Optimization and Engineering

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 87–115 | Cite as

Analysis of Approximate Inverses in Tomography I. Resolution Analysis of Common Inverses

  • James G. Berryman


The process of using physical data to produce images of important physical parameters is an inversion problem, and these are often called tomographic inverse problems when the arrangement of sources and receivers makes an analogy to x-ray tomographic methods used in medical imaging possible. Examples of these methods in geophysics include seismic tomography, ocean acoustic tomography, electrical resistance tomography, etc., and many other examples could be given in nondestructive evaluation and other applications. All these imaging methods have two stages: First, the data are operated upon in some fashion to produce the image of the desired physical quantity. Second, the resulting image must be evaluated in essentially the same timeframe as the image is being used as a diagnostic tool. If the resolution provided by the image is good enough, then a reliable diagnosis may ensue. If the resolution is not good enough, then a reliable diagnosis is probably not possible. But the first question in this second stage is always “How good is the resolution?” The concept of resolution operators and resolution matrices has permeated the geophysics literature since the work of Backus and Gilbert in the late 1960s. But measures of resolution have not always been computed as often as they should be because, for very data rich problems, these computations can actually be significantly more difficult/expensive than computing the image itself.

It is the purpose of this paper and its companion (Part II) to show how resolution operators/matrices can be computed economically in almost all cases, and to provide a means of comparing the resolution characteristics of many of the common approximate inverse methods. Part I will introduce the main ideas and analyze the behavior of standard methods such as damped least-squares, truncated singular value decomposition, the adjoint method, backprojection formulas, etc. Part II will treat many of the standard iterative inversion methods including conjugate gradients, Lanczos, LSQR, etc.

acoustic tomography resolution matrices singular value decomposition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. K. Aki and P. Richards, Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods, Freeman: San Francisco, California, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. G. Backus and F. Gilbert, “The resolving power of gross earth data,” Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. vol. 16, pp. 169-205, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. G. Backus and F. Gilbert, “Uniqueness in the inversion of inaccurate gross earth data,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London vol. 266A, pp. 123-192, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. R. B. Bapat and T. E. S. Raghavan, Nonnegative Matrices and Applications, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. J. G. Berryman, “Stable iterative reconstruction algorithm for nonlienar traveltime tomography,” Inverse Problems vol. 6, pp. 21-42, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. J. G. Berryman, “Analysis of approximate inverses in tomography. II. Iterative inverses,” Optimization and Engineering, to appear, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. R. P. Bording, A. Gersztenkorn, L. R. Lines, J. A. Scales, and S. Treitel, “Applications of seismic travel-time tomography,” Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. vol. 90, pp. 285-303, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. J. F. Claerbout, Fundamentals of Geophysical Data Processing with Applications to Petroleum Prospecting, McGraw-Hill: New York, 1976, pp. 123-129.Google Scholar
  9. J. F. Claerbout and F. Muir, “Robust modeling with erratic data,” Geophysics vol. 38, pp. 826-844, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. K. A. Dines and R. J. Lytle, “Computerized geophysical tomography,” Proc. IEEE vol. 67, pp. 1065-1073, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. C. Eckart and G. Young, “The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank,” Psychometrika vol. 1, pp. 211-218, 1936.Google Scholar
  12. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. I, Addison-Wesley: Reading Massachusetts, Ch. 26, 1963.Google Scholar
  13. G. Golub and W. Kahan, “Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix,” SIAM J. Numer. Anal. vol. 2, pp. 205-224, 1965.Google Scholar
  14. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1989, p. 341.Google Scholar
  15. M. R. Hestenes and E. Stiefel, “Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems,” J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stan. vol. B 49, pp. 409-436, 1952.Google Scholar
  16. P. J. Huber, Robust Statistical Procedures, SIAM: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. D. D. Jackson, “Interpretation of inaccurate, insufficient, and inconsistent data,” Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. vol. 28, pp. 97-109, 1972.Google Scholar
  18. C. Lanczos, “An iterative method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of lienar differential and integral operators,” J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. vol. 45, pp. 255-282, 1950.Google Scholar
  19. C. Lanczos, Linear Differential Operators, SIAM: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1961, pp. 120-127, 1961.Google Scholar
  20. E. R. Lapwood and T. Usami, Free Oscillations of the Earth, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1981.Google Scholar
  21. K. Levenberg, “A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least-squares,” Quart. Appl. Math. vol. 2, pp. 164-168, 1944.Google Scholar
  22. D. W. Marquardt, “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonolinear parameters,” SIAM J. Appl. Math. vol. 11, pp. 431-441, 1963.Google Scholar
  23. D. W. Marquardt, “Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation,” Technometrics. vol. 12, pp. 591-612, 1970.Google Scholar
  24. E. H. Moore, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. vol. 26, pp. 394-395, 1920.Google Scholar
  25. A. Morelli and A. M. Dziewonski, “The harmonic expansion approach to the retrieval of deep Earth structure,” in Seismic Tomography, G. Nolet, ed., Reidel: Dordrecht, 1987, pp. 251-274.Google Scholar
  26. W. Munk, P. Worcester, and C. Wunsch, Ocean Acoustic Tomography, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995, pp. 239-271.Google Scholar
  27. G. Nolet ed., Seismic Tomography: With Application in Global Seismology and Exploration Geophysics, Reidel: Dordrecht, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. C. C. Paige and M. A. Saunders, “LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw. vol. 8, pp. 43-71, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. R. Penrose, “A generalized inverse for matrices,” Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. vol. 51, pp. 406-413, 1955a.Google Scholar
  30. R. Penrose, “On best approximation solutions of linear matrix equations,” Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. vol. 52, pp. 17-19, 1955b.Google Scholar
  31. J. Rector, “Crosswell methods: Where are we, where are we going?” Geophysics vol. 60, pp. 629-630, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. M. A. Saunders, “Computing projections with LSQR,” BIT vol. 37, pp. 96-104, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. J. A. Scales, P. Docherty, and A. Gersztenkorn, “Regularisation of nonlinear inverse problems: Imaging the near-surface weathering layer,” Inverse Problems vol. 6, pp. 115-131, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. J. A. Scales and A. Gersztenkorn, “Robust methods in inverse theory,” Inverse Problems vol. 4, pp. 1071-1091, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. J. A. Scales, A. Gersztenkorn, and S. Treitel, “Fast l p solution of large, sparse, linear systems: Application to seismic travel time tomography,” J. Comput. Phys. vol. 75, pp. 314-333, 1988.Google Scholar
  36. A. N. Tikhonov and V. Y. Arsenin, Solution of Ill-Posed Problems, Winston: New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  37. S. V. Vorontsov and V. N. Zharkov, “Helioseismology: Theory and interpretation of experimental data,” Sov. Sci. Rev. E Astrophys. Space Phys. vol. 7, pp. 1-103, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. G. B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves, Wiley: New York, 1974, Ch. 7, pp. 247-250.Google Scholar
  39. R. A. Wiggins, “The general linear inverse problem: Implications of surface waves and free oscillations for Earth structure,” Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. vol. 10, pp. 251-285, 1972.Google Scholar
  40. T. J. Yorkey, J. G. Webster and W. J. Tompkins, “Comparing reconstruction algorithms for electrical impedance tomography,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Engng. vol. BME-34, pp. 843-852, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • James G. Berryman
    • 1
  1. 1.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations