Identification of linear time-invariant systems with Dynamic Mode Decomposition
Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) is a popular data-driven framework to extract linear dynamics from complex high-dimensional systems. In this work, we study the system identification properties of DMD. We first show that DMD is invariant under linear transformations in the image of the data matrix. If, in addition, the data is constructed from a linear time-invariant system, then we prove that DMD can recover the original dynamics under mild conditions. If the linear dynamics are discretized with a Runge-Kutta method, then we further classify the error of the DMD approximation and detail that for one-stage Runge-Kutta methods even the continuous dynamics can be recovered with DMD. A numerical example illustrates the theoretical findings.
\section{Introduction}

Dynamical systems play a fundamental role in many modern modeling approaches of physical and chemical phenomena. The need for high fidelity models often results in large-scale dynamical systems, which are computationally demanding to solve, analyze, and optimize. Thus the last three decades have seen significant efforts to replace the so-called full-order model, which is considered the \emph{truth model}, with a computationally cheaper surrogate model \cite{BenCOW17,BauBF14,QuaMN16,Ant05,BenGW15,HesRS16,AntBG20}. Often, the surrogate model is constructed by projecting the dynamical system onto a low-dimensional manifold, thus requiring a state-space description of the differential equation. 

If a mathematical model is not available or not suited for modification,
data-driven methods like the \emph{Loewner framework} \cite{MayA07,BeaG12},
\emph{vector fitting} \cite{GusS99,DrmGB15a,DrmGB15b}, \emph{operator inference}
\cite{PehW16}, or \emph{dynamic mode decomposition}
(\textsf{DMD}\xspace) \cite{KutBBP16} may be used to create a low-dimensional realization
directly from measurement or simulation data of the system. Suppose the dynamical system that creates the data is linear. In that case, the Loewner framework and vector fitting are -- under some technical assumptions -- able to recover the original dynamical system and hence serve as system identification tools. Despite the popularity of \textsf{DMD}\xspace, a similar analysis seems to be missing, and this paper aims to close this gap. 

Since \textsf{DMD}\xspace creates a discrete, linear time-invariant dynamical system from data, we are interested answering the following questions:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item What is the impact of transformations of the data on the resulting \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation?
	\item Assume that the data used to generate the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation is obtained from a linear differential equation. Can we estimate the error between the continuous dynamics and the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation?
	\item Are there situations in which we are even able to recover the original dynamical system from the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation?
\end{enumerate}

It is essential to know, how the data for the construction of the \textsf{DMD}\xspace model is generated to answer these questions. Assuming exact measurements of the solution may be valid from a theoretical perspective only. Instead, we take the view of a numerical analyst and assume that the data is obtained via time integration of the dynamics with a general \emph{Runge-Kutta method} (\textsf{RKM}\xspace) with known order of convergence. Thus we can summarize the questions graphically as in \Cref{fig:problemSetup}. Hereby the dashed line represents the questions that we aim to answer in this paper.

\begin{figure}[ht]
	\centering
	\begin{tikzpicture}[auto,node distance=3.4cm]
		\node[entity] (dynSys) {$\dot{x} = Fx$};
		\node[entity] (discSys) [below = of dynSys]	{$x_{i+1} = Ax_{i}$};
		\node[entity] (data) [right = of discSys] {$(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}$};
		\node[entity] (transformedData) [right = of data] {$(\tilde{x}_i\vcentcolon=Tx_i)_{i=0}^{m}$};
		\node[entity] (dmdSys) [above = of data]	{$\tilde{x}_{i+1} = A_{\mathrm{DMD}}\tilde{x}_i$};
		\node[entity] (transformedDmdSys) [above = of transformedData]	{$\tilde{x}_{i+1} = \tilde{A}_{\mathrm{DMD}}\tilde{x}_i$};
		
	
		\path[->,very thick] (dynSys) edge node[align=center,xshift=-2.5cm] {time\\discretization\\\cref{subsec:RKM}} (discSys);
      	\draw[->, very thick] (discSys) -- node[align=center,yshift=-1.5em] {data\\generation} (data);
      	\path[->,very thick] (data) edge node[align=center,xshift=2cm] {\textsf{DMD}\xspace\\\cref{subsec:DMD}} (dmdSys);
      	\path[->,very thick] (data) edge node[align=center,yshift=-1.4em] {data\\transformation} (transformedData);
      	\path[->,very thick] (transformedData) edge node[align=center,xshift=-.2cm] {\textsf{DMD}\xspace\\\cref{subsec:DMD}} (transformedDmdSys);
      	
      
      	\path[<-,dashed,very thick] (dynSys) edge node[align=center,yshift=-1.5em] {error analysis\\identification\\[.5em]\cref{subsec:continuousTime}} (dmdSys);
      	\path[<-,dashed,very thick] (dmdSys) edge node[align=center,yshift=-1.5em] {transformation\\invariance\\[.5em]\cref{subsec:dataTransformation}} (transformedDmdSys);
      	\path[<-,dashed,very thick] (discSys) edge node[align=center,xshift=3.5em,yshift=1em,rotate=40] {identification\\[.5em]\cref{subsec:discreteTime}} (dmdSys);
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{Problem setup}
	\label{fig:problemSetup}
\end{figure}

\noindent Our main results are the following:
\begin{itemize}
	\item We show in \Cref{thm:invariance} that \textsf{DMD}\xspace is invariant in the image of the data under linear transformations of the data.
	\item \Cref{thm:exactDMD} details that \textsf{DMD}\xspace is able to identify to discrete-time dynamics, i.e., for every initial value in the image of the data, the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation exactly recovers the discrete-time dynamics. 
	\item In Theorem~\ref{thm:DMDapproximationError} we show that if the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation is constructed with data that is obtained via a \textsf{RKM}\xspace, then the approximation error of \textsf{DMD}\xspace with respect to the ordinary differential equation is in the order of the error of the \textsf{RKM}\xspace. If a one-stage \textsf{RKM}\xspace is used and the data is sufficiently rich, then the continous-time dynamics, i.e., the matrix $F$ in \Cref{fig:problemSetup} can be recovered, cf.~\Cref{lem:exactRKDMD}.
\end{itemize}

To render the manuscript self-contained, we recall important definitions and results for \textsf{RKM}\xspace and \textsf{DMD}\xspace in the upcoming \cref{subsec:RKM,subsec:DMD}, respectively, before we present our analysis in \cref{sec:errorAnalysis}. We conclude with a numerical example to confirm the theoretical findings.

\subsection*{Notation}
As is standard, $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ denote the positive integers and the real numbers, respectively. For any $n,m\in\mathbb{N}$, we denote with $\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ the set of $n\times m$ matrices with real entries. The set of nonsingular matrices of size $n\times n$ is denoted with $\GL{n}{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $A=[a_{ij}]\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$, $B\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times q}$, and $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ ($i=1,\ldots,k$). The transpose and the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $A$ are denoted with $A^T$ and $\pseudo{A}$, respectively. The Kronecker product $\otimes$ is defined as 

\begin{displaymath}
	A\otimes B \vcentcolon= \left[\begin{smallmatrix} a_{11}B & \cdots & a_{1m}B\\
		\vdots & & \vdots\\
		a_{n1}B & \cdots & a_{nm}B
	\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{np\times mq}.
\end{displaymath}

We will use $\spann\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$ to denote the linear span of the vectors
$x_1,\ldots,x_k$ and also casually write $\spann \{X\}=\spann\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$
for the column space of the matrix $X$ with $\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$ as its columns.
For $A\in \mathbb R^{n\times n}$ and a vector $x_0\in \mathbb R^{n}$, we denote
the reachable space as $\mathcal C(x_0, A)=\spann\{x_0, Ax_0, \dotsc,
A^{n-1}x_0\}$. 
For a continuously differentiable function $x:\mathbb{I}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ from the interval $\mathbb{I}\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ to the vector space $\mathbb{R}^n$ we use the notation $\dot{x} \vcentcolon= \tfrac{\text{\normalfont d}}{\text{\normalfont d}t} x$ to denote the derivative with respect to the independent variable $t$, which we refer to as the time.

\section{Preliminaries} 
As outlined in the introduction, \textsf{DMD}\xspace creates a finite-dimensional linear model to approximate the
original dynamics. Thus, in view of possibly exact system identification, we need to assume that the data that is fed to the \textsf{DMD}\xspace algorithm is obtained from a linear \textsf{ODE}\xspace, which in the sequel is denoted by
\begin{subequations}
	\label{eq:IVP}
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:ODE}
		\dot{x}(t) = Fx(t)
	\end{equation}
  with $F\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$. To fix a solution of \eqref{eq:ODE}, we prescribe the initial condition
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:IC}
		x(0) = x_0\in\mathbb{R}^{n},
	\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
and denote the solution of the \emph{initial value problem} (\textsf{IVP}\xspace) as $x(t;x_0) \vcentcolon= \exp(F t)x_0$.

\begin{Remark}
  While a \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation, despite its linearity, may well reproduce
  trajectories of nonlinear systems (see, e.g., \cite{Mez05}), the question of \textsf{DMD}\xspace being able to recover the full dynamics has to focus on linear systems. 
  Here, the key observation is that a \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation is a finite-dimensional linear map. In contrast, the encoding of nonlinear systems via a linear operator necessarily needs an infinite-dimensional mapping.
\end{Remark}
  
 
\subsection{Runge-Kutta methods}
\label{subsec:RKM}
To solve the \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} numerically, we employ a \textsf{RKM}\xspace, which is a common one-step method to approximate ordinary and differential-algebraic equations \cite{HaiNW08,KunM06}. More precisely, given a step size $h>0$, the solution of the \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} is approximated via the sequence $x_i \approx x(t_0 + ih)$ given by
\begin{subequations}
	\label{eq:RKmethod}
	\begin{equation}
		x_{i+1} = x_i + h\sum_{j=1}^s \beta_j k_j,
	\end{equation}
	with the so-called \emph{internal stages} $k_j\in\mathbb{R}^n$ (implicitly) defined via
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:internalStages}k_j = Fx_i + h \sum_{\ell=1}^s \alpha_{j,\ell} F k_\ell \qquad\text{for}\ j=1,\ldots,s.
	\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Using the matrix notation $\mathcal{A} = [\alpha_{j,\ell}]\in\mathbb{R}^{s\times s}$ and $\beta = [\beta_{j}]\in\mathbb{R}^s$ the $s$-stage \textsf{RKM}\xspace defined via \eqref{eq:RKmethod} is conveniently summarized with the pair $(\mathcal{A},\beta)$.  Note that we restrict our presentation to linear time-invariant dynamics and hence do not require the full Butcher tableau.


Since the \textsf{ODE}\xspace~\eqref{eq:ODE} is linear, we can rewrite the internal stages as
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:internalStages2}
	\begin{bmatrix}
		I_s - h \alpha_{1,1}F & -h \alpha_{1,2}F & \ldots & -h\alpha_{1,s}F\\
		-h\alpha_{2,1}F & I_s - h\alpha_{2,2}F & \ldots & -h\alpha_{2,s}F\\
		\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
		-h\alpha_{s,1}F & \cdots & -h\alpha_{s,s-1}F & I_s - h\alpha_{s,s}F
	\end{bmatrix}
	\begin{bmatrix}
		k_1\\k_2\\\vdots\\k_s
	\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
		Fx_i\\
		Fx_i\\
		\vdots\\
		Fx_i
	\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
Setting $k\vcentcolon= \begin{bmatrix}
	k_1^T & \ldots & k_s^T
\end{bmatrix}^T\in\mathbb{R}^{sn}$ and $e \vcentcolon= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \ldots 1\end{bmatrix}^T\in\mathbb{R}^s$, the linear system in \eqref{eq:internalStages2} can be written as
\begin{equation}
	(I_s\otimes I_{n} - h\mathcal{A}\otimes F)k = (e\otimes F)x_i,
\end{equation}
where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. If $h$ is small enough, the matrix $(I_s\otimes I_{n} - h\mathcal{A}\otimes F)$ is invertible and thus we obtain the discrete linear system
\begin{align*}
	x_{i+1} &= x_i + h\sum_{j=1}^s \beta_jk_j = x_i + h (\beta^T\otimes I_{n})k\\
	&= x_i + h (\beta^T\otimes I_{n}) \left(I_s\otimes I_{n} - h\mathcal{A}\otimes F\right)^{-1}(e\otimes F)x_i = A_{h}x_i,
\end{align*}
with 
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:discretizationRungeKutta}
	A_{h} \vcentcolon= I_{n} + h (\beta^T\otimes I_{n}) \left(I_s\otimes I_{n} - h\mathcal{A}\otimes F\right)^{-1}(e\otimes F).
\end{equation}

\begin{Example}
	The explicit Euler method is given as $(\mathcal{A},\beta) = (0,1)$ and according to \eqref{eq:discretizationRungeKutta} we obtain the well-known formula $A_{h} = I_{n} + h F$. For the implicit Euler method $(\mathcal{A},\beta) = (1,1)$ the discrete system matrix is given by 
	%
	\begin{displaymath}
		A_{h} = I_{n} + h(I_{n} - h F)^{-1}F = (I_{n} - h F)^{-1}(I_{n} - h F + h F) = (I_{n}-h F)^{-1}.
	\end{displaymath}
\end{Example}

To guarantee that the representation~\eqref{eq:discretizationRungeKutta} is valid, we will make the following assumption throughout the manuscript.

\begin{Assumption}
	\label{ass:suitableStepsize}
	For any $s$-stage \textsf{RKM}\xspace $(\mathcal{A},\beta)$ and any dynamical system matrix $F\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$ we assume that the step size $h$ is chosen such that the matrix $I_{sn} - h \mathcal{A}\otimes F$ is nonsingular.
\end{Assumption}

\begin{Remark}
	Using \Cref{ass:suitableStepsize}, the matrix $I_{sn} - h \mathcal{A}\otimes F$ is nonsingular and thus there exists a polynomial $p = \sum_{k=0}^{sn-1} p_kt^k \in\mathbb{R}[t]$ of degree at most $sn-1$ depending on the step size $h$ such that
	%
	\begin{align*}
		\left(I_{sn} - h \mathcal{A}\otimes F\right)^{-1} &= p(I_{sn} - h \mathcal{A}\otimes F) = \sum_{k=0}^{sn-1} p_k \left(I_{sn} - h \mathcal{A}\otimes F\right)^k\\
		&= \sum_{k=0}^{sn-1}p_k\sum_{\rho=0}^k \binom{k}{\rho} h^{\rho} (\mathcal{A}^\rho\otimes F^\rho),
	\end{align*}
	where the last equality follows from the binomial theorem. Consequently, we have
	%
	\begin{align}
    \label{eq:ah-as-polynomial}
		A_{h} = I_{n} + \sum_{k=0}^{sn-1}p_k\sum_{\rho=0}^k \binom{k}{\rho} h^{\rho+1} \left(\beta^T\mathcal{A}^\rho e\right) F^{\rho+1}.
	\end{align}
	Rearranging the terms together with the Cayley-Hamilton theorem implies the existence of a polynomial $\tilde{p}\in\mathbb{R}[t]$ of degree at most $n$ such that $A_{h} = \tilde{p}(F)$. As a direct consequence, we see that any eigenvector of $F$ is an eigenvector of $A_{h}$ and thus $A_{h}$ is diagonalizable if $F$ is diagonalizable.
\end{Remark}

Having computed the matrix $A_{h}$, the question that remains to be answered is the quality of the approximation $\|x(ih;x_0)-x_i\|$, which yields the following well-known definition (cf.~\cite{HaiNW08}).

\begin{Definition}
	A \textsf{RKM}\xspace $(\mathcal{A},\beta)$ has \emph{order $p$} if there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ (independent of $h$) such that
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:locerror-estimate}
		\|x(h;x_0)-x_1\| \leq Ch^{p+1}
	\end{equation}
	holds, where $x_1 = A_{h}x_0$ with $A_{h}$ defined as in \eqref{eq:discretizationRungeKutta}.
\end{Definition}

For one-step methods, it is well-known that the local errors -- as estimated in \eqref{eq:locerror-estimate} for the initial time step -- basically sum in the global error, such that the following estimate holds 

\begin{displaymath}
	\|x(Nh;x_0)-x_N\| \leq Ch^p;
\end{displaymath}
see, e.g., \cite[Thm.~II.3.6]{HaiNW08}.


\subsection{Dynamic Mode Decomposition}
\label{subsec:DMD}
For $i=0,\ldots,m$, assume data points $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ available.  The idea of \textsf{DMD}\xspace is to determine a linear time-invariant relation between the data, i.e., finding a matrix $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, such that the data approximately satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
	x_{i+1} \approx A_{\mathrm{DMD}} x_i\qquad \text{for $i=0,1,\ldots,m-1$}.
\end{displaymath}
Following \cite{TuRLBK14} we introduce
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:DMDdata}
	X \vcentcolon= \begin{bmatrix}
		x_0 & \ldots & x_{m-1}
	\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesm}\qquad\text{and}\qquad
	Z \vcentcolon= \begin{bmatrix}
		x_1 & \ldots & x_{m}
	\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesm}.
\end{equation}
Then, the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation matrix is defined as the minimum-norm solution of
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:DMDminFrob}
	\min_{M\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}} \|Z - MX\|_F,
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|_F$ denotes the Frobenius norm. It is easy to show that the minimum-norm solution is given by $A_{\mathrm{DMD}} = Z\pseudo{X}$ \cite{KutBBP16}, where $\pseudo{X}$ denotes the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $X$. This motivates the following definition.

\begin{Definition}
	\label{def:exactDMD}
	Consider the data $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,m$ and associated data matrices $X$ and $Z$ defined in~\eqref{eq:DMDdata}. Then the matrix $A_{\mathrm{DMD}} \vcentcolon= Z\pseudo{X}$ is called the \emph{\textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix} for $(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}$.  If the eigendecomposition of $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$ exists, then the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$ are called \emph{\textsf{DMD}\xspace eigenvalues} and \emph{\textsf{DMD}\xspace modes} of $(state_i)_{i=0}^{m}$, respectively.
\end{Definition}

The Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, and thus also the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix, can be computed
via the \emph{singular value decomposition} (\textsf{SVD}\xspace); see, e.g., \cite[Ch.
5.5.4]{GolV96}: Let
 %
\begin{displaymath}
	\begin{bmatrix}
		U & \bar{U}
	\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
		\Sigma & 0\\
		0 & 0
	\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
		V^\top\\
		\bar{V}^\top
	\end{bmatrix} = X
\end{displaymath}
denote the \textsf{SVD}\xspace of $X$, with $r \vcentcolon= \rank(X)$,  $U\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\Sigma\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ and $\rank(\Sigma) = r$, and $V\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times r}$. 
Then
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:moore-penrose-def-svd}
  \pseudo X = 
  \begin{bmatrix}
		V & \bar{V}
	\end{bmatrix}
  \begin{bmatrix}
    \Sigma^{-1} & 0\\
		0 & 0
	\end{bmatrix}
  \begin{bmatrix}
		U^\top\\
		\bar{U}^\top
	\end{bmatrix} = V\Sigma^{-1}U^\top
\end{equation}
and, thus,
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:DMDrealization}
	A_{\mathrm{DMD}} = Z V\Sigma^{-1}U^T.
\end{equation}
For later reference, we call $U\Sigma V^\top = X$ the \emph{trimmed \textsf{SVD}\xspace} of $X$.

\section{System identification and error analysis}
\label{sec:errorAnalysis}

In this section we present our main results. Before discussing system identification for discrete-time (cf.~\cref{subsec:discreteTime}) and continuous-time (cf.~\cref{subsec:continuousTime}) dynamical systems via \textsf{DMD}\xspace, we study the impact of transformations of the data on \textsf{DMD}\xspace in \cref{subsec:dataTransformation}.

\subsection{Data scaling and invariance of the DMD approximation}
\label{subsec:dataTransformation}

Scaling and more general transformation of data is often used to improve the performance of the methods that work on the data. Since \textsf{DMD}\xspace is inherently related to the Moore-Penrose inverse, we first study the impact of a nonsingular matrix $T\in\GL{n}{\mathbb{R}}$ on the generalized inverse. To this purpose, consider a matrix $X\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesm}$ with $r\vcentcolon= \rank(X)$. Let $X = U\Sigma V^\top$ denote the trimmed \textsf{SVD}\xspace of $X$ with $U\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\Sigma\in\GL{r}{\mathbb{R}}$ and $V\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times r}$. Let $TU = QR$ denote the QR-decomposition of $TU$ with $Q\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $R\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$. We immediately obtain $\rank(RS) = r$. Let $R\Sigma = \widehat{U}\widehat{\Sigma}\widehat{V}^\top$ denote the trimmed \textsf{SVD}\xspace of $R\Sigma$ with $\widehat{U}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\widehat{\Sigma}\in\GL{r}{\mathbb{R}}$, and $\widehat{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$.  We immediately infer
\begin{equation}
	\label{eqn:transformedRightSingularVector}
	\widehat{V}\widehat{V}^\top = I_r. 
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that the matrices $U_T \vcentcolon= Q\widehat{U}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, and $V_T \vcentcolon= V\widehat{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times r}$ satisfy $U_T^\top U_T = I_r = V_T^\top V_T$. The trimmed \textsf{SVD}\xspace of $TX$ is thus given by
\begin{displaymath}
	TX = TU\Sigma V^\top = QR\Sigma V^\top = Q\widehat{U}\widehat{\Sigma}\widehat{V}^\top V^\top = U_T\widehat{\Sigma}V_T^\top.
\end{displaymath}
We thus obtain
\begin{equation*}
	\pseudo{(TX)}TX = V_T V_T\top = V\widehat{V}\widehat{V}^\top V^\top = VV^\top = \pseudo{X}\pseudo{X}
\end{equation*}
where we have used the identity~\eqref{eqn:transformedRightSingularVector}. We have thus shown the following result.

\begin{Proposition}
	\label{prop:MPItransformation}
	Let $X\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesm}$ and $T\in\GL{n}{\mathbb{R}}$. Then  $\pseudo{(TX)}(TX) = \pseudo{X}{X}$.
\end{Proposition}

With these preparations, we can now show that the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation is partially invariant to general regular transformations applied to the training data. More precisely, a data transformation only affects the part of the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation that is not in the image of the data. 

\begin{Theorem}
	\label{thm:invariance}
	For given data $(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}$ consider the matrices $X$ and $Z$ as defined in~\eqref{eq:DMDdata} and the corresponding \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix $\dmdAg\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$. Consider $T\in \GL{n}{\mathbb{R}}$ and let
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		\tilde{X} \vcentcolon= TX 
		\quad\text{and}\quad
		\tilde{Z} \vcentcolon= TZ
	\end{equation*}
	be the matrices of the transformed data. Let $\tdmdAg \vcentcolon= \tilde{Z}\pseudo{\tilde{X}}$ denote the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix for the transformed data.
	Then the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix is invariant under the transformation in the image of~$X$, i.e.,
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		\dmdAg X = T^{-1}\tdmdAg T X = T^{-1}\tdmdAg \tilde{X}.
	\end{equation*}
  	Moreover, if $T$ is unitary or $\rank(X) = n$, then
  	%
  \begin{equation}
  \label{eq:DMDtransformation}
    \dmdAg = T^{-1}\tdmdAg T.
  \end{equation}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Using \Cref{prop:MPItransformation} we obtain
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		T^{-1}\tdmdAg TX = T^{-1} TZ \pseudo{(TX)}TX = Z\pseudo{X}X = \dmdAgX.
	\end{equation*}
	If $T$ is unitary or $\rank(X) = n$, then we immediately obtain $\pseudo{(TX)} = \pseudo{X}T^{-1}$, and thus
	%
  \begin{displaymath}
  	T^{-1}\tdmdAg T= T^{-1}TZ\pseudo{TX}T = Z \pseudo{X}T^{-1} T = \dmdAg,
  \end{displaymath}
  which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

While \Cref{thm:invariance} states that \textsf{DMD}\xspace is invariant under transformations
in the image of the data matrix, the invariance in the orthogonal complement of
the image of the data matrix, i.e., equality~\eqref{eq:DMDtransformation}, is in
general not satisfied. We illustrate this observation in the numerical simulations in a
later chapter and in the following analytical example.

\begin{Example}
	Consider the data vectors $x_i \vcentcolon= [i+1,0]^\top$ for $i=0,1,2$ and $T \vcentcolon= \left[\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 0\\ 1 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right]$. Then,
	%
	\begin{displaymath}
		X = \begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 2\\
			0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}, \quad Z = \begin{bmatrix}
			2 & 3\\
			0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},  \quad \pseudo{X} = \tfrac{1}{5}\begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 0\\
			2 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},\quad TX = \begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 2\\
			1 & 2
		\end{bmatrix}, \quad \pseudo{(TX)} = \tfrac{1}{10}\begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 2\\
			1 & 2
		\end{bmatrix}.
	\end{displaymath}
	We thus obtain
	\begin{equation*}
		\dmdAg = \tfrac{1}{5}\begin{bmatrix}
			8 & 0\\
			0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},\qquad
		\tdmdAg = \tfrac{1}{5}\begin{bmatrix}
			4 & 4\\
			4 & 4
		\end{bmatrix},\qquad \text{and}\qquad
		T^{-1}\tdmdAg T = \tfrac{1}{5}\begin{bmatrix}
			8 & 4\\
			0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},
	\end{equation*}
	confirming that \textsf{DMD}\xspace is invariant under transformations in the image of the data, but not in the orthogonal complement.
\end{Example}

\begin{Remark}
	One can show that in the setting from \Cref{thm:invariance},  the matrix $\widehat{M} \vcentcolon= TA_{\mathrm{DMD}} T^{-1}$ is a minimizer (not necessarily the minimum-norm solution) of 
	%
	\begin{equation*}
	
		\min_{M\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}} \frobnorm{\widehat{Z}-M\widehat{X}}.
	\end{equation*}
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Discrete-time dynamics}
\label{subsec:discreteTime}

In this subsection, we focus on the identification of discrete-time dynamics, which are exemplified by the discrete-time system
\begin{equation}
	\label{eqn:discreteSystem}
	x_{i+1} = Ax_i
\end{equation}
with initial value $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and system matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$.  The question that we want to answer is to what extend \textsf{DMD}\xspace is able to recover the matrix $A$ solely from data.

\begin{Proposition}
	\label{prop:discreteRealization}
	Consider data $(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}$ generated by~\eqref{eqn:discreteSystem}, associated data matrices $X, Z$ as defined in~\eqref{eq:DMDdata}, and the corresponding \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$.  Moreover let $U\Sigma V^\top = X$ with $U\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\Sigma\in\GL{r}{\mathbb{R}}$, $V\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times r}$, and $r \vcentcolon= \rank(X)$ denote the trimmed \textsf{SVD}\xspace of $X$ defined in \eqref{eq:DMDdata}. Then
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:dmdA-skinnySVD}
		A_{\mathrm{DMD}} = A UU^\top.
	\end{equation}
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof}
	By assumption, we have
	$X = \begin{bmatrix}
			x_0 & Ax_0 & \cdots & A^{m-1}x_0
		\end{bmatrix}$ and $Z = AX = A U\Sigma V^\top$.  We conclude

	\begin{equation*}
		A_{\mathrm{DMD}} = Z\pseudo{X} = A U\Sigma V^\top V\Sigma^{-1}U^\top = A UU^\top.\qquad\qedhere
	\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
\label{rem:controllability-and-full-rank}
We immediately conclude that \textsf{DMD}\xspace recovers the true dynamics, i.e.,
$A_{\mathrm{DMD}} = A$, whenever $\rank(X) = n$. This is the case if
and only if $(A,x_0)$ is controllable, i.e., $\mathcal C(A, x_0)$ has
dimension $n$, and the data set is sufficiently rich, i.e., $m \geq n$. 
\end{Remark}

Our next theorem identifies the part of the dynamics that is exactly recovered in the case
that $\rank(X) < n$ that occurs for $(A, x_0)$ not controllable
or $m < n$.
\begin{Theorem}
	\label{thm:exactDMD}
	Consider the setting of \Cref{prop:discreteRealization}.  If $\spann\{U\}$ is $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$-invariant, then the DMD approximation is exact in the image of $U$, i.e.,
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eqn:exactDMD}
		(A^i-A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i)x = 0\qquad\text{for all $i\geq 0$ and $x\in \spann\{U\}$.}
	\end{equation}
	If in addition, $\ker(A)\cap \spann\{U\}^\perp = \{0\}$, then also the converse direction holds.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Let $x\in \spann\{U\}$. Since $\spann\{U\}$ is $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$ invariant, we conclude $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^ix\in\spann\{U\}$ for $i\geq 0$, i.e., there exist $y_i\in\mathbb{R}^r$ such that $A_{\mathrm{\textsf{DMD}\xspace}}^ix = Uy_i$. Using \Cref{prop:discreteRealization} we conclude
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^{i+1}x = A_{\mathrm{DMD}} A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i x = A_{\mathrm{DMD}} Uy_i = Ay_i.
	\end{equation*}
	The proof of~\eqref{eqn:exactDMD} follows via induction over $i$. For the converse direction, let $x = x_U + x_U^\perp$ with $x_U\in\spann\{U\}$ and $x_U^\perp \in \spann\{U\}^\perp$.  \Cref{prop:discreteRealization} and~\eqref{eqn:exactDMD} imply
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		(A-A_{\mathrm{DMD}})x = Ax_U^\perp \neq 0,
	\end{equation*}
	which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
	The proof of~\Cref{thm:exactDMD} details that $\spann\{U\}$ is $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$-invariant if and only if $\spann\{U\}$ is $A$-invariant.  Moreover, $\spann\{U\} = \spann\{X\}$ implies that this condition can be checked easily during the data-generation process.  If we further assume that the data is generated via~\eqref{eqn:discreteSystem}, then this is the case,  whenever
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		\rank\left(\begin{bmatrix}
			x_0 & \cdots & x_i
		\end{bmatrix}) = \rank(\begin{bmatrix}
			x_0 & \cdots & x_{i+1}
		\end{bmatrix}\right)
	\end{equation*}
	for some $i\geq 0$.
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Continuous-time dynamics and RK approximation}
\label{subsec:continuousTime}
 
Suppose now that the data $(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}$ is generated from a continuous process, i.e., via the dynamical system~\eqref{eq:IVP}. In this case, we are interested in recovering the continuous dynamics from the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation. As a consequence of \Cref{thm:exactDMD} we immediately obtain the following results for exact sampling.

\begin{Corollary}
	\label{cor:exactDMD}
	Let $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$ be the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix for the sequence $x_i = \exp(iF h)x_0\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$ with $m\geq n$.  Then 
	%
	\begin{equation*}
		x(ih;\tilde{x}_0) = A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i \tilde{x}_0
	\end{equation*}
	if and only if $\tilde{x}_0\in\spann\{x_0,\ldots,x_{m}\}$, where $x(t;\tilde{x}_0)$ denotes the solution of the \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} with initial value $\tilde{x}_0$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{proof}
	The assertion follows immediately from \Cref{prop:discreteRealization} with the observation that $\exp(i Fh)$ is nonsingular.
\end{proof}

We conclude that we can recover the continuous dynamics with the matrix logarithm (see \cite{Hig08} for further details), whenever $\rank(X) = n$. In practical applications, an exact evaluation of the flow map is typically not possible. Instead, a numerical time-integration method is used to approximate the continuous dynamics.  

Suppose we have used a \textsf{RKM}\xspace with constant step size $h>0$ to obtain a numerical approximation $(x_i)_{i=0}^{m}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ of the \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} and used this data to construct the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$ as in \Cref{def:exactDMD}. If we now want to use the \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix to obtain an approximation for a different initial condition, say $x(0) = \tilde{x}_0$, we are interested in quantifying the error
\begin{equation*}
	\|x(ih;\tilde{x}_0) - A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i\tilde{x}_0\|.
\end{equation*}


\begin{Theorem}
	\label{thm:DMDapproximationError}
	Suppose that the sequence $(x_i)_{i=0}^m$, with
  $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for $i=0,\ldots,m$, is generated from the linear \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} via a \textsf{RKM}\xspace of order $p$ and step size $h>0$ and satisfies
  %
	\begin{equation*}
		\spann\{x_0,\ldots,x_{m-1}\} = \spann\{x_0,\ldots,x_{m}\}. 
	\end{equation*}
	Let $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$ denote the associated \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix. Then there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ such that
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:errorEstimate}
		\|x(ih;\tilde{x}_0)-A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i\tilde{x}_0\| \leq Ch^p
	\end{equation}
	holds for any $\tilde{x}_0\in\spann(\{x_0, \ldots,x_{m-1}\})$.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Since the data $(x_i)_{i=0}^m$ is generated from a \textsf{RKM}\xspace there
  exists a matrix $A_h\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$ such that $x_{i+1}
  = A_hx_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,m-1$. Let $\tilde{x}_0\in
  \spann(\{x_0, \ldots,x_{m-1}\})$. Then,
  \Cref{thm:exactDMD} implies $A_h^i\tilde{x}_0 =
  A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i\tilde{x}_0$ for any $i\geq 0$. Thus the result follows
  from the classical error estimates for RKM (see, e.g.,
  \cite[Thm.~II.3.6]{HaiNW08}) and the from equality
  %
	\begin{equation*}
		\|x(ih;\tilde{x}_0) - A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^i\tilde{x}_0\| = \|x(ih;\tilde{x}_0) - A_\timeStep^i\tilde{x}_0\| \leq Ch^p
	\end{equation*}
	for some $C\geq 0$, since the \textsf{RKM}\xspace is of order $p$.
\end{proof}

The proof details that due to \Cref{prop:discreteRealization} we are essentially able to recover the discrete dynamics $A_h$ obtained from the \textsf{RKM}\xspace via \textsf{DMD}\xspace, provided that $\rank(X) = n$. As layed out in \Cref{rem:controllability-and-full-rank}, this condition is equivalent to $(A_h,x_0)$ controllable for which controllability of $(F,x_0)$ is a necessary condition.

The question that remains to be answered is whether it is possible to recover the continuous dynamic matrix $F$ from the discrete dynamics $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}$ (respectively $A_h$) provided that the Runge-Kutta scheme is known that was used to discretize the continuous dynamics. For any $1$-state Runge-Kutta method $(\alpha,\beta)$, i.e, $s=1$ in~\eqref{eq:RKmethod} this is indeed the case,  since then \eqref{eq:discretizationRungeKutta} simplifies to
\begin{equation*}
	A_h = I_{n} + h \beta (I_{n} - h\alpha F)^{-1}F,
\end{equation*}
which yields
\begin{equation*}
	F = -\frac{1}{h}(I_{n} - A_h)\left(\alpha A_h + (\beta-\alpha)I_{n}\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Combining \eqref{eq:reverseRKs1} with \Cref{prop:discreteRealization} yields the following result.

\begin{Lemma}
	\label{lem:exactRKDMD}
	Suppose that the sequence $(x_i)_{i=0}^m\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is generated from the linear \textsf{IVP}\xspace~\eqref{eq:IVP} via the $1$-stage Runge-Kutta method $(\alpha,\beta)$ and step size $h>0$. Let $A_{\mathrm{DMD}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$ denote the associated \textsf{DMD}\xspace matrix. If $\rank(\{x_0,\ldots,x_{m-1}\}) = n$, then
	%
	\begin{equation}
		\label{eq:reverseRKs1}
		F = -\frac{1}{h}(I_{n} - A_{\mathrm{DMD}})\left(\alpha A_{\mathrm{DMD}} + (\beta-\alpha)I_{n}\right)^{-1},
	\end{equation}
	provided the inverse exists. 
\end{Lemma}

If the assumption of \Cref{lem:exactRKDMD} holds, then we can recover the continuous dynamic matrix from the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation. The corresponding formula for popular one-stage methods is presented in \Cref{tab:continuousDynamicsFromDMD}. 
\begin{table}[ht]
	\centering
	\caption{Identification of continous-time systems via \textsf{DMD}\xspace with one-stage Runge-Kutta methods}
	\label{tab:continuousDynamicsFromDMD}
	\begin{tabular}{lll}
		\toprule
		\textbf{method} & $(\alpha,\beta)$ & \Cref{lem:exactRKDMD}\\\midrule
		explicit Euler & $(0,1)$ & $F = -\tfrac{1}{h}(I_{n}-A_{\mathrm{DMD}})$\\
		implicit Euler & $(1,1)$ & $F = \frac{1}{h}(I_{n}-A_{\mathrm{DMD}}^{-1})$\\
		implicit midpoint rule & $(\tfrac{1}{2},1)$ & $F = \tfrac{1}{2h}(A_{\mathrm{DMD}}-I_{n})(A_{\mathrm{DMD}}+I_{n})^{-1}$\\\bottomrule
	\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In this scenario, let us emphasize that we can compute the discrete dynamics with the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation for any time-step.

The situation is different for $s\geq 2$, as we illustrate with the following example.

\begin{Example}
	For given $h>0$, consider $F_1 \vcentcolon= 0$ and $F_2 \vcentcolon= -\tfrac{2}{h}$.  Then, for Heun's method, i.e., $\mathcal{A}  = \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 0\\1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right]$ and $\beta^\top = \left[\begin{smallmatrix} \tfrac{1}{2} & \tfrac{1}{2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]$, we obtain $A_h = p(F)$ with $p(x) = 1 + hx + \tfrac{h^2}{2}x^2$, and thus $p(F_1) = p(F_2)$.  In particular, we cannot distinguish the continuous-time dynamics in this specific scenario.
\end{Example}

\section{Numerical examples}
\providecommand\inival{x_0} 
\providecommand\diagmat[1]{\ensuremath{\mathsf{diag}(#1)}}

To illustrate our analytical findings, we have constructed a dynamical system that exhibits some fast dynamics that is stable but not exponentially stable and has a nontrivial but exactly computable flow map. In this way, we can check the approximation both qualitatively and quantitatively. Also, the system can be scaled to arbitrary state-space dimensions. Most importantly, for our purposes, the system is designed such that for any initial value, the space not reached by the system is as least as large as the reachable space.
The complete code of our numerical examples can be found in the
\emph{supplementary material}.

With $N\in \mathbb{N}$, $\Delta\vcentcolon= \diagmat{0,1,\dotsc,N-1}$ we consider the continuous-time dynamics~\eqref{eq:IVP} with 
\begin{equation*}
	F \vcentcolon=
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 2\Delta \\
		0 & -\frac 12 \Delta
	\end{bmatrix}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \exp(tF) = \begin{bmatrix}
		I & 4(I-\exp(-\frac{t}{2}\Delta)) \\
		0 & \exp(-\frac{t}{2} \Delta)
	\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Starting with an initial value $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{2N}$ we can thus generate exact snapshots of the solution via $x(t) = \exp(tF)x_0$, as well as the controllability space
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}(F,x_0) = \spann\biggl\{
	\inival, 
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 2\Delta \\
		0 & -\frac 12 \Delta
	\end{bmatrix} \inival,
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 2\Delta \\
		0 & -\frac 12 \Delta
	\end{bmatrix}^2 \inival,
  \dotsc,
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 2\Delta \\
		0 & -\frac 12 \Delta
  \end{bmatrix}^{2N-1} \inival
\biggr\}.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see that $\dim(\mathcal{C}(F,x_0))\leq N$ with equality if
and only if $x_0$ has no zero entries. Due to~\eqref{eq:ah-as-polynomial}, we immediately infer
\begin{equation*}
	\dim(\mathcal{C}(A_h,x_0)) \leq N
\end{equation*}
for any $A_h$ obtained by a Runge-Kutta method. We conclude that \textsf{DMD}\xspace will at most be capable to
reproduce solutions that evolve in~$\mathcal{C}(F,x_0)$. Indeed, as outlined in \mbox{\Cref{prop:discreteRealization}}, all components of another initial value $\tilde{x}_0$ that are in the orthogonal complement of
$\mathcal{C}(F,\inival)$ are set to zero in the first \textsf{DMD}\xspace iteration.

For our numerical experiments we set $N\vcentcolon=5$, $x_0\vcentcolon= [1,2,\ldots,10]^\top$, and consider the time-grid $t_i \vcentcolon= ih$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,100$ with uniform stepsize $h=0.1$.  A \textsf{SVD}\xspace of exactly sampled data
\begin{equation}
  \begin{bmatrix} 
    U_1 & U_2
  \end{bmatrix}
  \begin{bmatrix}
    \Sigma_1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0
  \end{bmatrix}
  V^T =
  \begin{bmatrix}
    \inival & x(h;x_0) & x(2h;x_0) & \cdots &  x(10;x_0) 
  \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
of the matrix of snapshots of the solution $x(t;x_0)$, reveals that the solution space
is indeed of dimension $N=5$ and defines the bases $U_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{10,5}$
and $U_2\in\mathbb{R}^{10,5}$ of $\mathcal{C}(F,x_0)$ and its orthogonal
complement, respectively.

For our numerical experiment, depicted in \Cref{fig:inivcspace}, we choose the initial values
\begin{equation*}
	\tilde{x}_0 \vcentcolon= U_1e\in \spann(U_1)\qquad\text{and}\qquad 
	\widehat{x}_0 \vcentcolon= U_2e\in \spann(U_2) = \spann(U_1)^\perp,
\end{equation*}
with $e=[1,1,1,1,1]^\top$.
The exact solution for both initial values is presented in \Cref{fig:exactSolutionInReachableSpace,fig:exactSolutionOutsideReachableSpace}, respectively.  Our simulations confirm the following:
\begin{itemize}
	\item As predicted by \Cref{thm:exactDMD}, the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation for the initial value $\tilde{x}_0$, depicted in \Cref{fig:DMDInReachableSpace}, exactly recovers the exact solution, while the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation for the initial value $\widehat{x}_0$ (cf.~\Cref{fig:DMDOutsideReachableSpace}) is identically zero.  
	\item If we first transform the data with the matrix
	%
\begin{equation*}
	T = \begin{bmatrix}
		1 & 1\\
		& \ddots & \ddots\\
		& & \ddots & 1\\
		& & \phantom{\ddots} & 1
	\end{bmatrix}\in \GL{2N}{\mathbb{R}},
\end{equation*}
then compute the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation, and then transform the results back, the \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation for $\tilde{x}_0$ remains unchanged, see \Cref{fig:TDMDInReachableSpace}, confirming~\eqref{eq:DMDtransformation} from~\Cref{thm:invariance}. In contrast, the prediction of the dynamics for $\widehat{x}_0$ changes (see~\Cref{fig:TDMDOutsideReachableSpace}), highlighting that \textsf{DMD}\xspace is not invariant under state-space transformations in the orthogonal complement of the data.
\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \newlength\figureheight
  \setlength\figureheight{5cm}
  \pgfplotsset{yticklabel style={text width=3em, align=right}}

  \begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{txz-exact.tex}\\[-1.5em]
     \caption{Exact solution with initial value $\tilde{x}_0$}
    \label{fig:exactSolutionInReachableSpace}
  \end{subfigure}\hfill
  \begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{hxz-exact.tex}\\[-1.5em]
    \caption{Exact solution with initial value $\widehat{x}_0$}
    \label{fig:exactSolutionOutsideReachableSpace}
  \end{subfigure}\\

  \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{txz-dmd.tex}\\[-1.5em]
    \caption{\textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation with initial value $\tilde{x}_0$}
    \label{fig:DMDInReachableSpace}
  \end{subfigure}\hfill
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{hxz-dmd.tex}\\[-1.5em]
    \caption{\textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation with initial value $\widehat{x}_0$}
    \label{fig:DMDOutsideReachableSpace}
  \end{subfigure}

  \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{txz-tdmd.tex}\\[-1.5em]
    \label{fig:TDMDInReachableSpace}
    \caption{\textsf{DMD}\xspace with transformed data with initial value $\tilde{x}_0$}
  \end{subfigure}\hfill
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
    \input{hxz-tdmd.tex}\\[-1.5em]
    \label{fig:TDMDOutsideReachableSpace}
    \caption{\textsf{DMD}\xspace with transformed data with initial value $\widehat{x}_0$}
  \end{subfigure}

	 \caption{Comparison of the exact solution, \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation, and \textsf{DMD}\xspace approximation based on transformed data, for initial values inside, the reachable subspace, i.e., $\tilde{x}_0\in\mathcal{C}(F,x_0)$, and
   outside the reachable subspace, i.e., $\widehat{x}_0\in\mathcal{C}(F,x_0)^\perp$.}
	\label{fig:inivcspace}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Acknowledgments} We thank Dr.~Robert Altmann for inviting us to the Sion workshop, where we started this work.
 B. Unger acknowledges funding from the DFG under Germany's Excellence Strategy -- EXC 2075 -- 390740016 and is thankful for support by the Stuttgart Center for Simulation Science (SimTech).

\bibliographystyle{siam}







2021-09-15T02:28:33.000
2109
2109.06765
en
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.06765
Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) is a popular data-driven framework to extract linear dynamics from complex high-dimensional systems. In this work, we study the system identification properties of DMD. We first show that DMD is invariant under linear transformations in the image of the data matrix. If, in addition, the data is constructed from a linear time-invariant system, then we prove that DMD can recover the original dynamics under mild conditions. If the linear dynamics are discretized with a Runge-Kutta method, then we further classify the error of the DMD approximation and detail that for one-stage Runge-Kutta methods even the continuous dynamics can be recovered with DMD. A numerical example illustrates the theoretical findings.
Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
Identification of linear time-invariant systems with Dynamic Mode Decomposition
Qwen/Qwen-72B
1. YES
2. YES