Control and Modeling of Complex Systems pp 105-117 | Cite as

# Distribution-Free Approach to Probabilistic Model-Set Identification

- 303 Downloads

## Abstract

A model-set identification algorithm is proposed in a probabilistic framework based on a leave-one-out technique. It provides a nominal model and a bound of its uncertainty for a provided plant assuming that the effect of past inputs decays with a known bound. Because it does not require further assumptions on true plant dynamics or on noise, the risk of making inappropriate assumptions is small. The number of assumptions is shown to be minimum in the sense that identification is impossible after removing the assumption made here. Generalization of the proposed algorithm is considered in several aspects. A simple plant is identified for illustration.

## Keywords

Model-set identification Leave-one-out estimation Linear programming Statistical learning theory Robust control## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]P. L. Bartlett and S. R. Kulkarni, “The complexity of model classes, and smoothing noisy data,”
*Systems Control Letters*vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 133–140, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [2]M. C. Campi and P. R. Kumar, “Learning dynamical systems in a stationary environment,”
*Systems Control Letters*vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 125–132, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [3]D. K. De Vries and P. M. J. Van den Hof, “Quantification of uncertainty in transfer function estimation: a mixed probabilistic-worst-case approach,”
*Automatica*vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 543–557, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [4]G. C. Goodwin, M. Gevers, and B. Ninness, “Quantifying the error in estimated transfer functions with application to model order selection,”
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 913–928, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [5]A. J. Helmicki, C. A. Jacobson, and C. N. Nett, “Control oriented system identification: a worst-case/deterministic approach in
*H¡ã¡ã*”*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1163–1176, 1991.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [6]R. L. Karandikar and M. Vidyasagar, “Rates of uniform convergence of empirical means with mixing processes,”
*Statistics ¨¦i Probability Letters*vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 297–307, 2002.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [7]P. Khargonekar and A. Tikku, “Randomized algorithms for robust control analysis and synthesis have polynomial complexity,” in
*Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*Kobe, Japan, December 1996, pp. 3470–3475.Google Scholar - [8]V. Koltchinskii, C. T. Abdallah, M. Ariola, P. Dorato, and D. Panchenko, “Improved sample complexity estimates for statistical learning control of uncertain systems,”
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2383–2388, 2000.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [9]M. Milanese and A. Vicino, “Optimal estimation theory for dynamic systems with set membership uncertainty: an overview,”
*Automatica*vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 997–1009, 1991.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [10]A. Nobel and A. Dembo, “A note on uniform laws of averages for dependent processes,”
*Statistics E4 Probability Letters*vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 169–172, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [11]Y. Oishi and H. Kimura, “A learning-theoretic approach to model-set identification,”
*Asian Journal of Control*vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [12]R. Tempo, E. W. Bai, and F. Dabbene, “Probabilistic robustness analysis: explicit bounds for the minimum number of samples,”
*Systems & Control Letters*vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 237–242, 1997.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [13]D. N. C. Tse, M. A. Dahleh, and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Optimal asymptotic identification under bounded disturbances,”
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1176–1190, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [14]V. N. Vapnik
*Statistical Learning Theory*. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - [15]M. Vidyasagar, “Randomized algorithms for robust controller synthesis using statistical learning theory,”
*Automatica*vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1515–1528, 2001.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [16]M. Vidyasagar and R. L. Karandikar, “System identification: A learning theory approach,” in
*Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*Orlando, FL, December 2001, pp. 2001–2006; also in this volume.Google Scholar - [17]M. Vidyasagar and R. L. Karandikar, “On the behaviour of learning algorithms with ß-mixing process inputs,” submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- [18]E. Weyer, “Finite sample properties of system identification of ARX models under mixing conditions,”
*Automatica*vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1291–1299, 2000.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [19]E. Weyer and M. C. Campi, “Finite sample properties of system identification methods,” in
*Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*Phoenix, AZ, December 1999, pp. 510–515.Google Scholar - [20]E. Weyer and M. C. Campi, “Non-asymptotic confidence ellipsoids for the least squares estimate,” in
*Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*Sydney, Australia, December 2000, pp. 2688–2693.Google Scholar - [21]E. Weyer, R. C. Williamson, and I. M. Y. Mareels, “Finite sample properties of linear model identification,”
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1370–1383, 1999.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [22]T. Zhou and H. Kimura, “Structure of model uncertainty for a weakly corrupted plant,”
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 639–655, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [23]Y. C. Zhu, “Estimation of transfer functions: asymptotic theory and a bound of model uncertainty,”
*International Journal of Control*vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 2241–2258, 1989.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar