1: %454.tex On deconvolution problems: numerical aspects,
2: %.
3: \documentclass{amsart}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
6: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
7: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
8: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
9: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
10:
11: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
12: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
13: \def\lra{\longrightarrow}
14: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
15: \def\ea{\end{array}}
16: \def\pr{\prime}
17: \def\t{\tau}
18: \def\p{\varphi}
19: \def\s{\sigma}
20: \def\h{\rho}
21: \def\td{\eta(\delta)}
22: \def\tdf{\eta(\delta,f)}
23: \def\a{\alpha}
24: \def\b{\beta}
25: \def\d{\delta}
26: \def\g{\gamma}
27: \def\l{\lambda}
28: \def\q{\quad}
29: \def\ep{\varepsilon}
30: \def\f{\frac}
31: %\def\R{{\mathbb R}}
32: \def\P{\Phi}
33: \def\il{\int\limits}
34: \def\k{{\mathcal K}^p_{\d,a}}
35: \def\F{\mathcal F}
36: \def\n{N_{a,p}}
37: \def\rhd{R_{h(\d)}}
38: \def\mhd{M_{h(\d)}}
39: \def\fd{f_\d}
40: \def\B{{\mathcal B}^p_{\d,f}}
41: \def\li{L^\infty(0,1)}
42: \def\l2{L^2(0,1)}
43: \def\lp{L^p(0,1)}
44: \def\w2p{W^{2,p}(0,1)}
45: \def\wnp{W^{n,p}(0,1)}
46: \def\N{\mathcal N}
47: \def\R{\mathcal R}
48:
49: \begin{document}
50: \begin{center}
51: {\Large\bf On deconvolution problems: numerical aspects.}
52: \vskip7mm
53:
54: % Information for the first author
55: Alexander G. Ramm\\
56: E-mail: ramm@math.ksu.edu\\
57: Department of Mathematics\\
58: Kansas State University\\Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.\\
59: \vspace{0.5cm}
60:
61: % Information for the second author
62: Alexandra B. Smirnova\\
63: E-mail: smirn@mathstat.gsu.edu\\
64: Department of Mathematics and Statistics\\
65: Georgia State University\\Atlanta, GA 30303, USA.\\
66: \end{center}
67: \vskip 5mm
68:
69: \noindent {\bf Key words:} linear ill-posed problems,
70: Volterra equations, deconvolution
71:
72: \noindent {\bf AMS subject classification:} 45D05, 45L05, 45P05,
73: 65R20, 65R30\vspace{0.5cm}
74:
75: {\bf Abstract.} An optimal algorithm is described for solving the
76: deconvolution problem of the form ${\bf k}u:=\int_0^tk(t-s)u(s)ds=f(t)$
77: given the noisy data $f_\delta$, $||f-f_\delta||\leq \delta.$
78: The idea of the method consists of the representation ${\bf k}=A(I+S)$,
79: where $S$ is a compact operator, $I+S$ is injective, $I$ is the identity
80: operator, $A$ is not boundedly invertible, and an optimal regularizer is
81: constructed for $A$. The optimal regularizer is constructed using
82: the results of the paper MR 40\#5130.
83:
84:
85: \section{{\bf Introduction}}
86: \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0}
87: \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{1.\arabic{theorem}}
88: \renewcommand{\theequation}{1.\arabic{equation}}
89: \vspace*{-0.5pt}
90:
91: Deconvolution problem consists of solving equation of the form
92: \begin{equation}\label{1.1}
93: {\bf k}u:=\int^t_{0}k(t-s)u(s)\,ds:=k\star u=f(t),\q 0\le t\le T,
94: \end{equation}
95: where $k(t)$, $t\ge 0,$ is a kernel of linear integral equation
96: (\ref{1.1}), $k\star u$ is the convolution. It is important in
97: many engineering applications, in physics, and other areas. There
98: is a vast literature on deconvolution methods, see, for example,
99: \cite{gv}.
