4.6 Article

Finite-Data Error Bounds for Koopman-Based Prediction and Control

期刊

JOURNAL OF NONLINEAR SCIENCE
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00332-022-09862-1

关键词

Koopman operator; Nonlinear systems; Error bounds; Data-driven control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, probabilistic bounds for the approximation error and the prediction error are derived for dynamical (control) systems using the Koopman operator. The analysis is extended to (stochastic) nonlinear control-affine systems. A previously proposed approach is proven to be effective in avoiding the curse of dimensionality. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated through comparisons with state-of-the-art techniques.
The Koopman operator has become an essential tool for data-driven approximation of dynamical (control) systems, e.g., via extended dynamic mode decomposition. Despite its popularity, convergence results and, in particular, error bounds are still scarce. In this paper, we derive probabilistic bounds for the approximation error and the prediction error depending on the number of training data points, for both ordinary and stochastic differential equations while using either ergodic trajectories or i.i.d. samples. We illustrate these bounds by means of an example with the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. Moreover, we extend our analysis to (stochastic) nonlinear control-affine systems. We prove error estimates for a previously proposed approach that exploits the linearity of the Koopman generator to obtain a bilinear surrogate control system and, thus, circumvents the curse of dimensionality since the system is not autonomized by augmenting the state by the control inputs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first finite-data error analysis in the stochastic and/or control setting. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the bilinear approach by comparing it with state-of-the-art techniques showing its superiority whenever state and control are coupled.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据