For a simple 1-D test of B-spline regularization, I chose the function shown in Figure , but sampled at irregular locations. To create two different regimes for the inverse interpolation problem, I chose 50 and 500 random locations. I interpolated these two sets of points to 500 and 50 regular samples, respectively. The first test corresponds to an under-determined situation, while the second test is clearly over-determined. Figures and show the input data for the two test after normalized binning to the selected regular bins.
bin500
Figure 23 50 random points binned to 500 regular grid points. The random data are used for testing inverse interpolation in an under-determined situation. |
bin50
Figure 24 500 random points binned to 50 regular grid points. The random data are used for testing inverse interpolation in an over-determined situation. |
I solved system ()-() by the iterative conjugate-gradient method, utilizing a recursive filter preconditioning for faster convergence. To construct the regularization operator , I used the method of the previous subsection with the tension-spline differential equation that I will describe in Chapter .
The least-squares differences between the true and the estimated model are plotted in Figures and . Observing the behavior of the model misfit versus the number of iterations and comparing simple linear interpolation with the third-order B-spline interpolation, we discover that
norm500
Figure 25 Model convergence in the under-determined case. Dashed line: using linear interpolation. Solid line: using third-order B-spline. |
norm50
Figure 26 Model convergence in the over-determined case. Dashed line: using linear interpolation. Solid line: using third-order B-spline. |