Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White

Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White
Theoretical and practical aspects of linear and nonlinear model order reduction techniques Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White December 19, 2007

Outline Motivation Overview of existing methods:
Linear MOR Nonlinear MOR TBR-based trajectory piecewise-linear method Modified AISIAD linear reduction method Graph-based model reduction for RC circuits Case study: microfluidic channel Conclusions Nonlinear Linear

Main motivation for MOR: system-level simulation
Q: How to reduce the cost of simulating the big system? System to simulate Device 2 Device 1 A: Reduce the complexity of each sub-system, i.e. approximate input-output behavior of the system by a system of lower complexity. Device 3 … … Device 10 The goal of MOR in a nutshell

Main motivation for MOR: system-level simulation
Modern processor or system-on-a chip > Millions of transistors > Kilometers of interconnects > Linear and nonlinear devices Figures thanks to Mike Chou, Michał Rewienski

Model reduction problem
inputs outputs Many (> 104) internal states inputs outputs few (<100) internal states Reduction should be automatic Must preserve input-output properties

Differential equation model
Original complex model: Model can represent: Finite-difference spatial discretization of PDEs Circuits with linear capacitors and inductors Need accurate input-output behavior

Nonlinear model reduction problem
Original complex model: Reduced model: Requirements for reduced model Want q << n (cost of simulation is q3) f r should be fast to compute Want yr(t) to be close to y(t)

Linear Model Model can represent: - state - vector of inputs
A – stable, n x n (large) - vector of inputs - vector of outputs Model can represent: Spatial discretization of linear PDEs Circuits with linear elements

Transfer function of LTI system
Laplace transform of the output Laplace transform of the input Matrix-valued rational function of s

Linear MOR Nonlinear MOR TBR-based trajectory piecewise-linear method Modified AISIAD linear reduction method Graph-based model reduction for RC circuits Case study: microfluidic channel Conclusions

Linear MOR problem n – large (thousands)! q – small (tens)
Need the reduction to be automatic and preserve input-output properties (transfer function)

Approximation error Wide-band applications: model should have small worst-case error maximal difference over all frequencies ω

Approximation error Narrow-band approximation: need good approximation only near particular frequency: Elmore delay: preserved if the first derivative at zero frequency is matched. ω frequency response

Linear MOR methods roadmap
Projection-based Non projection-based Most widely used. Will be the central topic of this work.

Projection-based linear MOR
Pick projection matrices V and U: such that VTU=I x Uz x n x U z q Ax VTAUz

Projection-based linear MOR
Important: reduced system depends only on column spans of V and U D = Dr, preserves response at infinite frequency

Projection-based Non projection-based V, U = eig{PQ, QP} Balancing-based (TBR) Krylov-subspace methods V, U = K((si I-A)-1,B), K((si I-A)-T,CT) Proper Orthogonal Decomposition methods V = U = {x(t1)… x(tq )}

Projection-based Non projection-based Will describe next. Balancing-based (TBR) Krylov-subspace methods V, U = K((si I-A)-1,B), K((si I-A)-T,CT) Proper Orthogonal Decomposition methods V = U = {x(t1)… x(tq )}

TBR idea P (controllability) Q (observability)
u y LTI SYSTEM t t input output P (controllability) Which states are easier to reach? Q (observability) Which states produce more output? X (state) Reduced model retains most controllable and most observable states Such states must be both very controllable and very observable

Balanced truncation reduction (TBR)
Compute controllability and observability gramians P and Q : (~n3) AP + PAT + BBT =0 ATQ + QA + CTC = 0 Reduced model keeps the dominant eigenspaces of PQ : (~n3) PQui = λiui vTiPQ = λivTi Reduced system: (VTAU, VTB, CU, D) Very expensive. P and Q are dense even for sparse models

TBR benefits Guaranteed stability
In practice provides more reduction than Krylov H-infinity error bound => ideal for wide-band approximations Hankel singular values

Projection-based Non projection-based Twice better error bound than TBR [Glover ’84] Hankel-optimal MOR Singular perturbation approximation Match at zero frequency instead of infinity [Liu ‘89] Transfer function fitting methods Promising topic of ongoing research [Sou ‘05]

Nonlinear MOR framework
Consider original (large) system: Projection of the nonlinear operator f(x): substitute x ≈ Uz and project residual onto VT Problem: evaluation of V Tf(Uz) is still expensive

Problem: evaluation of V Tf(Uz) is still expensive Two solutions: Use Taylor series of f Use TPWL approximation

Taylor series for nonlinear MOR
Problem: evaluation of V Tf(Uz) is still expensive Two solutions: Use Taylor series of f Use TPWL approximation Accurate only near expansion point or weakly nonlinear systems Storing of dense tensors is expensive; limits the series to orders no more than 3.

Problem: evaluation of V Tf(Uz) is still expensive Two solutions: Use Taylor series of f Use TPWL approximation Will be discussed next

wi(x) is zero outside circle
Trajectory piecewise linear (TPWL) approximation of f( ) [Rewieński, 2001] Training trajectory x0 x2 x1 … wi(x) is zero outside circle xs Simulating trajectory

Projection and TPWL approximation yields efficient f r( )
q x 1 Air Ai VT U = q Air q n n Evaluating fTPWLr( ) requires only O(sq2) operations

TPWL approximation of f( ). Extraction algorithm
Compute A1 Obtain V1 and U1 using linear reduction for A1 Simulate training input, collect and reduce linearizations Air = W1TAiV1 f r (xi)=W1Tf(xi) Initial system position x0 x2 x1 … xs Training trajectory Non-reduced state space

The matter of this contribution
What are projection options for TPWL? Krylov-subspace methods Balanced-truncation method Can we use it? Used in the original work [Rewienski ‘02]

non-symmetric, indefinite Jacobian
Example problem RLC line Linearized system has non-symmetric, indefinite Jacobian

Numerical results – nonlinear RLC transmission line
System response for input current i(t) = (sin(2π/10)+1)/2 Input: training input testing input Voltage at node 1 [V] Time [s]

Numerical results – RLC transmission line
TBR-based TPWL beat Krylov-based 4-th order TBR TPWL reaches the limit of TPWL representation Error in transient ||yr – y||2 Order of the reduced model

Micromachined switch example
Finite-difference model of order 880 non-symmetric indefinite Jacobian Model description [Hung ‘97]

TPWL-TBR results – MEMS switch example
Errors in transient Unstable! Odd order models unstable! Even order models beat Krylov ||yr – y||2 Why??? Order of reduced system

Explanation of even-odd effect – Problem statement
Consider two LTI systems: Initial: Perturbed: TBR reduction TBR reduction ~ Projection basis V Projection basis V Define our problem: How perturbation in the initial system affects TBR projection matrices?

Mixing of eigenvectors (assuming small perturbations):
Perturbation behavior of TBR basis is similar to symmetric eigenvalue problem Eigenvectors of M0 : Eigenvectors of M0 + Δ : Mixing of eigenvectors (assuming small perturbations): cik large when λi0 ≈ λk0

Hankel singular values, MEMS beam example
This is the key to the problem. Singular values are arranged in pairs! # of the Hankel singular value

Explaining even-odd behavior
The closer Hankel singular values lie to each other, the more corresponding eigenvectors of V tend to intermix! Analysis implies simple recipe for using TBR Pick reduced order to ensure that Remaining Hankel singular values are small enough The last kept and the first removed Hankel singular values are well separated Helps to ensure that linearizations are stable

Summary We used TBR-based linear reduction procedure to generate TPWL reduced models Order reduced 5 times while maintaining comparable accuracy with Krylov TPWL method (efficiency improved 125 times!) Simple recipe found which helps to ensure stability.

Balanced truncation reduction (TBR)
Compute controllability and observability gramians P and Q : (~n3) AP + PAT + BBT =0 ATQ + QA + CTC = 0 Reduced model keeps the dominant eigenspaces of PQ : (~n3) PQui = λiui vTiPQ = λivTi Reduced system: (VTAU, VTB, CU, D) Very expensive. P and Q are dense even for sparse models

However, what matters is the product PQ
Most reduction algorithms effectively separately approximate dominant eigenspaces of P and Q : Arnoldi [Grimme ‘97]: U = colsp{A-1B, A-2B, …}, V=U , approx. Pdom only Padé via Lanczos [Feldman and Freund ‘95] colsp(U) = {A-1B, A-2B, …}, - approx. Pdom colsp(V) = {A-TCT, (A-T )2CT, …}, - approx. Qdom Frequency domain POD [Willcox ‘02], Poor Man’s TBR [Phillips ‘04] colsp(U) = {(jω1I-A)-1B, (jω2I-A)-1B, …}, - approx. Pdom colsp(V) = {(jω1I-A)-TCT, (jω2I-A)-TCT, …}, - approx. Qdom However, what matters is the product PQ

RC line (symmetric circuit)
V(t) – input i(t) - output Symmetric Jacobian, B=CT, P=Q all controllable states are observable and vice versa

RLC line (nonsymmetric circuit)
Vector of states: P and Q are no longer equal! By keeping only mostly controllable and/or only mostly observable states, we may not find dominant eigenvectors of PQ

Lightly damped RLC circuit
y(t) = i1 R = 0.008, L = 10-5 C = 10-6 N=100 Exact low-rank approximations of P and Q of order < 50 leads to PQ ≈ 0

AISIAD model reduction algorithm
Idea of AISIAD approximation: Approximate eigenvectors using power iterations: Ui converges to dominant eigenvectors of PQ Need to find the product (PQ)Ui Xi = (PQ)Ui Ui+1 = qr(Xi) “iterate” How?

Approximation of the product Ui+1 =qr(PQUi), AISIAD algorithm
Vi ≈ qr(QUi) Ui+1 ≈ qr(PVi) Approximate using solution of Sylvester equation Approximate using solution of Sylvester equation

More detailed view of AISIAD approximation
Right-multiply by Vi (original AISIAD) X X H, qxq M, nxq

Modified AISIAD approximation
Right-multiply by Vi ^ X X H, qxq Approximate! M, nxq

Modified AISIAD approximation
Right-multiply by Vi ^ X X H, qxq Approximate! M, nxq We can take advantage of various methods, which approximate P and Q

Specialized Sylvester equation
X X -M + = H n x q q x q n x n Need only column span of X

Solving Sylvester equation
Schur decomposition of H : A X X -M ~ ~ ~ + = ~ Solve for columns of X X

Solving Sylvester equation
Schur decomposition of H : Applicable to any stable A Requires solving q times Solution can be accelerated via fast MVP Original method suggests IRA, needs A>0 [Zhou ‘02]

Modified AISIAD algorithm
LR-sqrt ^ ^ Obtain low-rank approximations of P and Q Solve AXi +XiH + M = 0, => Xi≈ PVi where H=ViTATVi, M = P(I - ViViT)ATVi + BBTVi Perform QR decomposition of Xi =UiR Solve ATYi +YiF + N = 0, => Yi≈ QUi where F=UiTAUi, N = Q(I - UiUiT)AUi + CTCUi Perform QR decomposition of Yi =Vi+1 R to get new iterate. Go to step 2 and iterate. Bi-orthogonalize V and U and construct reduced model: ^ ^ (VTAU, VTB, CU, D)

RLC line example results
H-infinity norm of reduction error (worst-case discrepancy over all frequencies) N = 1000, 1 input 2 outputs

Summary of the modified AISIAD
Fast approximation to TBR Especially useful if gramians do not share common dominant eigenspace Improved accuracy and extended applicability over AISIAD Generalized to the systems in descriptor form

Features of the method Hankel-optimal TBR Krylov-subspace methods
Reduction quality Hankel-optimal TBR Krylov-subspace methods Graph-based reduction: manipulates RC network by removing nodes and inserting new elements Cost of reduction

Linear RC network description
State-space model in the frequency domain: vs vm Vector of node voltages (state): Jm vk symmetric Jk External ports Conductance matrix is analogous, ground node is excluded.

Low-frequency approximation for reduced circuit
Consider removing a single internal node (Nth), partition matrices and vectors: Substitute vN in the system equations (one step of Gaussian elimination): Where

Node elimination Added conductance Capacitance-like Problem: last capacitance term is negative! Potentially inserting a negative capacitor??? The term was ignored in the TICER algorithm [Sheehan ‘99]. Leads to inconsistent diagonal update.

Node elimination – Theorem 1
Claim: keeping the exact Taylor series is OK: Gnew Cnew Proof: Define projection: Congruence transform Model is always stable and passive

Node elimination criteria
When is it safe to eliminate a node? Denominator expansion: (used in TICER) Numerator term ~s2 (element-by-element) (overlooked in TICER) Using these criteria the reduced order will be chosen on-the-fly

Resulting algorithm: Given the initial circuit and maximal frequency of interest Using lowest-degree ordering (minimize fill-ins) Perform the elimination of the “qualified” nodes by inserting new capacitors and resistors: (for every nodes i and j which were connected via the node N) Until no nodes satisfy elimination conditions.

