QUADRATIC BASIS PURSUIT IN MODEL UPDATING OF UNDERCONSTRAINED PROBLEMS

被引:0
|
作者
Bernal, Dionisio [1 ]
Ulriksen, Martin D. [2 ]
机构
[1] Northeastern Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Aalborg Univ, Dept Energy, DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
来源
XII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, EURODYN 2023 | 2024年 / 2647卷
关键词
Basis Pursuit; Model Updating; Sparse Solutions;
D O I
10.1088/1742-6596/2647/25/252001
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
This paper considers the extraction of sparse solutions using the L1 minimization surrogate for two approximations of the nonlinear relation between parameters and features; in the first, nonlinearity is discarded altogether and in the second a quadratic relation is assumed. The associated algorithms are the well-known Basis Pursuit (BP) and the more recently introduced Quadratic Basis Pursuit (QBP). It is contended that measuring success by comparing the extracted solutions with the underlying truth is unnecessary, as all that's needed from the extractor is to identify a sufficiently small parameter set to render the problem determined. Specifically, with p as the number of features, one is interest in the likelihood that the algorithm leads to Omega(p) boolean AND Theta = Theta, where Theta(p) = true set and Omega(p) set of the largest p non-zero entries in the solution. When operating in this manner the disruption that nonlinearity brings into the BP solution derives only from the nonlinearity induced rotation of the right-hand side away from the span of the column partition of the Jacobian for the non-zero entries. From this perspective one expects performance to deteriorate only weakly with the extent of damage and this result is numerically confirmed. It is found that although QBP has the quadratic premise as an advantage over BP, the performance in simulations, due to the difficulty in obtaining optimal values for the free parameters (and the fact that damage extent prediction was not relevant) proved somewhat poorer than BP.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Model updating in structural dynamics: A generalised reference basis approach
    Kenigsbuch, R
    Halevi, Y
    MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, 1998, 12 (01) : 75 - 90
  • [32] Model updating via weighted reference basis with connectivity constraints
    Halevi, Y
    Bucher, I
    JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION, 2003, 265 (03) : 561 - 581
  • [33] SOLVABILITY OF LINEAR-QUADRATIC DIFFERENTIAL GAMES ASSOCIATED WITH PURSUIT-EVASION PROBLEMS
    Shinar, Josef
    Turetsky, Vladimir
    Glizer, Valery Y.
    Ianovsky, Eduard
    INTERNATIONAL GAME THEORY REVIEW, 2008, 10 (04) : 481 - 515
  • [34] THE ORIGINS AND BASIS OF THE LINEAR-QUADRATIC MODEL - RESPONSE
    YAES, RJ
    MARUYAMA, Y
    PATEL, P
    URANO, M
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1992, 23 (01): : 252 - 253
  • [35] Method validation approach on the basis of a quadratic regression model
    Steliopoulos, R.
    Stickel, E.
    Haas, H.
    Kranz, S.
    ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2006, 572 (01) : 121 - 124
  • [36] Alternating projection method for sparse model updating problems
    Bo Dong
    Yan Yu
    Dan Dan Tian
    Journal of Engineering Mathematics, 2015, 93 : 159 - 173
  • [37] Alternating projection method for sparse model updating problems
    Dong, Bo
    Yu, Yan
    Tian, Dan Dan
    JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS, 2015, 93 (01) : 159 - 173
  • [38] Basis- and partition identification for quadratic programming and linear complementarity problems
    Arjan B. Berkelaar
    Benjamin Jansen
    Kees Roos
    Tamás Terlaky
    Mathematical Programming, 1999, 86 : 261 - 282
  • [39] Distributed Field Reconstruction With Model-Robust Basis Pursuit
    Schmidt, Aurora
    Moura, Jose M. F.
    2012 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH AND SIGNAL PROCESSING (ICASSP), 2012, : 2673 - 2676
  • [40] Basis- and partition identification for quadratic programming and linear complementarity problems
    Berkelaar, AB
    Jansen, B
    Roos, K
    Terlaky, T
    MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING, 1999, 86 (02) : 261 - 282