Home On mixed and transverse ray transforms on orientable surfaces
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

On mixed and transverse ray transforms on orientable surfaces

  • Joonas Ilmavirta ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Keijo Mönkkönen and Jesse Railo
Published/Copyright: January 10, 2023

Abstract

The geodesic ray transform, the mixed ray transform and the transverse ray transform of a tensor field on a surface can all be seen as what we call mixing ray transforms, compositions of the geodesic ray transform and an invertible linear map on tensor fields. We provide an approach that uses a unifying concept of symmetry to merge various earlier transforms (including mixed, transverse, and light ray transforms) into a single family of integral transforms with similar kernels.

MSC 2010: 44A12; 65R32; 53A99

Funding source: Academy of Finland

Award Identifier / Grant number: 332890

Award Identifier / Grant number: 336254

Award Identifier / Grant number: 284715

Award Identifier / Grant number: 309963

Funding statement: The first author was supported by Academy of Finland (grants 332890 and 336254). The second and third authors were supported by Academy of Finland (Centre of Excellence in Inverse Modelling and Imaging, grant numbers 284715 and 309963).

A Notation

A.1 Integral transforms

  1. If, the geodesic X-ray transform of a tensor field f of order m. See Section 2.4 and equations (2.1) and (2.3).

  2. I S M h , the geodesic ray transform of a function h : S M . See Section 2.4 and equation (2.2).

  3. I A , r f , the (abstract) mixing ray transform with a mixing A of degree m, operating on a tensor field f of order m. See Section 3.2 and equation (3.6).

  4. L k , l f = I A k , l f , the mixed ray transform of a tensor field f of order k + l on a two-dimensional orientable Riemannian manifold. See Section 2.5 and equations (2.7) and (2.8).

  5. I f , the transverse ray transform of a tensor field f of order k, corresponding to the mixed ray transform with l = 0 . See Section 2.5 and equation (2.7).

  6. I A , r q [ f ] = I A , r f , the quotient transform of an equivalence class of tensor field f of degree m. See Section 3.2.

  7. β f , the light ray transform of a (compactly supported) tensor field of order m. See Section 3.3.3 and equation (3.9).

  8. β q [ f ] = β f , the quotient light ray transform of an equivalence class of a (compactly supported) tensor field f of degree m. See Section 3.3.3.

A.2 Other operators on tensor fields

  1. A, a mixing composed of automorphisms of the tangent bundle. See Section 3.2 and equation (3.5).

  2. A i , automorphisms (fiberwise linear bijections) of the tangent bundle. See the beginning of Section 3.2.

  3. λ and λ x , operators converting m-tensor field and m-tensor into a function on the tangent bundle and tangent space. See Section 3.1 and equation (3.3).

  4. λ r = r λ and λ r , x = r x λ x , where r and r x are the restriction operators on the tangent bundle and tangent space. See Section 3.1.

  5. A k , l , the mixing corresponding to the mixed ray transform L k , l . See Section 2.5 and equation 2.7.

  6. σ, the usual symmetrization operator of tensor fields. See Section 3.1 and equation (3.1).

  7. σ ^ A , r , the projection operator onto A - 1 ( Ker ( λ r ) ) , related to the mixing ray transform I A , r . See Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and equations (3.4) and (3.7).

  8. = Id - σ ^ A , r , an operator projecting m-tensor field onto Ker ( λ r A ) . See Sections 3.2 and 3.3, and Theorem 3.3.

  9. 𝒟 = A - 1 A ~ , an auxiliary operator related to two admissible mixings A and A ~ of degree m. See Section 3.2 and Theorem 3.3.

  10. A = A - 1 , the weighted covariant derivative of an m-tensor field, where A is an admissible mixing of degree m. See Section 3.3.1.

  11. N k , l , the normal operator of the mixed ray transform L k , l on compact simple surfaces. See Section 4.2 and Lemma 4.4.

A.3 Other terms

  1. ( X ) , the set of all functions X .

  2. M or ( M , g ) , a connected (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold of dimension n 2 .

  3. SM, the sphere bundle whose fibers are unit spheres of the tangent spaces. See Section 2.4.

  4. 𝔛 ( T m M ) , the space of all covariant m-tensor fields. See Section 2.1.

  5. S m M , the space of symmetric m-tensor fields. See Sections 2.1 and 3.1.

  6. C q ( T m M ) and C q ( S m M ) , the set of C q -smooth (symmetric) m-tensor fields, where q . See Section 2.1.

  7. H k ( T m M ) and H k ( S m M ) , the L 2 -Sobolev space of (symmetric) m-tensor fields, where k . See Section 2.2.

  8. P η ( T m M ) and P η 1 ( T m M ) , the spaces of polynomially decaying m-tensor fields on Cartan–Hadamard manifolds. See Section 2.4 and equation (2.4).

  9. E η ( T m M ) and E η 1 ( T m M ) , the spaces of exponentially decaying m-tensor fields on Cartan–Hadamard manifolds. See Section 2.4 and equation (2.4).

  10. [ f ] and [ f ] A , the equivalence class of the tensor field f, under the relation f h if and only if

    f - h Ker ( λ r A ) .

    See Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.1 and 3.3.3.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Teemu Saksala for helpful discussions related to the mixed ray transform.

References

[1] A. Abhishek, Support theorems for the transverse ray transform of tensor fields of rank m, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 485 (2020), no. 2, Article ID 123828. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.123828Search in Google Scholar

[2] Y. M. Assylbekov and P. Stefanov, Sharp stability estimate for the geodesic ray transform, Inverse Problems 36 (2020), no. 2, Article ID 025013. 10.1088/1361-6420/ab3d12Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Behzadan and M. Holst, Sobolev–Slobodeckij spaces on compact manifolds, preprint (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.07930. 10.3390/math10030522Search in Google Scholar

[4] J. Boman and V. Sharafutdinov, Stability estimates in tensor tomography, Inverse Probl. Imaging 12 (2018), no. 5, 1245–1262. 10.3934/ipi.2018052Search in Google Scholar

[5] H. Braun and A. Hauck, Tomographic reconstruction of vector fields, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 39 (1991), no. 2, 464–471. 10.1109/78.80830Search in Google Scholar

[6] M. V. de Hoop, T. Saksala, G. Uhlmann and J. Zhai, Generic uniqueness and stability for the mixed ray transform, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 374 (2021), 6085–6144. 10.1090/tran/8342Search in Google Scholar

[7] M. V. de Hoop, T. Saksala and J. Zhai, Mixed ray transform on simple 2-dimensional Riemannian manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019), no. 11, 4901–4913. 10.1090/proc/14601Search in Google Scholar

[8] E. Y. Derevtsov and I. E. Svetov, Tomography of tensor fields in the plain, Eurasian J. Math. Comput. Appl. 3 (2015), no. 2, 24–68. 10.32523/2306-6172-2015-3-2-25-69Search in Google Scholar

[9] A. Feizmohammadi, J. S. Ilmavirta and L. Oksanen, The light ray transform in stationary and static lorentzian geometries, J. Geom. Anal. 31 (2021), 3656–3682. 10.1007/s12220-020-00409-ySearch in Google Scholar

[10] C. R. Graham, C. Guillarmou, P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann, X-ray transform and boundary rigidity for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, Ann. Inst. Fourier 69 (2019), no. 7, 2857–2919. 10.5802/aif.3339Search in Google Scholar

[11] C. Guillarmou, M. Lassas and L. Tzou, X-ray transform in asymptotically conic spaces, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2022 (2022), no. 5, 3918–3976. 10.1093/imrn/rnaa286Search in Google Scholar

[12] H. Hammer and B. Lionheart, Application of Sharafutdinov’s ray transform in integrated photoelasticity, J. Elasticity 75 (2004), no. 3, 229–246. 10.1007/s10659-004-7191-1Search in Google Scholar

[13] J. Ilmavirta and F. Monard, Integral geometry on manifolds with boundary and applications, The Radon Transform: The First 100 Years and Beyond, De Gruyter, Berlin (2019), 43–114. 10.1515/9783110560855-004Search in Google Scholar

[14] V. P. Krishnan, R. K. Mishra and S. K. Sahoo, Microlocal inversion of a 3-dimensional restricted transverse ray transform on symmetric tensor fields, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 495 (2021), Article ID 124700. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124700Search in Google Scholar

[15] J. M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 2012. 10.1007/978-1-4419-9982-5Search in Google Scholar