Results: testing substitution rules
Testing only substitution rules, 1-CDF of the reduction error tested more than 30,000 circuits

Results: testing elimination conditions
Same elimination rules, same average reduction different elimination criteria: Narrower distribution Better worst-case accuracy

Summary of the new method
Improved accuracy and error control over TICER by using correct Taylor series and elimination criteria Preserves stability and passivity Generalized to parameter-dependent case Fastest, though conservative

Electro-osmotic flow in the 3D U-shaped microchannel
Inside the carrying fluid, marker fluid spreads governed by 3D convection-diffusion equation: u(t) = Cin(t) (input) r1 (outputs) y2(t) w Using mapped-domain finite-difference volume discretization, obtained model has 2842 unknowns (large) y1(t) =<Cout>(t) y3(t) V

How the marker spreads

Linear case In case of constant mobility and diffusivity the model is linear: Linear reduction techniques are extremely efficient for such models [Vasilyev, Rewienski, White ‘06]

Modified AISIAD reduction - results

TBR, Arnoldi and mAISIAD
Modified AISIAD runtime: 73s TBR runtime: 2207s (Matlab implementation)

Comparison with other reduction methods

Nonlinear microchannel problem
For arbitrary nonlinearity in convection and diffusion coefficients and TPWL, this problem is very challenging! [Vasilyev, Rewienski, White ‘06] However, the problem becomes more tractable, if one considers a quadratic problem This is the case for affine μ and D: μ(C) = μ0C+ μ1 D(C) = D0C+ D1

Quadratic model of microchannel system
Affine mobility and diffusivity leads to quadratic model: Use orthogonal projection V = U, V TV = I Reduced quadratic system

Quadratic microchannel problem - result
Projected reduced quadratic model of size 60 approximates original system of size 2842 quite well: Krylov-subspace basis, Quadratic reduction

Conclusions Performed applicability analysis of TBR-based TPWL models based on matrix perturbation theory Developed modified AISIAD method which is aimed at approximating TBR for the cases where gramians do not necessarily share common dominant eigenspaces Developed graph-based parameterized RC reduction method and improved nominal reduction

I extend my sincere thanks to:
Prof. Jacob White – my supervisor, Profs. Luca Daniel and Alexandre Megretski, Profs. Karen Willcox, John Kassakian, John Wyatt, Dr. Yehuda Avniel, Dr. Joel Phillips, Dr. Mark Reichelt My groupmates: Anne, Bo, Brad, Carlos, Dave, Jay, Jung Hoon, Homer, Kin, Laura, Lei, Michał, Shihhsien, Steve, Tarek, Tom, Xin, Zhenhai My wife, Patrycja Thank you! Спасибо! Grazie! Dziękuje! Komapsumnida! Xie Xie! Dua Netjer en ek!

For systems in the descriptor form
Generalized Lyapunov equations: Lead to similar approximate power iterations

mAISIAD and low-rank square root
Low-rank gramians (cost varies) mAISIAD LR-square root (inexpensive step) (more expensive) For the majority of non-symmetric cases, mAISIAD works better than low-rank square root

RLC line example results
H-infinity norm of reduction error (worst-case discrepancy over all frequencies) N = 1000, 1 input 2 outputs

Steel rail cooling profile benchmark
Taken from Oberwolfach benchmark collection, N= inputs, 6 outputs

mAISIAD is useless for symmetric models
For symmetric systems (A = AT, B = CT) P=Q, therefore mAISIAD is equivalent to LRSQRT for P,Q of order q ^ ^ RC line example

(non-descriptor case)
Cost of the algorithm Cost of the algorithm is directly proportional to the cost of solving a linear system: (where sjj is a complex number) Cost does not depend on the number of inputs and outputs (non-descriptor case) (descriptor case)

Lightly damped RLC circuit
Top 5 eigenvectors of P Top 5 eigenvectors of Q Union of eigenspaces of P and Q does not necessarily approximate dominant eigenspace of PQ .

Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dmitry Vasilyev Thesis supervisor: Jacob K White"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback