of parameters in nonlinear

of parameters in nonlinear identification benchmarks Anna - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

52 nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control Firenze, Italy, December 10-13, 2013 Study of the effective number of parameters in nonlinear identification benchmarks Anna Marconato, Maarten Schoukens, Yves Rolain and Johan Schoukens ELEC


  1. 52 nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control โ€“ Firenze, Italy, December 10-13, 2013 Study of the effective number of parameters in nonlinear identification benchmarks Anna Marconato, Maarten Schoukens, Yves Rolain and Johan Schoukens ELEC โ€“ Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

  2. Wiener-Hammerstein benchmark 2

  3. ๐’ eff vs. ๐’ ๐œพ ๐’ ๐œพ Number of parameters ๏ฎ ๏ต SVMs? ๏ต Regularization? ๐’eff Effective number of parameters ๏ฎ ๏ต Property of the identified model ๏ต Degrees of freedom in the model parametrization 3

  4. Outline ๐’eff vs. ๐’ ๐œพ ๏ฎ E ๏ต Motivation example: FIR case ๏ต Linear / Nonlinear in the parameters ๏ต Comparison on WH benchmark 4

  5. Motivation: FIR example ๐‘’ ๐‘ง = ๐‘• ๐‘™ ๐‘ฃ ๐‘ข โˆ’ ๐‘™ ๐‘™=0 system response 5

  6. Motivation: FIR example ๐‘’ ๐‘ง = ๐‘• ๐‘™ ๐‘ฃ ๐‘ข โˆ’ ๐‘™ ๐‘™=0 system response least squares solution = ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐ฟ โˆ’1 ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘ง ๐‘• 6

  7. Motivation: FIR example ๐‘’ ๐‘ง = ๐‘• ๐‘™ ๐‘ฃ ๐‘ข โˆ’ ๐‘™ ๐‘™=0 system response ? least squares solution 7

  8. Motivation: FIR example ๐‘’ ๐‘ง = ๐‘• ๐‘™ ๐‘ฃ ๐‘ข โˆ’ ๐‘™ ๐‘™=0 = ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐ฟ โˆ’1 ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘ง = ๐‘Šฮฃ โˆ’1 ๐‘‰ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘ง ๐‘• = ๐‘Š๐œ„ SVD ๐ฟ = ๐‘‰ฮฃ๐‘Š ๐‘ˆ 8

  9. Motivation: FIR example ๐‘• = ๐‘Š๐œ„ system response truncated solution ๐‘œ ๐œ„ ร— 1 ๐‘œ ฮธ ร— 1 ๐œ„ least squares solution ๐‘• = ๐‘Š ๐‘œ ๐œ„ ร— 1 ๐‘œeff ร— 1 9

  10. Regressor matrix and ๐’ eff ๐‘ง = ๐ฟ๐œ„ LINEAR REGRESSION = ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐ฟ โˆ’1 ๐ฟ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘ง = ๐‘Šฮฃ โˆ’1 ๐‘‰ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘ง ๐œ„ SVD ๐ฟ = ๐‘‰ฮฃ๐‘Š ๐‘ˆ ๐’eff Rank K 10

  11. Jacobian matrix and ๐’ eff ฮ”๐œ„ = ๐พ ๐‘ˆ ๐พ โˆ’1 ๐พ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘“ = ๐‘Šฮฃ โˆ’1 ๐‘‰ ๐‘ˆ ๐‘“ NONLINEAR IN THE PARAMETERS ๐‘—+1 = ๐œ„ ๐‘— + ฮ”๐œ„ ๐œ„ SVD ๐พ = ๐‘‰ฮฃ๐‘Š ๐‘ˆ ๐’eff Rank J 11

  12. WH results: comparison RMSE = 5.6 mV ๐’ ๐œพ = 134 12

  13. WH results: singular values of J threshold 13

  14. WH results: ๐’ eff ๐‘œ ๐œ„ 2 ๐œ ๐‘— REGULARIZATION ๐‘œeff = ๐œ ๐‘—2 + ๐œ‡ (ridge regression) ๐‘—=1 ๐œ‡ = 1 ๐œ 2 ๐‘œeff = 33 14

  15. WH results: comparison 29 134 64 69 33 52 15

  16. Conclusion Effective number of parameters ๏ฎ ๏ต Measure of model complexity for a given dataset More correct comparison of nonlinear models ๏ฎ ๏ต WH benchmark Rank reduced estimation based on truncated SVD ๏ฎ ๏ต NL in the parameters: still open problem 16

  17. Thank you for your attention! Any questions? 17

  18. 52 nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control โ€“ Firenze, Italy, December 10-13, 2013 Study of the effective number of parameters in nonlinear identification benchmarks Anna Marconato, Maarten Schoukens, Yves Rolain and Johan Schoukens ELEC โ€“ Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

  19. Silverbox results: comparison RMSE = 0.34 mV ๐’ ๐œพ = 23 19

  20. Silverbox results: comparison 20

Recommend


More recommend