[16] J. M. Lee, Introduction to Riemannian Manifolds, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 2018. 10.1007/978-3-319-91755-9Search in Google Scholar

[17] J. Lehtonen, The geodesic ray transform on two-dimensional Cartan–Hadamard manifolds, preprint (2016), https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04800. Search in Google Scholar

[18] J. Lehtonen, J. Railo and M. Salo, Tensor tomography on Cartan–Hadamard manifolds, Inverse Problems 34 (2018), no. 4, Article ID 044004. 10.1088/1361-6420/aaaf85Search in Google Scholar

[19] W. R. B. Lionheart and P. J. Withers, Diffraction tomography of strain, Inverse Problems 31 (2015), no. 4, Article ID 045005. 10.1088/0266-5611/31/4/045005Search in Google Scholar

[20] W. Lionheart and V. Sharafutdinov, Reconstruction algorithm for the linearized polarization tomography problem with incomplete data, Contemp. Math. 494 (2009), 137–160. 10.1090/conm/494/09648Search in Google Scholar

[21] F. Natterer, The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001. 10.1137/1.9780898719284Search in Google Scholar

[22] F. Natterer and F. Wübbeling, Mathematical Methods in Image Reconstruction, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001. 10.1137/1.9780898718324Search in Google Scholar

[23] G. P. Paternain and M. Salo, A sharp stability estimate for tensor tomography in non-positive curvature, Math. Z. 298 (2021), no. 3, 1323–1344. 10.1007/s00209-020-02638-xSearch in Google Scholar

[24] G. P. Paternain, M. Salo and G. Uhlmann, Tensor tomography on surfaces, Invent. Math. 193 (2013), no. 1, 229–247. 10.1007/s00222-012-0432-1Search in Google Scholar

[25] G. P. Paternain, M. Salo and G. Uhlmann, Tensor tomography: Progress and challenges, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B 35 (2014), no. 3, 399–428. 10.1007/s11401-014-0834-zSearch in Google Scholar

[26] L. N. Pestov and V. A. Sharafutdinov, Integral geometry of tensor fields on a manifold of negative curvature, Sib. Math. J. 29 (1988), no. 3, 427–441. 10.1007/BF00969652Search in Google Scholar

[27] T. Schuster, The importance of the Radon transform in vector field tomography, The Radon Transform: The First 100 Years and Beyond, De Gruyter, Berlin (2019), 189–216. 10.1515/9783110560855-009Search in Google Scholar

[28] A. Schwarz, Multi-tomographic flame analysis with a schlieren apparatus, Meas. Sci. Technol. 7 (1996), no. 3, 406–413. 10.1088/0957-0233/7/3/023Search in Google Scholar

[29] V. A. Sharafutdinov, Integral Geometry of Tensor Fields, Inverse Ill-posed Probl. Ser., VSP, Utrecht, 1994. 10.1515/9783110900095Search in Google Scholar

[30] G. Sparr and K. Stråhlén, Vector field tomography, an overview, Technical report, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, 1998. Search in Google Scholar

[31] P. Stefanov, A sharp stability estimate in tensor tomography, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 124 (2008), Article ID 012007. 10.1088/1742-6596/124/1/012007Search in Google Scholar

[32] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann, Stability estimates for the X-ray transform of tensor fields and boundary rigidity, Duke Math. J. 123 (2004), no. 3, 445–467. 10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12332-2Search in Google Scholar

[33] P. Stefanov, G. Uhlmann, A. Vasy and H. Zhou, Travel time tomography, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 35 (2019), 1085–1114. 10.1007/s10114-019-8338-0Search in Google Scholar

[34] E. G. F. Thomas, A polarization identity for multilinear maps, Indag. Math. 25 (2014), no. 3, 468–474. 10.1016/j.indag.2013.11.003Search in Google Scholar

[35] G. Thorbergsson, Closed geodesics on non-compact Riemannian manifolds, Math. Z. 159 (1978), no. 3, 249–258. 10.1007/BF01214574Search in Google Scholar

[36] K. Wehrheim, Uhlenbeck Compactness, EMS Ser. Lect. Math., European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2004. 10.4171/004Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-01-28
Accepted: 2022-10-23
Published Online: 2023-01-10
Published in Print: 2023-02-01

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 8.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jiip-2022-0009/html
Scroll to top button