1 / 22

Model quality in L1 prediction error system identification

Model quality in L1 prediction error system identification. J-C Carmona LSIS – UMR-CNRS 6168 Marseille – France http://www.lsis.org/. Agenda. Introduction The prediction error framework Main statistical properties L1 Final Prediction Error criterion L1 Akaikes’ Informative Criterion

hosea
Download Presentation

Model quality in L1 prediction error system identification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Model quality in L1 prediction error system identification J-C Carmona LSIS – UMR-CNRS 6168Marseille – France http://www.lsis.org/

  2. Agenda • Introduction • The prediction error framework • Main statistical properties • L1 Final Prediction Error criterion • L1 Akaikes’ Informative Criterion • Distance bound between 2 models • Application & experimental results • Conclusion

  3. 1. Introduction • Model Quality: model estimation step : balance ( model error / noise influence) + model validation: - consistency with data : not invalidation - non consistency : invalidation • Validation on “fresh data”: (validation data) - not always possible - validation data are unused in estimation a “poor” estimation Idea: predict the model behaviour from estimation data only: FPE criterion AIC , MDL (Akaike) (Akaike) (Rissanen)

  4. Introduction (2)  Almost ever in L2 prediction error framework !! main advantage: main disadvantages: - L2 optimization simplicity - lack of robustness: “tail-problem” (Rice et al 64) - great statistical sensitivity / data  L1 approach : some interesting recent results - modeling uncertain systems via LP + LSAD criterion (Gustafsson & Mäkilä , Automatica, 96) - FPE criterion in L1 identification (Carmona et al. , CDC02, 02) motivation: prediction residuals rather Laplacian distributed & lack of efficient validation tools in L1 approaches

  5. 2. The Prediction Error Framework discrete-time SISO system S : parameterized model structure M: one-step ahead predictor : prediction errors : true system S0 :

  6. The Prediction Error Framework (2) estimation data set : estimation criterion : estimation cost function : - L2 approach: LS criterion - L1 approach : LSAD criterion

  7. 3. Main Statistical Properties • Convergence properties : ( see L. Ljung 1999) let : where : then : i.e. The estimate converges to « the best approximation » in M

  8. asymptotic properties of the estimate : q0 hyp 1 : Mis globally identifiable at then: , the “true noise” normal distribution : of the estimate around its limit and : with covariance matrix : where : (parameter vector gradient)

  9. asymptotic properties of the estimate (2) Some comments : in L2 case (see L. Ljung 99) , where l0 is the variance of the « true noise ». in L1 case, Q does not depend directly on l0 winteresting in case of noisy measurements zdiserves more investigations !

  10. 4. L1 Final Prediction Error criterion Validation criterion principle: = prediction of the (estimation criterion) on estimation data only , i.e. L1 FPE criterion : L2 FPE criterion : noise variance (to be evaluated!)

  11. 5. L1 Akaike Information Criterion : Idea: minimization of the information distance model / true system distance: Kullbach-Leibler measure between their PDFs AIC rule: where (L2 case): complexity term: ( MDL criterion ) Rissanen rule :

  12. L1 Akaike Information Criterion (2) L1 case: as for L1 FPE ! : L2 case: 2d/N , versus L1 case: d/N !! first conclusions: - FPE and AIC criteria “exist” in L1 identification - surprise: thy are simpler than in L2 context: weak influence of the noise variance complexity term less penalizing

  13. 6. Distance between 2 estimated models New problem: and are two (estimated) models. What about “their distance” ? assumptions: - independent of the estimation method (L2, L1, …) - based on time observations and measurements only : u(t), y(t), e(t), … Assumption: and comes from the same dataZN Based on an original result of L. Ljung and L. Guo (1997)

  14. distance between 2 estimated models (2) past inputs on horizon M: « information » matrix RN : supposed invertible (input PE) hyp: bounded input:  Cu = Max |u(t)| , t  [1,N] Identification problem: extra mode investigation = order increase 1 or 2 i.e. order G2 = order G1 + 1 (or +2) rather « high frequency mode »  tails of impulse response: for k  M, 1k 2k  k 1k- 2k  0 , let: , and: (input periodogram)

  15. distance between 2 estimated models (3) theorem: where: impulse response tails: (assumption 1) L(e j) : linear stable filter correlation term residuals / past inputs: , with: (t) = L(q)[ 1(t) – 2(t) ] ( filtered residuals)

  16. distance between 2 estimated models (3) some comments: 1. Only 1 term: correlation term  simplicity ! 2. Discussion on M / N : in any case N the largest possible !! assumption 1  M large definition : sum of positive terms  M small  trade off !! wehave:

  17. 7. Application and experimental results the process • Noise propagating through a semi-infinite duct • Control oriented identification (Active Noise Control) • Not really rational noise spectrum not really rational • OE model structure M : more precisely moles analysis  d = nA

  18. application and experimental results (2) • Comparison FPE criterion L1 / L2 estimation • (use of standard algorithms) . 17 seems to be the best order for both criteria (notice the more marked « knee » in L1 case)

  19. application and experimental results (3) 2. Bound analysis versus model order increase (oder increase of 1 and 2 are presented)

  20. application and experimental results (4) : oder increase = 2 L2 case: odd values L1 case: odd values L1 case: even values L2 case: even values

  21. application and experimental results (5) : some comments L1 estimation: important  variations for " low " model orders process dynamics captured step 1 ex: 3  4  5  6 , 9 10 and 11  12  physically confirmed : (5  6)  tHP step 2 ex: 5  7 and 12  14  physically confirmed : (5  7)  1st acoustical mode (12  14)  2d acoustical mode L2 estimation:  same conclusions important  variations for " high" model orders Important difference ! Could we conclude: "L1 gives better low order models / L2 gives better high order models "   ??

  22. Conclusion • we have shown that: • FPE, AIC rules are " simple” in L1 case  easy to use available (easy to use ) • 2. we have proposed: • a measure of the distance between 2 estimated models • (the cost of the estimation ?!) • 3. Some research "directions " : • - optimization of the choice of M (past inputs horizon) • - analyze the correlation between the terms (L1 case) and (L2 case) • versus • low order model estimates in L1 case / high order in L2 case

More Related