Learning Stable Linear Dynamical Systems for Dynamic Textures

1. A Constraint Generation Approach to Learning Stable Linear Dynamical Systems Sajid M. SiddiqiByron BootsGeoffrey J. Gordon Carnegie Mellon University NIPS 2007poster W22

2. steam

3. Application: Dynamic Textures1 • Videos of moving scenes that exhibit stationarity properties • Dynamics can be captured by a low-dimensional model • Learned models can efficiently simulate realistic sequences • Applications: compression, recognition, synthesis of videos steam river fountain 1 S. Soatto, D. Doretto and Y. Wu. Dynamic Textures. Proceedings of the ICCV, 2001

4. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence

5. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence

6. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence • Assume a latent variable that explains the data

7. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence • Assume a latent variable that explains the data

8. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence • Assume a latent variable that explains the data • Assume a Markov model on the latent variable

9. Linear Dynamical Systems • Input data sequence • Assume a latent variable that explains the data • Assume a Markov model on the latent variable

10. Linear Dynamical Systems2 • State and observation models: • Dynamics matrix: • Observation matrix: 2 Kalman, R. E. (1960). A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans.ASME-JBE

11. Linear Dynamical Systems2 • State and observation models: • Dynamics matrix: • Observation matrix: • This talk: • Learning LDS parameters from data while ensuring a stable dynamics matrix Amore efficiently and accurately than previous methods 2 Kalman, R. E. (1960). A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans.ASME-JBE

12. Learning Linear Dynamical Systems • Suppose we have an estimated state sequence

13. Learning Linear Dynamical Systems • Suppose we have an estimated state sequence • Define state reconstruction error as the objective:

14. Learning Linear Dynamical Systems • Suppose we have an estimated state sequence • Define state reconstruction error as the objective: • We would like to learn such that i.e.

15. Subspace Identification3 • Subspace ID uses matrix decomposition to estimate the state sequence 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

16. Subspace Identification3 • Subspace ID uses matrix decomposition to estimate the state sequence • Build a Hankel matrixD of stacked observations 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

17. Subspace Identification3 • Subspace ID uses matrix decomposition to estimate the state sequence • Build a Hankel matrixD of stacked observations 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

18. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

19. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

20. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

21. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! • Can use SVD to obtain the low-dimensional state sequence 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

22. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! • Can use SVD to obtain the low-dimensional state sequence For D with k observations per column, = 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

23. Subspace Identification3 • In expectation, the Hankel matrix is inherently low-rank! • Can use SVD to obtain the low-dimensional state sequence For D with k observations per column, = 3 P.Van Overschee and B. De Moor Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer, 1996

24. Lets train an LDS for steam textures using this algorithm, and simulate a video from it! = [ …] xt2 R40

25. Simulating from a learned model xt t The model is unstable

26. Notation • 1 , … , n : eigenvalues of A (|1| > … > |n| ) • 1,…,n: unit-length eigenvectors of A • 1,…,n: singular values of A (1 > 2 > … n) • S : matrices with |1| · 1 • S : matrices with1 · 1

27. Stability • a matrix A is stable if |1|· 1, i.e. if

28. Stability • a matrix A is stable if |1|· 1, i.e. if

29. Stability • a matrix A is stable if |1|· 1, i.e. if |1| = 0.3 |1| = 1.295

30. Stability • a matrix A is stable if |1|· 1, i.e. if xt(1), xt(2) |1| = 0.3 xt(1), xt(2) |1| = 1.295

31. Stability • a matrix A is stable if |1|· 1, i.e. if • We would like to solve xt(1), xt(2) |1| = 0.3 xt(1), xt(2) |1| = 1.295 s.t.

32. Stability and Convexity • ButS is non-convex!

33. Stability and Convexity • ButS is non-convex! A1 A2

34. Stability and Convexity • ButS is non-convex! • Lets look at S instead … • S is convex • S µS A1 A2

35. Stability and Convexity • ButS is non-convex! • Lets look at S instead … • S is convex • S µS A1 A2

36. Stability and Convexity • ButS is non-convex! • Lets look at S instead … • S is convex • S µS • Previous work4exploits these properties to learn a stable A bysolving the semi-definite program A1 A2 s.t. 4 S. L. Lacy and D. S. Bernstein. Subspace identification with guaranteed stability using constrained optimization. In Proc. of the ACC (2002), IEEE Trans. Automatic Control (2003)

37. Lets train an LDS for steam again, this time constraining A to be in S

38. Simulating from a Lacy-Bernstein stable texture model xt t Model is over-constrained.Can we do better?

39. Our Approach • Formulate the S approximation of the problem as a semi-definite program (SDP) • Start with a quadratic program (QP)relaxation of this SDP, and incrementally add constraints • Because the SDP is an inner approximation of the problem, we reach stabilityearly, before reaching the feasible set of the SDP • We interpolate the solution to return the best stable matrix possible

40. The Algorithm

41. The Algorithm objective function contours

42. The Algorithm objective function contours • A1: unconstrained QP solution (least squares estimate)

43. The Algorithm objective function contours • A1: unconstrained QP solution (least squares estimate)

44. The Algorithm objective function contours • A1: unconstrained QP solution (least squares estimate) • A2:QP solution after 1 constraint (happens to be stable)

45. The Algorithm objective function contours • A1: unconstrained QP solution (least squares estimate) • A2:QP solution after 1 constraint (happens to be stable) • Afinal:Interpolation of stable solution with the last one

46. The Algorithm objective function contours • A1: unconstrained QP solution (least squares estimate) • A2:QP solution after 1 constraint (happens to be stable) • Afinal:Interpolation of stable solution with the last one • Aprevious method:Lacy Bernstein (2002)

47. Lets train an LDS for steam using constraint generation, and simulate …

48. Simulating from a Constraint Generation stable texture model xt t Model captures more dynamics and is still stable

49. Least Squares • Constraint Generation

50. Empirical Evaluation • Algorithms: • Constraint Generation – CG (our method) • Lacy and Bernstein (2002) –LB-1 • finds a 1· 1 solution • Lacy and Bernstein (2003)–LB-2 • solves a similar problem in a transformed space • Data sets • Dynamic textures • Biosurveillance baseline models (see paper)