100:
101: If the operator ${\bf k}$ in (\ref{1.1}) is considered as an
102: operator on $X:=L^\infty(0,T)$, and $\int^T_0|k(t)|\,dt< \infty$,
103: then ${\bf k}$ is not boundedly invertible, so problem (\ref{1.1})
104: is ill-posed. Assume that the data $f$ are noisy:
105: $f_\d$ is given, such that $||f-f_\d||\le \d$. In
106: this case it is natural to seek an approximate solution of
107: equation (\ref{1.1}) in the class $Q_\d:=\{u\in X: \,\,||{\bf
108: k}u-f_\d||\le \d \}$. However, for ill-posed equation (\ref{1.1})
109: an arbitrary element $u_\d\in Q_\d$ cannot be taken as an
110: approximate solution to (\ref{1.1}), since $u_\d$ is not
111: continuous with respect to $\d$ in general. In order to select
112: possible solutions one needs to use {\it a priori} information
113: (usually available) about the solution, which may be of a
114: quantitative or qualitative nature.
115:
116: The usage of qualitative {\it a priori} information makes it
117: possible to narrow the class of solutions, for example, to a
118: compact set, so that the problem becomes stable under small
119: changes in the data. This leads to a concept of a {\bf
120: quasisolution} \cite{ivt}. Various algorithms for
121: approximate determination of quasisolutions were studied in
122: \cite{ivt}.
123:
124: {\it A priori} information of a qualitative nature (for example,
125: smoothness of the solution) generates different approaches. The
126: one which is used often is {\bf variational regularization}
127: \cite{ta}, \cite{ph}, which allows one to construct stable
128: approximate solutions to ill-posed problems by means of a
129: stabilizing functional. The variational method has been
130: extensively developed in \cite{gr}, \cite{ehn}, and certain {\it a
131: priori} and {\it a posteriori} choices of a regularization
132: parameter $\ep=\ep(\d)$ have been designed and implemented
133: \cite{m},\cite{en}.
134:
135: One can also find approximate solutions to (\ref{1.1}) {\bf by
136: iterations}
137: (see \cite{vv}, \cite{bg}), taking
138: $x_n=R(f_\d,x_{n-1},...,x_{n-k})$, where $k\le n$. For these
139: solutions to be stable under small changes of the data,
140: the iteration number $n=n(\delta)$ yielding $x_n$ must
141: depend on the $\delta$ suitably.
142:
143: Other important techniques in theory of ill-posed problems give
144: regularizing operators by using Fourier, Laplace, Mellin, and
145: other integral transforms, statistical regularization, and the
146: dynamical systems method (DSM) \cite{r451}, \cite{r459}).
147:
148: In \cite{rg} some general new approaches are proposed for solving
149: an ill-posed deconvolution problem. One of these approaches is
150: based on the following idea. Assume that the operator ${\bf k}$ in
151: (\ref{1.1}) can be decomposed into a sum ${\bf k}:=A+B$, where the
152: operator $A^{-1}B:=S$ is compact in the Banach space $X$, in which
153: ${\bf k}$ acts, and $I+S$ is boundedly invertible. By the Fredholm
154: alternative, it is equivalent to assuming that $\N(I+S)=\{0\}$,
155: where $\N(A)$ is the null space of $A$. In this case $I+S$ is an
156: isomorphism of $X$ onto $X$, $\R(A)=\R({\bf k})$, where
157: $\R(A)$ is the range of the operator $A$, and
158: \begin{equation}\label{1.2}
159: {\bf k}u=A(I+S)u=f_\d.
160: \end{equation}
161: If a regularizer for $A$ is known, then (\ref{1.2}) can be solved
162: stably by the scheme
163: \begin{equation}\label{1.3}
164: u_\d=(I+S)^{-1}R(\d)f_\d,
165: \end{equation}
166: and
167: \begin{equation}\label{1.4}
168: ||u-u_\d||\to 0 \q \mbox{as} \q \d\to 0.
169: \end{equation}
170: Since $I+S$ is an isomorphism, the error $||v-v_\d||$ of the
171: approximation of the solution of the equation $Av=f_\d$ by the
172: formula $v_\d=R(\d)f_\d$ is of the same order as $||u_\d-u||$. In
173: this paper (see sections 2 and 3) we show that the proposed method
174: is practically efficient and works better than the variational
175: regularization.
