American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
May  2007, 1(2): 371-389. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.371

Approximation errors and truncation of computational domains with application to geophysical tomography

A. Lehikoinen 1, , S. Finsterle 2, , A Voutilainen 1, , L. M. Heikkinen 1, , M. Vauhkonen 1, and  J. P. Kaipio 1,

1. 

Department of Physics, University of Kuopio, P.O. Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland, Finland, Finland, Finland
2. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States

Received  September 2006 Published  April 2007

Numerical realization of mathematical models always induces errors to the computational models, thus affecting both predictive simulations and related inversion results. Especially, inverse problems are typically sensitive to modeling and measurement errors, and therefore the accuracy of the numerical model is a crucial issue in inverse computations. For instance, in problems related to partial differential equation models, the implementation of a numerical model with high accuracy necessitates the use of fine discretization and realistic boundary conditions. However, in some cases realistic boundary conditions can be posed only for very large or even unbounded computational domains. Fine discretization and large domains lead to very high-dimensional models that may be of prohibitive computational cost. Therefore, it is often necessary in practice to use coarser discretization and smaller computational domains with more or less incorrect boundary conditions in order to decrease the dimensionality of the model. In this paper we apply the recently proposed approximation error approach to the problem of incorrectly posed boundary conditions. As a specific computational example we consider the imaging of conductivity distribution of soil using electrical resistance tomography. We show that the approximation error approach can also be applied to domain truncation problems and that it allows one to use significantly smaller scale forward models in the inversion.
Keywords: approximation errors, inverse problems, domain truncation, electrical resistance tomography..
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 65N21, 65N30, 33F05; Secondary: 86A2.
Citation: A. Lehikoinen, S. Finsterle, A Voutilainen, L. M. Heikkinen, M. Vauhkonen, J. P. Kaipio. Approximation errors and truncation of computational domains with application to geophysical tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (2) : 371-389. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.371
[1]

Daniela Calvetti, Paul J. Hadwin, Janne M. J. Huttunen, Jari P. Kaipio, Erkki Somersalo. Artificial boundary conditions and domain truncation in electrical impedance tomography. Part II: Stochastic extension of the boundary map. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (3) : 767-789. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.767
[2]

Daniela Calvetti, Paul J. Hadwin, Janne M. J. Huttunen, David Isaacson, Jari P. Kaipio, Debra McGivney, Erkki Somersalo, Joseph Volzer. Artificial boundary conditions and domain truncation in electrical impedance tomography. Part I: Theory and preliminary results. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (3) : 749-766. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.749
[3]

Janne M.J. Huttunen, J. P. Kaipio. Approximation errors in nonstationary inverse problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (1) : 77-93. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.77
[4]

Hiroshi Isozaki. Inverse boundary value problems in the horosphere - A link between hyperbolic geometry and electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (1) : 107-134. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.107
[5]

Fabrice Delbary, Rainer Kress. Electrical impedance tomography using a point electrode inverse scheme for complete electrode data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (2) : 355-369. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.355
[6]

Bastian Gebauer. Localized potentials in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2008, 2 (2) : 251-269. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2008.2.251
[7]

Daijun Jiang, Hui Feng, Jun Zou. Overlapping domain decomposition methods for linear inverse problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (1) : 163-188. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.163
[8]

Martin Hanke, William Rundell. On rational approximation methods for inverse source problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (1) : 185-202. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.185
[9]

Kari Astala, Jennifer L. Mueller, Lassi Päivärinta, Allan Perämäki, Samuli Siltanen. Direct electrical impedance tomography for nonsmooth conductivities. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (3) : 531-549. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.531
[10]

Ville Kolehmainen, Matti Lassas, Petri Ola, Samuli Siltanen. Recovering boundary shape and conductivity in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (1) : 217-242. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.217
[11]

Chuang Zheng. Inverse problems for the fourth order Schrödinger equation on a finite domain. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2015, 5 (1) : 177-189. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2015.5.177
[12]

Shui-Nee Chow, Ke Yin, Hao-Min Zhou, Ali Behrooz. Solving inverse source problems by the Orthogonal Solution and Kernel Correction Algorithm (OSKCA) with applications in fluorescence tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (1) : 79-102. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.79
[13]

Liliana Borcea, Fernando Guevara Vasquez, Alexander V. Mamonov. Study of noise effects in electrical impedance tomography with resistor networks. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (2) : 417-443. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.417
[14]

Dong liu, Ville Kolehmainen, Samuli Siltanen, Anne-maria Laukkanen, Aku Seppänen. Estimation of conductivity changes in a region of interest with electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (1) : 211-229. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.211
[15]

Gen Nakamura, Päivi Ronkanen, Samuli Siltanen, Kazumi Tanuma. Recovering conductivity at the boundary in three-dimensional electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (2) : 485-510. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.485
[16]

Nicolay M. Tanushev, Luminita Vese. A piecewise-constant binary model for electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (2) : 423-435. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.423
[17]

Nuutti Hyvönen, Lassi Päivärinta, Janne P. Tamminen. Enhancing D-bar reconstructions for electrical impedance tomography with conformal maps. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2018, 12 (2) : 373-400. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2018017
[18]

Kimmo Karhunen, Aku Seppänen, Jari P. Kaipio. Adaptive meshing approach to identification of cracks with electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (1) : 127-148. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.127
[19]

Jérémi Dardé, Harri Hakula, Nuutti Hyvönen, Stratos Staboulis. Fine-tuning electrode information in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2012, 6 (3) : 399-421. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2012.6.399
[20]

Herbert Egger, Manuel Freiberger, Matthias Schlottbom. On forward and inverse models in fluorescence diffuse optical tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2010, 4 (3) : 411-427. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2010.4.411

2018 Impact Factor: 1.469

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (9)
  • HTML views (0)
  • Cited by (33)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2019 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences