skip to main content
research-article

Deriving Equations from Sensor Data Using Dimensional Function Synthesis

Published:08 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present a new method for deriving functions that model the relationship between multiple signals in a physical system. The method, which we call dimensional function synthesis, applies to data streams where the dimensions of the signals are known. The method comprises two phases: a compile-time synthesis phase and a subsequent calibration using sensor data.

We implement dimensional function synthesis and use the implementation to demonstrate efficiently summarizing multi-modal sensor data for two physical systems using 90 laboratory experiments and 10 000 synthetic idealized measurements. We evaluate the performance of the compile-time phase of dimensional function synthesis as well as the calibration phase overhead, inference latency, and accuracy of the models our method generates.

The results show that our technique can generate models in less than 300 ms on average across all the physical systems we evaluated. When calibrated with sensor data, our models outperform traditional regression and neural network models in inference accuracy in all the cases we evaluated. In addition, our models perform better in training latency (over 8660× improvement) and required arithmetic operations in inference (over 34× improvement). These significant gains are largely the result of exploiting information on the physics of signals that has hitherto been ignored.

References

  1. Eric Allen, David Chase, Victor Luchangco, Jan-Willem Maessen, and Guy L. Steele, Jr. 2004. Object-oriented units of measurement. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 384--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Tudor Antoniu, Paul A. Steckler, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Erich Neuwirth, and Matthias Felleisen. 2004. Validating the unit correctness of spreadsheet programs. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 439--448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Michel Babout, Hafid Sidhoum, and Louis Frecon. 1990. AMPERE: A programming language for physics. European Journal of Physics 11, 3 (1990), 163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. David Barber. 2012. Bayesian Reasoning and Machine Learning. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Geoffrey Biggs and Bruce A. Macdonald. 2008. A pragmatic approach to dimensional analysis for mobile robotic programming. Auton. Robots 25, 4 (Nov. 2008), 405--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Edgar Buckingham. 1914. On physically similar systems; Illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Physical Review 4, 4 (1914), 345--376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Donald E. Carlson. 1979. A mathematical theory of physical units, dimensions, and measures. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 70, 4 (1979), 289--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Feng Chen, Grigore Roşu, and Ram Prasad Venkatesan. 2003. Rule-based analysis of dimensional safety. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA’03). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 197--207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robert F. Cmelik and Narain H. Gehani. 1988. Dimensional analysis with C++. IEEE Softw. 5, 3 (May 1988), 21--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Donald E. Carlson. 1978. On some new results in dimensional analysis. (1978).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Harald Hanche-Olsen. 2004. Buckingham’s pi-theorem. NTNU: http://www.math.ntnu.no/˜hanche/notes/buckingham/buckingham-a4.pdf (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Paul N. Hilfinger. 1988. An ada package for dimensional analysis. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 10, 2 (April 1988), 189--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel J. A. Hills, Adrian M. Grütter, and Jonathan J. Hudson. 2015. An algorithm for discovering Lagrangians automatically from data. PeerJ Computer Science 1 (nov 2015), e31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mark Hills, Feng Chen, and Grigore Roşu. 2012. A rewriting logic approach to static checking of units of measurement in C. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 290 (Dec. 2012), 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. T. House. 1983. A proposal for an extended form of type checking of expressions. Comput. J. 26, 4 (Nov. 1983), 366--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dan Jonsson. 2014. Dimensional analysis: A centenary update. 1 (2014), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Andrew Kennedy. 1994. Dimension types. In Proceedings of the 5th European Symposium on Programming: Programming Languages and Systems (ESOP’94). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, 348--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Andrew J. Kennedy. 1997. Relational parametricity and units of measure. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 442--455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Patrick W. Langley. 1977. BACON: A production system that discovers empirical laws. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1 (IJCAI’77). San Francisco, CA, USA, 344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonathan Lim and Phillip Stanley-Marbell. 2018. Newton: A language for describing physics. CoRR abs/1811.04626 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lord Rayleigh. 1915. The principle of similitude. Nature 95 (dec 1915), 66--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. William H. Press, Saul a. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flannery. 1996. Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing. Second Edition. Vol. 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikael Rittri. 1995. Dimension inference under polymorphic recursion. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (FPCA’95). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 147--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Samuel H. Rudy, Steven L. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor, and J. Nathan Kutz. 2017. Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations. Science Advances 3, 4 (2017), e1602614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. 2009. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science 324, 5923 (2009), 81--85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165893Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Volker Simon, Bernhard Weigand, and Hassan Gomaa. 2017. Dimensional Analysis for Engineers. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ain A. Sonin. 2004. A generalization of the Π-theorem and dimensional analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 23 (2004), 8525--8526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Gilbert Strang. 2016. Introduction to Linear Algebra (fifth ed.). Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Wellesley, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G. Taylor. 1950. The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. II. The atomic explosion of 1945. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 201, 1065 (1950), 175--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Zerksis D. Umrigar. 1994. Fully static dimensional analysis with C++. SIGPLAN Not. 29, 9 (Sept. 1994), 135--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yihua Wu. 1989. Discovering natural laws by reduction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 4, 1 (1989), 35--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Deriving Equations from Sensor Data Using Dimensional Function Synthesis

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!