176:
177: Theoretically the proposed method is optimal on the class of
178: the data defined as a triple $\{\delta, f_\delta, M_2\}$,
179: where
180: $f\in C^2(0,T)$, $||f^{\prime\prime}||\leq
181: M_2$, and $f$ is otherwise arbitrary,
182: $f_\delta\in L^\infty(0,T)$ and $||f-f_\delta||\leq
183: \delta$ and $f_\delta$ is otherwise arbitrary.
184:
185: The operator $R(\delta)$, defined in (2.3) and originally
186: proposed in [10] for
187: stable numerical differentiation, yields
188: an optimal estimate of $f'$ in $L^\infty(0,T)-$norm in the
189: following sense:
190: $$\inf_T \sup_{\{f_\delta:\, ||f-f_\delta||\leq \delta,\,\,
191: ||f||\leq M_2\}} ||Tf_\delta-f'||\geq (2M_2\delta)^{1/2},
192: $$
193: where the $infimum$ is taken over all, linear and
194: non-linear, operators $T:X\to X$, $X=L^\infty(0,T)$, the
195: $supremum$ is taken over all $f$ and $f_\delta$ subject to
196: the conditions $f\in C^2(0,T)$, $||f^{\prime\prime}||\leq
197: M_2$, $||f-f_\delta||\leq \delta$,
198: and
199: $$
200: ||R(\delta)f_\delta-f'||\leq (2M_2\delta)^{1/2},
201: $$
202: (see e.g., [16],[17], [14]).
203:
204: This argument shows that our "deconvolution" method
205: for stable solution of (1.1) is optimal on the above data
206: set: the operator $R(\delta)$ gives an optimal (on the above
207: data set) approximation of $f'$. Inversion of an
208: isomorphism $I+S$, where $S$ is a compact operator, can be
209: done very accurately by a projection method, for example, so
210: that the total error of the solution is of the same order
211: as the error obtained by applying $R(\delta)$.
212:
213:
214: \vskip 5mm
215:
216: \section{\bf The case $k(t)\in C^1(0,T)$}
217: \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0}
218: \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{2.\arabic{theorem}}
219: \renewcommand{\theequation}{2.\arabic{equation}}
220: \vskip5mm
221:
222:
223: \vspace{0.5cm}
224:
225:
226: \begin{figure}[t]
227: \begin{center}
228: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
229: \includegraphics{ex1.ps}}}}
230: \end{center}
231: \end{figure}
232:
233:
234:
235: Let $k(t)\in C^1(0,T)$ and $k(0)\neq 0$. Then without loss of
236: generality one can take $k(0)=1$. As in \cite{rg}, write
237: (\ref{1.1}) as
238: \begin{equation}\label{2.2}
239: {\bf k}u=\int^t_{0}u(s)\,ds+\int^t_{0}[k(t-s)-1]u(s):=Au+Bu=f.
240: \end{equation}
241: Assume that $f(x)$ is given by its $\d$-approximation, i.e.
242: one knows $f_{\d}(x)$ such that $||f-f_\d||_X\le
243: \d$. In the experiments of this section $\d=0.1$. Let
244: $A^{-1}B:=S$. Then
245: \begin{equation}\label{2.3}
246: {\bf k}u=A(I+S)u=f.
247: \end{equation}
248: Stable inversion of $A$ is equivalent to stable numerical
249: differentiation of noisy data, and therefore as a regularizer
250: $R(\d)f_\d$ for $A$ one can use (see
251: \cite{r1},\cite{r397},\cite{r133}, \cite{r71}, and also
252: \cite{r415},\cite{r441})
253: \begin{equation}\label{2.4}
254: R(\d)f_\d:=\f{f_\d(t+h(\d))-f_\d(t-h(\d))}{2h(\d)},
255: \end{equation}
256: with $h(\d)=\left(\f{2\d}{M_2}\right)^{1/2},\q
257: ||f''||_{L^\infty_{(0,T)}}\le M_2$. Hence
258: \begin{equation}\label{2.5}
259: (I+S)u_\d=R(\d)f_\d,
260: \end{equation}
261: where $S$ is a Volterra operator:
262: $Su_\d=\int^t_{0}k'(t-s)u_\d(s)\,ds.$ To test numerical
263: efficiency of the above deconvolution algorithm, we take
264: \begin{equation}\label{2.6}
265: k(y)=\exp(ay),\q
266: f(t)=\f{(b+a)(\exp(at)-\cos(bt))+(b-a)\sin(bt)}{a^2+b^2}.
267: \end{equation}
268: Then equation (\ref{1.1}) has the
269: exact solution:
270: \begin{equation}\label{2.7}
271: u_{orig}(t)=\sin(bt)+\cos(bt).
272: \end{equation}
273: The graphs of $f$ and its $\d$-approximation, $f_\d$, for
274: $T=1,\,$ $\, a=1,\,$ $\, b=2\pi,\,$ are presented in Figure 1. The
275: perturbation was generated as a sum of five sinusoids with various
276: periods and amplitudes in such a way that $\,||f-f_{\d}||_X\le
277: 0.1.\,$ For $\d=0.1$ and for the above choice of $f$, $T$, $a$,
278: and $b$, one has $h(\d)=\left(\f{2\d}{M_2}\right)^{1/2}=0.1253$.
279: Since in practice often only an estimate for $M_2$ may be
280: available, our first experiment was done with the approximate
281: value of $h(\d)$, namely $h=0.105$. The goal of the first
282: experiment was to compare the results obtained by the
283: deconvolution method suggested in \cite{rg} and by the variational
284: regularization with a choice of the parameter by the Morozov
285: discrepancy principle. The integral in (\ref{1.1}) was calculated
286: by the corrected trapezoid formula (see \cite{dr})
287: with
288: the number of node points $n=200$ on the interval $\,[0,1].\,$ The
289: graphs of $u_{\mbox{disc}}(t)$ and $u_{\mbox{deconv}}(t)$ as well
290: as the graph of the original solution, $u_{\mbox{orig}}(t)$, for
291: $h(\d) = 0.105$ and $n=200$ are given in Figure 2. One can see
292: from the picture that method \cite{rg} provides higher quality of
293: reconstruction.
294:
295:
296: \vspace{0.5cm}
297:
298:
299: \begin{figure}[t]
300: \begin{center}
301: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
302: \includegraphics{ex2.ps}}}}
303: \end{center}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: %\newpage
307: \vspace{0.5cm}
308:
309: \centerline{Table 1.}
310:
311: \vspace{0.5cm}
312:
313: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
314: \hline
315: &&&\\
316: $t$ & $\hskip 1cm u_{\mbox{exact}}(t)\hskip 1cm$ & $\hskip 1cm u_{\mbox{disc}}(t)\hskip 1cm$
317: & $\hskip 1cm u_{\mbox{deconv}}(t)\hskip 1cm$\\
318: &&&\\
319: \hline
320: &&&\\
321: 0.05 &1.26007351067010& 0.88613219081253& 1.61104047434242\\
322: 0.15&1.39680224666742& 0.77345683250358& 1.16771020714854\\
323: 0.25& 1.00000000000000& 0.78531546607804 & 0.97567292365993\\
324: 0.35& 0.22123174208247& 0.32264819143761& 0.46901890046136\\
325: 0.45& -0.64203952192021& -0.01522580641369 & -0.94010917284100\\
326: 0.55& -1.26007351067010 & -0.72058597578420 & -1.39931254313538\\
327: 0.65& -1.39680224666742 & -0.65363525334725 & -1.13246945274454\\
328: 0.75& -1.00000000000000 & -0.84181827797783 & -1.26012127085008\\
329: 0.85& -0.22123174208247 & -0.48659287989254 & -0.24854842261471\\
330: 0.95& 0.64203952192021 & -0.25478764331776 & 0.99713489435843\\
331: \hline
332: \end{tabular}
333:
334: \vspace{0.7cm}
335:
336: Table 1 allows one to analyze the computed values of
337: $u_{\mbox{disc}}(t)$ and $u_{\mbox{deconv}}(t)$ for $h(\d)=0.1$
338: and $n=10$. The regularization parameter for the variational
339: regularization calculated by the Morozov discrepancy principle,
340: $\ep_{\mbox{disc}}$, is equal to $0.0275$ for our particular
341: $f_\d$. The functions $\,u_{\mbox{disc}}(t)$ and
342: $\,u_{\mbox{deconv}}(t)$ approximate the exact solution
343: $u_{\mbox{orig}}(t)$ with the relative errors ${\bf
344: \delta_{\mbox{disc}}=0.5216}$ and ${\bf
345: \delta_{\mbox{deconv}}=0.2470}$, respectively, for $n=10$.
346:
347:
348: \vspace{0.5cm}
349:
350:
351: \begin{figure}[t]
352: \begin{center}
353: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
354: \includegraphics{ex2a.ps}}}}
355: \end{center}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358:
359:
360: %\vspace{0.5cm}
361:
362: \centerline{Table 2.}
363:
364: \vspace{0.5cm}
365:
366: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
367: \hline
368: &&\\
369: $n$& $\delta_{\mbox{disc}}$& $\delta_{\mbox{deconv}}$ \\
370: &&\\
371: \hline
372: &&\\
373: 10&0.52160739359373&0.24703402714545\\
374: &&\\
375:
376: 50&0.47882066139400& 0.29886579484582\\
377: &&\\
378: 100& 0.49421933901812&0.29887532874922
379: \\
380: &&\\
381: \hline
382: \end{tabular}
383:
384: \vspace{0.5cm}
385:
386: The deconvolution procedure \cite{rg}
387: is applicable when the constant $M_a$, $a>1$ is known.
388: Here $M_a$ is the bound on the $f^{(a)}$, $a>0$ is a real
389: number, and $f^{(a)}$ is
390: the (fractional order) derivative of $f$ (see \cite{r441}
391: for details).
392: Figures 3-6 show the dependence of the quality of calculations
393: provided by the deconvolution technique for different values of
394: $h(\d)$ with the same $f_\d$ that is given in Figure 1. The level
395: of reconstruction is acceptable for all values of $h(\d)\in
396: (0.09,0.3)$, but the best quality is attained for the near-optimal
397: values: $h(\d)=0.1$ and $h(\d)=0.2$. Outside the interval $(0.09,
398: 0.3)$ the reconstruction by the variational regularization works
399: better because $h(\d)$ is away from its optimal value.
400:
401: Table 2 contains relative errors, $\delta_{\mbox{disc}}$ and
402: $\delta_{\mbox{deconv}}$, for values of $n=10,\,\,50,\,\,100$. In
403: both cases the relative errors are not decaying further as $n$
404: increases, because the major component in these errors come from
405: the noise level, and not from the error of the computational
406: methods.
407:
408:
409:
410: \vskip 7mm
411: \section{\bf Kernel of the type
412: $\,k(t)=\f{t^{\g-1}}{\Gamma(\g)}+m(t),\q 0<\g<1,\q m(t)\in C^1$}
413: \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0}
414: \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{3.\arabic{theorem}}
415: \renewcommand{\theequation}{3.\arabic{equation}}
416:
417:
418:
419: \begin{figure}[t]
420: \begin{center}
421: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
422: \includegraphics{ex3.ps}}}}
423: \end{center}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: \vspace{0.7cm}
427:
428:
429: In this section we solve (\ref{1.1}) with the kernel $k(t)$ of
430: the form
431: \begin{equation}\label{3.1}
432: k(t)=\f{t^{\g-1}}{\Gamma(\g)}+m(t),\q0<\g<1,\q m(t)\in C^1
433: \end{equation}
434: As in \cite{rg}, write (\ref{1.1}) as
435: \begin{equation}\label{3.2}
436: {\bf k}u:=Au+Bu=f,
437: \end{equation}
438: where
439: \begin{equation}\label{3.3}
440: Au:=\f{t^{\g-1}}{\Gamma(\g)}\star u,\q Bu:=m\star u.
441: \end{equation}
442: One has (\cite{gsh}, pp.117-118)
443: $\,A^{-1}f=\f{1}{\Gamma(1-\g)}\int^t_0\f{f'(s)}{(t-s)^{\g}}\,ds.\,$
444: Since the right-hand side $f$ is given by its $\d$-approximation
445: $f_\d,$ $\,||f-f_\d||_X\le \d$, we replace $A^{-1}$ by the
446: regularizer $R_1(\d)$ (see \cite{rg}):
447: \begin{equation}\label{3.4}
448: R_1(\d)f_\d:=\f{1}{\Gamma(1-\g)}\int^t_0\f{(R(\d)f_\d)(s)}{(t-s)^{\g}}\,ds.
449: \end{equation}
450: The operator $R(\d)$ in (\ref{3.4}) is defined by formula
451: (\ref{2.4}) with $h={\bf 0.12}$. One gets
452: \begin{equation}\label{3.5}
453: (I+S)u_\d=R_1(\d)f_\d.
454: \end{equation}
455: and
456: \begin{equation}\label{3.6}
457: Su_\d:=A^{-1}Bu_\d=\f{1}{\Gamma(1-\g)}\int^t_0\f{m(0)u_\d(s)+\int^s_0
458: m'(s-p)u_\d(p)dp}{(t-s)^{\g}}\,ds.
459: \end{equation}
460: The goal of the experiment was to compare two numerical methods
461: for solving (\ref{1.1})-(\ref{3.1}): deconvolution method
462: (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) and variational regularization with a
463: choice of the parameter by the discrepancy principle.
464:
465: The function
466: $$f(t)=\f{t^{\g}}{\Gamma(1+\g)}\left(1-\f{2t^2}{(1+\g)(2+\g)}\right)
467: +\f{t^3}{3}\left(1-\f{t^2}{10}\right),\q t\in [0,1],$$ was chosen
468: as the solution to direct problem (\ref{1.1})-(\ref{3.1}) with
469: $m(t)=t^2$ and the model function $u_{exact}(t)=1-t^2$. Then for
470: the numerical tests the noisy function $f_\d$, $\,||f-f_\d||_X\le
471: \d$, $\d=0.1,$ was used. The graphs of $f$ and $f_\d$ for $\g=0.1$
472: are given in Figures 7 and 8.
473:
474:
475: \vspace{0.5cm}
476:
477:
478: \begin{figure}[t]
479: \begin{center}
480: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
481: \includegraphics{ex4.ps}}}}
482: \end{center}
483: \end{figure}
484:
485:
486:
487:
488: \vspace{0.5cm}
489:
490: \centerline{Table 3.}
491:
492: \vspace{0.5cm}
493:
494: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
495: \hline
496: &&&\\
497: $t$ & $\hskip 1cm u_{\mbox{exact}}(t)\hskip 1cm$ & $\hskip 1cm
498: u_{\mbox{disc}}(t)\hskip 1cm$
499: & $\hskip 1cm u_{\mbox{deconv}}(t)\hskip 1cm$\\
500: &&&\\
501: \hline
502: &&&\\
503: 0.05& 0.99000000000000 & 0.93361656127658 & 1.00281244943820\\
504: 0.15& 0.96000000000000 & 0.85983757148008 & 0.98540317766041\\
505: 0.25& 0.91000000000000 & 0.78772680932067 & 0.93442776030698\\
506: 0.35& 0.84000000000000 & 0.71362820985483 & 0.85896131974899\\
507: 0.45& 0.75000000000000 & 0.63504318796224 & 0.76170936024357\\
508: 0.55& 0.64000000000000 & 0.55028612377340 & 0.64396777696250\\
509: 0.65& 0.51000000000000 & 0.45824705747747 & 0.50654835394340\\
510: 0.75& 0.36000000000000 & 0.35823345537370 & 0.35004574315540\\
511: 0.85& 0.19000000000000 & 0.24979168725846 & 0.17493299888351\\
512: 0.95& 0 & 0.13214536398250 &-0.01840021170081\\
513: \hline
514: \end{tabular}
515:
516: \vspace{0.7cm}
517:
518:
519: %From Table 4
520: %one can notice that, as the number of the node points, $n$, in the
521: %corrected trapezoid formula changes from $10$ to $100$, the
522: %accuracy of approximations computed by the variational
523: %regularization method actually remains the same, while the
524: %accuracy of method (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) increases.
525:
526: Figures 10-12 illustrate the numerical performance of method
527: (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) and variational regularization for
528: $\g=0.1$. The solutions evaluated by formulas
529: (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) and by variational regularization for
530: $n=10$ and $\g=0.1$ are also presented in Table 3.
531:
532: \begin{figure}[t]
533: \begin{center}
534: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
535: \includegraphics{ex5.ps}}}}
536: \end{center}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539:
540: \vspace{0.5cm}
541:
542: %\newpage
543:
544:
545: \begin{figure}[t]
546: \begin{center}
547: \scalebox{1.3}{\resizebox{90mm}{80mm}{{
548: \includegraphics{ex6.ps}}}}
549: \end{center}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552:
553:
554: % \vspace{0.5cm}
555:
556: %\centerline{Table 4.}
557:
558: %\vspace{0.5cm}
559:
560: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
561: %\hline
562: %&&\\
563: %$n$& $\delta_{\mbox{disc}}$& $\delta_{\mbox{deconv}}$ \\
564: %&&\\
565: %\hline
566: %&&\\
567: %10&0.13578534814295&0.02317183674802\\
568: %&&\\
569:
570: %50&0.13044975663414& 0.01975170075159 \\
571: %&&\\
572: %100& 0.13293491164120&0.01749097662073
573: %\\
574: %&&\\
575: %\hline
576: %\end{tabular}
577:
578: %\vspace{0.5cm}
579:
580:
581: The results obtained for our particular test problem show that for
582: small values of $\g$ the deconvolution approach is superior to
583: variational regularization both in terms of accuracy and
584: stability. However as $\g$ is getting bigger, the efficiency of
585: the deconvolution method (as well as the efficiency of variational
586: regularization) is getting worse. This is happening because when
587: $\gamma$ is close to $1$, the ill-posedness of problem
588: (\ref{1.1})-(\ref{3.1}) grows due to the errors in calculations of
589: the singular integral. One can compare Figures 9-12 and 13-16.
590: Moreover, as $\g$ changes from $0.1$ to $0.9$, method
591: (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) becomes very sensitive to slight
592: variations of $h(\d)$. To illustrate this phenomena, we present
593: the dependence of relative errors and discrepancies on $h(\d)$ for
594: $\g=0.1$ and $\g=0.5$ in Figures 17 and 18. For $\g=0.1$ the
595: relative error of the deconvolution method remains less than
596: $10\%$ when $h(\d)\in (0.05, 0.12)$, while for $g=0.5$ the
597: relative error is only small for $h=0.1$.
598:
599:
600: Finally, it is important to mention that CPU time for both
601: methods, (\ref{3.5})-(\ref{3.6}) and variational regularization,
602: is approximately the same and it is very small: about 3-4
603: milliseconds for $n=200$.
604:
605: {\bf Conclusion.} The paper presents numerical results of the
606: implementation of the deconvolution method developed by AGR and
607: presented together with other results in [14]. The method
608: is shown to be optimal in the sense explained in Section 1.
609: The numerical results confirm the theoretical results on which the method
610: is based. It is shown that the method is more accurate than the
611: variational regularization method with the regularization parameter chosen
612: by the discrepancy method.
613:
614: \vspace{0.5cm}
615:
616: \bibliographystyle{amsplain}
617: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
618: \bibitem{bg} A.Bakushinsky,
619: A.Goncharsky, {\it Ill-posed problem theory and application},
620: Kluver, Dordrecht, 1994.
621: %\bibitem{den}
622: % A.Denisov, {\it Elements of the theory of inverse problems},VSP,
623: %Utrecht, 1999.
624: \bibitem{en}
625: H.Engl, A.Neubauer, {\it Optimal discrepancy principles for the
626: Tikhonov regularization of integral equations of the first kind},
627: In: Constructive methods for the practical treatment of Integral
628: Equations (G.Hammerlin and K.H.Hoffmann, editors). ISNM73,
629: Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, (1985) 120-141.
630: \bibitem{ehn}
631: H.Engl, M.Hanke, A.Neubauer, {\it Regularization of inverse
632: problems}, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996.
633: %\bibitem{ep}
634: %J.F.Epperson, {\it An introduction to numerical methods and
635: %analysis}, John Wiley and sons, New York, 2002.
636: \bibitem{gr}
637: C.W.Groetsch, {\it The theory of Tikhonov regularization for
638: Fredholm equations of the first kind}, Pitman, Boston, 1984.
639: \bibitem{gsh}
640: I. M. Gel'fand, G. E. Shilov, {\it Generalized functions}, Volume I,
641: Academic Press, New York and London, 1964.
642: \bibitem{gv}
643: R.Gorenflo, S.Vessella, {\it Abel Integral Equation},
644: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
645: \bibitem{dr} P. Davis, P. Rabinowitz, {\it Methods of
646: numerical integration},
647: Academic Press, New York, 1975.
648: %\bibitem{i1}
649: %V.K.Ivanov, {\it On linear ill-posed problems,} Doklady Akad. Nauk
650: %SSSR. {\bf 145}(2) (1962), 270-272.
651: %\bibitem{i2}
652: %V.K.Ivanov, {\it On ill-posed problems}, Matematichesky
653: %sbornik,{\bf 61}, 2 (1963).
654: \bibitem{ivt}
655: V.K.Ivanov, V.V.Vasin, V.P.Tanana, {\it The theory of Linear
656: Ill-posed problems and its Applications}, Nauka, Moscow, 1978.
657: \bibitem{m}
658: V.A.Morozov {\it The principle of discrepancy in the solution of
659: inconsistent equations by Tikhonov's regularization method},
660: Zhurnal Vychislitel'noy matematiky i matematicheskoy fisiki, {\bf
661: 13}, (1973) 5.
662: \bibitem{ph}
663: D.L. Phillips, {\it A technique for the numerical solution of
664: certain integral equation of the first kind,} J. Assoc. Comput.
665: Machinery. {\bf 9}(1) (1962), 84-97.
666: \bibitem{r1}
667: A.G.Ramm, {\it On numerical differentiation,} Mathem., Izvestija
668: vuzov, {\bf 11} (1968), 131-135.
669: \bibitem{r451}
670: A.G.Ramm, {\it
671: Dynamical systems method for solving operator equations,}
672: Communic. in Nonlinear Sci. and Numer. Simulation,
673: 9, N2, (2004), 383-402.
674: \bibitem{r459}
675: A.G.Ramm, {\it
676: Discrepancy principle for the dynamical systems method},
677: Communic. in Nonlinear Sci. and Numer. Simulation,
678: 10, N1, (2005), 95-101.
679: \bibitem{rg}
680: A.G.Ramm, A.Galstian, {\it On deconvolution methods}, Internat. Journ
681: of Engineering Sci., 41, N1, (2002), 31-43.
682: \bibitem{r415}
683: A.G.Ramm, A.B.Smirnova, {\it On stable numerical differentiation,}
684: Mathem. of Computation, {\bf 70}, (2001), 1131-1153.
685: \bibitem{r441}
686: A.G.Ramm, A.B.Smirnova, {\it Stable numerical differentiation: when is it
687: possible?}, J. Korean SIAM, 7, N1, (2003), 47-61.
688: \bibitem{r397} A.G.Ramm,
689: {\it Inequalities for the derivatives}, Math. Ineq. and
690: Appl., 3, N1, (2000), 129-132.
691: \bibitem{r133} A.G.Ramm,
692: {\it Stable solutions of some ill-posed
693: problems}, Math. Meth. in the
694: appl. Sci. 3, (1981), 336-363.
695: \bibitem{r71} A.G.Ramm,
696: {\it Simplified optimal differentiators},
697: Radiotech.i Electron.17, (1972), 1325-1328; English translation
698: pp.1034-1037.
699: \bibitem{ta}
700: A.N.Tikhonov, V.Y.Arsenin, {\it Solutions of ill-posed problems,}
701: John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977.
702: \bibitem{vv}
703: G.Vainikko, A.Veretennikov, {\it Iterative procedures in ill-posed
704: problems}, Moscow, Nauka, 1986.
705:
706:
707: \end{thebibliography}
708: \end{document}
709: