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. | ![]() |