Optimal input design for system identification using spectral decomposition

References

• Agüero, J. C., Rojas, C. R., & Goodwin, G. C. (2009). Fundamental limitations on the accuracy of mimo linear models obtained by pem for systems operating in open loop. Proceedings of the joint 48th ieee conference on decision and control (cdc 09) and 28th Chinese control conference (ccc 09) (pp. 482–487), Shanghai.
   Google Scholar
• Alberer, D., Hjalmarsson, H., & Del Re, L. (2011). Identification for automotive systems (Vol. 418). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Annergren, M., Larsson, C. A., Hjalmarsson, H., Bombois, X., & Wahlberg, B. (2017). Application-oriented input design in system identification: Optimal input design for control [applications of control]. IEEE Control Systems, 37(2), 31–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoki, M., & Staley, R. M. (1970). On input signal synthesis in parameter identification. Automatica, 6(3), 431–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barenthin, M., Bombois, X., Hjalmarsson, H., & Scorletti, G. (2008). Identification for control of multivariable systems: Controller validation and experiment design via lmis. Automatica, 44(12), 3070–3078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, A. (2009). Convexity properties associated with nonconvex quadratic matrix functions and applications to quadratic programming. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 142(1), 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex optimization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, C. S. (1980). On the e-optimality of some block designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 42, 199–204.
   Google Scholar
• Constantine, G. M. (1981). Some e-optimal block designs. The Annals of Statistics, 9, 886–892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dymarsky, A. (2014). On the convexity of image of a multidimensional quadratic map. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2254.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, H., Depcik, C., & Lvovich, V. (2018). Optimal pulse-modulated lithium-ion battery charging: Algorithms and simulation. Journal of Energy Storage, 15, 359–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, A. J., & Leang, K. K. (2014). Design, modeling and control of nanopositioning systems. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gerencsér, L., Hjalmarsson, H., & Huang, L. (2017). Adaptive input design for lti systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(5), 2390–2405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. C., & Payne, R. L. (1977). Dynamic system identification: Experiment design and data analysis (Vol. 26). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, M., Boyd, S., & Ye, Y. (2008). Cvx: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0 beta, Sept. 2012. Available on-line at http://cvxr.com/cvx
   Google Scholar
• Hiriart-Urruty, J. B., & Torki, M. (2002). Permanently going back and forth between the ‘quadratic world’ and the ‘convexity world’ in optimization. Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 45(2), 169–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansson, H., & Hjalmarsson, H. (2005). Input design via lmis admitting frequency-wise model specifications in confidence regions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 50(10), 1534–1549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, S. M. (1993). Fundamentals of statistical signal processing, volume I: Estimation theory (v. 1). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Konno, H. (1976). Maximization of a convex quadratic function under linear constraints. Mathematical Programming, 11(1), 117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, A., Nabil, M., & Narasimhan, S. (2015). Economical input design for identification of multivariate systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(28), 1313–1318.
   Google Scholar
• Ljung, L., Hjalmarsson, H., & Ohlsson, H. (2011). Four encounters with system identification. European Journal of Control, 17(5–6), 449–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchester, I. (2009). An algorithm for amplitude-constrained input design for system identification. Proceedings of the 48th ieee conference on Decision and control, 2009 held jointly with the 28th Chinese control conference. cdc/ccc 2009 (pp. 1551–1556), Shanghai.
   Google Scholar
• Martín, C. A., Hekler, E. B., Deshpande, S., & Rivera, D. E. (2015). A system identification approach for improving behavioral interventions based on social cognitive theory. Proceedings of American Control Conference, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Mehra, R. K. (1974). Optimal input signals for parameter estimation in dynamic systems – survey and new results. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 753–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahi, N., & DE Wallis, J. (1969). Optimal inputs for parameter estimation in dynamic systems with white observation noise. Joint Automatic Control Conference, Boulder.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, M. T. (2001). Functional analysis: A first course. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt.
   Google Scholar
• Polyak, B. T. (1998). Convexity of quadratic transformations and its use in control and optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 99(3), 553–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preumont, A., & Seto, K. (2008). Active control of structures. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Ramana, M., & Goldman, A. (1994). Quadratic maps with convex images. Rutgers University, Rutgers Center for Operations Research [RUTCOR].
   Google Scholar
• Rantzer, A. (1996). On the Kalman–Yakubovich–Popov lemma. Systems & Control Letters, 28(1), 7–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rensfelt, A., & Söderström, T. (2006). Optimal excitation for nonparametric identification of viscoelastic materials (Tech. Rep.). Citeseer.
   Google Scholar
• Rensfelt, A., & Soderstrom, T. (2011). Optimal excitation for nonparametric identification of viscoelastic materials. IEEE transactions on Control Systems Technology, 19(1), 238–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, C. R., Welsh, J. S., Goodwin, G. C., & Feuer, A. (2007). Robust optimal experiment design for system identification. Automatica, 43(6), 993–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, B., Rojas, C. R., Vandersteen, G., Bragos, R., & Schoukens, J. (2012). On the calculation of the d-optimal multisine excitation power spectrum for broadband impedance spectroscopy measurements. Measurement Science and Technology, 23(8), 085702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheriff, J. L. (2013). The convexity of quadratic maps and the controllability of coupled systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
   Google Scholar
• Söderström, T., & Stoica, P. (1988). System identification. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Söderström, T., & Stoica, P. (1989). System identification. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
   Google Scholar
• Söderström, T., & Stoica, P. (2002). Instrumental variable methods for system identification. Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing, 21(1), 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava, J., & Anderson, D. (1974). A comparison of the determinant, maximum root, and trace optimality criteria. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 3(10), 933–940.
   Google Scholar
• Stoica, P., & Moses, R. L. (2005). Spectral analysis of signals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, G. T. (1972). The factorization of matricial spectral densities. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 23(4), 420–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, Y. K., Aphale, S. S., & Moheimani, S. R. (2009). Design, identification, and control of a flexure-based xy stage for fast nanoscale positioning. IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, 8(1), 46–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, P., & Jakeman, A. (1980). Refined instrumental variable methods of recursive time-series analysis part iii. Extensions. International Journal of Control, 31(4), 741–764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarrop, M., & Goodwin, G. (1975). Comments on ‘optimal inputs for system identification’. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 20(2), 299–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar