, 2002.