Inverse problems with learned forward operators
Arridge, Simon; Hauptmann, Andreas; Korolev, Yury
Arridge, Simon
Hauptmann, Andreas
Korolev, Yury
De Gruyter
Arridge, S., Hauptmann, A. & Korolev, Y. (2025). Inverse problems with learned forward operators. In T. Bubba (Ed.), Data-driven Models in Inverse Problems (pp. 73-106). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111251233-003
https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All Rights Reserved.
https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All Rights Reserved.
https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202412187413
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202412187413
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
Solving inverse problems requires the knowledge of the forward operator, but accurate models can be computationally expensive, and hence cheaper variants that do not compromise the reconstruction quality are desired. This chapter reviews reconstruction methods in inverse problems with learned forward operators that follow two different paradigms. The first one is completely agnostic to the forward operator and learns its restriction to the subspace spanned by the training data. The framework of regularization by projection is then used to find a reconstruction. The second one uses a simplified model of the physics of the measurement process and only relies on the training data to learn a model correction. We present the theory of these two approaches and compare them numerically. A common theme emerges: both methods require, or at least benefit from, training data not only for the forward operator, but also for its adjoint.
Solving inverse problems requires the knowledge of the forward operator, but accurate models can be computationally expensive, and hence cheaper variants that do not compromise the reconstruction quality are desired. This chapter reviews reconstruction methods in inverse problems with learned forward operators that follow two different paradigms. The first one is completely agnostic to the forward operator and learns its restriction to the subspace spanned by the training data. The framework of regularization by projection is then used to find a reconstruction. The second one uses a simplified model of the physics of the measurement process and only relies on the training data to learn a model correction. We present the theory of these two approaches and compare them numerically. A common theme emerges: both methods require, or at least benefit from, training data not only for the forward operator, but also for its adjoint.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [38840]