Advertisement

A framework for solving meta inverse problems: experimental design and application to an acoustic source problem

  • Ndifreke Udosen
  • Roland Potthast
Original Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

The selection of optimal measurement locations in remote sensing or imaging algorithms is of large practical interest in many applications. The target is usually to choose a measurement setup that best resolves some particular quantity of interest. This work describes a general framework for selecting such an optimal setup within a given set Q of possible setups for the formulation and solution of the meta inverse problem. The work shows that it is crucial to incorporate the basic ingredients which are usually part of the inversion process. In particular, it takes care of the nature and the size of the measurement error, the choice of the regularization scheme which is employed for the inverse problem, and the prior knowledge on solutions. The basic idea of the framework is to minimize the errors associated with the reconstruction of a given quantity of interest. Five functional layers which reflect the structure of the meta inverse problem are introduced. Further, with framework adaption, an iterative algorithm is formulated to solve the meta inverse problem at each iterative step in order to obtain improved reconstructions of the inverse problem. Using the initial reconstructions as input for meta inversion, the framework adaption algorithm does not require prior knowledge of the source distribution. The feasibility of the framework adaption algorithm is illustrated by using it to solve the inverse acoustic source problem.

Keyword

Optimization Meta-inverse framework Reconstruction Acoustic source problem 

Notes

References

  1. Athanasiou EN, Tsourlos PI, Papazachos CB, Tsokas GN (2006) Optimizing resistivity array configurations by using a non-homogeneous background model. In: Proceedings, 12th Annual Meeting EAGE-Near Surface Geophysics, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Athanasiou EN, Tsourlos PI, Papazachos CB, Tsokas GN (2009) Optimizing electrical resistivity array configurations by using a method based on the sensitivity matrix. In: Proceedings, 15th Annual Meeting EAGE-Near Surface Geophysics, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouttier F, Kelly G (2001) Observing-system experiments in the ECMWF 4D-Var data assimilation system. QJR Meteorol Soc 127:1469–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colton D, Kress R (1992) Inverse acoustic and electromagnetic scattering theory, volume 93 of applied mathematical sciences. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engl HW, Hanke M, Neubauer A (1996) Regularization of inverse problems, volume 375 of mathematics and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, DordrechCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gautam PK, Biswas A (2016) 2D geo-electrical imaging for shallow depth investigation in Doon Valley Sub-Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Model Earth Syst Env 2:175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. George NJ, Ekanem AM, Ibanga JI, Udosen NI (2017) Hydrodynamic implication of Aquifer Quality Index (AQI) and flow zone (F21) in ground water abstraction: a case study of coastal hydro-lithofacies in South-eastern Nigeria. J Coast Conserv 21(6):759–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groetsch C (1993) Inverse Problems in the mathematical sciences (theory & practice of applied geophysics). Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Hennig T, Weller A, Miller (2008) Object orientated focussing of geoelectrical multielectrode measurements. J Appl Geophys 65:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kang Y, Lin TW, Chang YJ, Chang YP, Wang CC (2008) Optimal balancing of flexible rotors by minimizing the condition number of influence coefficients. Mech Mach Theory 43(7):891–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirsch A (1996) An introduction to the mathematical theory of inverse problems, volume 120 of applied mathematical sciences. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kress R (1999) Linear integral equations, volume 82 of applied mathematical sciences. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin TW, Kang Y, Wang CC, Chang CW, Chih-Pin C (2005) An investigation in optimal locations by genetic algorithm for balancing flexible rotor-bearing systems. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, vol 4, Reno, Nevada, USA, 6–9 June 2005Google Scholar
  14. Loke MH, Wilkinson PB (2009) Rapid parallel computation of optimized arrays for electrical imaging surveys. In: Proceedings, 15th Annual Meeting EAGE-Near Surface Geophysics, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  15. Loke MH, Alfouzan FA, Nawawi NM (2007) Optimisation of electrode arrays used in 2D resistivity imaging surveys. In: Extended Abstracts, 19th ASEG Geophysical Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  16. Olagunju E, Ariyibi E, Awoyemi M, Adebayo A, Dasho O, Adenika C (2017) Application of geochemical and geophysical approach to environmental impact assessment: a case study of Emirin active open dumpsite, Ado-Ekiti Southwestern Nigeria. Model Earth Syst Env.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0381-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Potthast R (2001) Point sources and multi-poles in inverse scattering theory, vol 427 of Chapman & Hall/CRC Research Notes in Mathematics. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stummer P, Maurer H, Green A (2004) Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics 69(1):120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tan D, Andersson E, Fisher M, Isaksen L (2007) Observing-system impact assessment using a data assimilation ensemble technique: application to the ADM Aeolus wind profiling mission. QJR Meteorol Soc 133:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Udosen NI, George NJ (2018) Characterization of electrical anisotropy in North Yorkshire, England using square arrays and electrical resistivity tomography. J Geomech Geophys Geo-energy Geo-resour.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-018-0087-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Udosen NI, Potthast RWE (2018) Automated optimization of electrode locations for electrical resistivity tomography. J Model Earth Syst Env.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0472-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilkinson PB, Chambers JE, Meldrum P, Ogilvy RD, Caunt S (2006a) Optimization of array configurations and panel combinations for the detection and imaging of abandoned mineshafts using 3D Cross-Hole Electrical Resistivity Tomography. J Environ Eng Geophys 11(3):213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilkinson PB, Meldrum PI, Chambers JE, Kuras O, Ogilvy RD (2006b) Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophys J Int 167(3):1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilkinson PB, Ogilvy RD, Chambers JE, Meldrum PI, Kuras O (2007) Array optimisation for multi-channel electrical resistivity tomography instruments. In: Proceedings, 13th Annual Meeting EAGE Near Surface Geophysics, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilkinson PB, Meldrum PI, Chambers JE, Kuras O, Ogilvy RD (2009) Optimised survey design for geoelectrical resistivity tomography. In: Short Abstracts, 10th International Conference on Biomedical Applications of Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT 2009), Manchester, United KingdomGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsAkwa Ibom State UniversityIkot AkpadenNigeria
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Reading, WhiteknightsReadingUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations